Top Down Leadership vs Bottom Up Leadership

There are varieties of leadership styles. Niccolo Machiavelli and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, are opposites in their characterization of what makes a good leader. One justifies that the “end justifies the means” while the other directs us that “it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends” (King). I agree with the latter of the two believing that the first one burns bridges, while the latter builds them. However, both leadership styles exist today.

This is why, Organizational renowned scholars have been studying of this very significant topic of leadership for literally hundreds of years. Because. It is very complex, not simple one.

Leadership, according to the Army doctrine, represents individuals’ ability to influence people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization (“Leadership” FM 6-22). However, the varying characteristics of individuals that the Army attracts may instill this doctrine in many different ways, leading to different representations of leadership. Some individuals choose to lead their subordinate in a stern matter, only displaying matured emotions and a “tough-loving” attitude to guide them in the right direction. Others

There is strong sufficient evidence to support that practices in leadership have changed in the post bureaucratic era. Since the end of World War 2, leadership and it’s many forms have been altered to become even more bureaucratic through employee participation rather than task orientated. This has become a crucial pillar to society, but has possessed ethical concerns, not only in the world of political context, but also corporate structure in leadership including CEO’s all the way down to the supervisors. Winston, (2003) view’s leadership in society as sole individuals or groups of individuals who lead in different aspects of society such as organisations and politics. This includes one or more people who select, prepare, develop, and influence

Even though there will be many differing management and leadership styles within an organisation, the actual organisations leadership style is perceived as that of the head of the business. We have heard many times that the goals and objectives along with any changes to develop the company must come from the top down. This in itself is a rather bureaucratic statement that many employees in a wide variety of organisations still believe is the way their businesses should be run.

education, the hierarchical approach of a top down leadership style has been the accepted norm

In addition to providing the summary characteristics of each leadership style, this paper will provide some advantages and disadvantages of each as well. With this context in mind, the second part of this paper describes how modern leadership styles are essentially an evolution of traditional leadership styles. After providing illustrations of this phenomenon, this paper will then discuss the causes of this evolutionary process. These causes are attributed to

Many of the leadership styles rival positive transformational approaches such as inventiveness; self-sacrifice, mediation and authoritativeness are all common across all cultures. Universally recognized leadership styles across all cultures include; charismatic/value-based, team – orientated, humane and participative leadership. All leadership styles used must take into account all cultural differences and values. The intent of the GLOBE

Effective leadership is believed to stem from characteristics of someone that is able to inspire those around them, developing relationships with their subordinates and peers, their purpose is to lead. Within an organization leaders are to engage followers on a common mission and purpose. Corporate culture is a relevant force within organizations and satisfying employee’s needs are becoming more relevant to retention, as well as aligning an organizations shared values. Organizations have a leader and then there is a trickle down of leaders (also followers) to the lowest end of the totem pole. How effective is a corporate culture from the top to the bottom? An organization may create a

In the modern leadership theories, the approach as laid down by Jim Collins is called the ‘Level 5 Leadership.’ The theory suggests five steps in order to undertake an extraordinary leadership approach. To begin with, egoism is removed and competencies of and individual are focused upon more. Unlike the big personality driven leaders, level 5 leaders are more genuine in nature but could possess a tendency to exhibit shy behavior at times. They are ones who also take the onus of everything pertaining to the leadership task, on themselves. There are classifications and levels which explain this theory with more elaboration.

A leader is defined as a person with responsibility to influence one or more followers and directing them to achieve a set objective (Sethuraman, 2014). In order to achieve that set of objectives effortlessly, effectively, and efficiently, the most important and valued trait of a leader is an effective leadership styles. Effective leadership styles are required in every organization at every level to be successful. The success or failure of an organization depends on the quality of leadership particularly on the part of top management. An effective leadership style can be developed on the basis of understanding of the situations (Sethuraman, 2014). Top management should know which leadership style is needed based on the situation to be most effective to gain trust and respect from their employee. There is no single method of influencing the behavior of employees for every situation. The employee’s level of knowledge on the task and can determine which leadership style that will be most effective for the situation. Preparing leaders to lead

Leadership, a crucial element in business, can be defined as “a process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement” (Yukl, 2013, p.76). There are four main types of leadership styles: the autocratic, democratic, paternalistic and laissez-faire leadership styles. Daft (2008, p.44) suggests that “the extent to which leaders should be boss-centered or subordinate-centered partly depends on organizational circumstances.” After taking into account the organizational circumstances, companies should be able to select suitable types of leadership styles. Therefore, it is worth arguing that the democratic style of leadership should be applied more frequently than the autocratic style of leadership, for example, in

The concept and definition of leadership has been developing through time widening the spectrum of what we consider today as leadership. Starting with a focus on the leader and continuing to move to a follower center perspective, leadership styles have developed becoming adaptive to which ever time in history a great leader and its followers exist. By this I mean, specific time in our history seems to have develop specific leaders, who shared similar traits, and develop certain behaviors and skills. While we could look at our past, I choose to look at our present for an example of this. Today’s leaders, have evolved in approach and styles, by they all share similarities. Leadership through the net, is today one of the most successful

The Style Approach differs from other ways of understanding leadership in that it is focused on the here and now rather than traits or tendencies which are more difficult to quantify. This approach allows room for the subject of a study to change over time, rather than being rigidly casted as something because they displayed certain characteristics at a certain time. It also eliminates the idea that a leader depends upon

Through what l experienced in Kesses Bakery, this is the real picture of leaders. Leaders who were put in different departments deliberately allowed the existence of culture in the company (bakery). This brought about a sense of feelings in workers, where they felt they were isolated from other workers. This could not give enough time for collaboration and social interaction between working mates. It affected the transparency of flow of information from