I guess the Catholics have a new pope. That is an inspiration to all of us senior citizens still looking for work.
Here is another excerpt from my manuscript of Leadership for New Managers: Book Two.
Since the 1930s, other studies have identified more leadership styles.
1. Transactional Leadership
This approach assumes that people do things for reward and for no other reason. Therefore, it focuses on designing tasks and reward structures. While this may not be the most appealing leadership strategy in terms of building relationships and developing a highly motivating work environment, it does work, and leaders in most organizations use it on a daily basis to get
things done.
This leadership style also assumes that associates agree to obey their leader when they accept a job. The "transaction" involves the organization paying associates in return for their work and compliance. The leader has a right to punish associates if their work does not meet an appropriate standard. Although this might sound controlling and paternalistic, transactional leadership offers some benefits. For one, it clarifies everyone's roles and responsibilities. Since associates are judged on performance, people who are ambitious or who are motivated by external rewards do well. However, it can stifle innovation and creativity and lead to high turnover. It has serious
limitations for knowledge-based or creative work.
2. Bureaucratic Leadership
Bureaucratic leaders follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their people follow procedures precisely. This is an appropriate leadership style for work involving serious safety risks such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights or where large sums of money are involved. Bureaucratic leadership is also useful in organizations where associates do routine tasks such as in manufacturing.
However, it is ineffective in organizations that rely on team work, flexibility, creativity, or innovation. Bureaucratic leaders achieve their position because of their ability to conform to and uphold standards, not because of their qualifications or expertise. This can cause resentment when
associates do not value their expertise or advice.
3. Charismatic Leadership
A charismatic leadership style can resemble transformational leadership because these leaders inspire enthusiasm in their associates and are energetic motivators. This excitement and commitment from associates an enormous benefit. The difference between charismatic leaders and transformational leaders lies in their intention. Transformational leaders want to transform their
organizations. Charismatic leaders are focused on themselves, and may not want to change anything. They can believe more in themselves than in their associates. This can create the risk that a project or even an entire organization might collapse if the leader leaves. They might believe that she/he can do no wrong, even ignoring when others are warning them. They often make
their own rules. This feeling of invincibility can ruin an organization. Also, in the followers' eyes, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and it needs a long-term commitment from the
leader.
4. Task-Oriented Leaders
Task-oriented leaders focus on getting the job done and can be autocratic. They actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, and plan, organize, and monitor work. These leaders also perform other key tasks, such as creating and maintaining standards for
performance.
The benefit of task-oriented leadership is that it ensures that deadlines are met, and it's especially useful for associates who do not manage time well. However, this approach can suffer many of the problems of autocratic leadership, including high absenteeism and high turnover. Task-oriented leadership would be advisable in natural disaster, like a hurricanes or tornadoes. In an uncertain situation the leader-associate relations are usually poor, the task is unstructured, and the position power is weak. The one who emerges as a leader to direct the group's activity usually does not know subordinates personally. The task-oriented leader who gets things accomplished proves to be the most successful.
The leader's position power is stronger if management backs their decision. Leader-follower relations may be extremely strong if the leader can gain promotions and salary increases for ssociates. Under these situations the task-oriented style of leadership maybe preferred over the relationship-oriented
style.
More tomorrow.
Here is another excerpt from my manuscript of Leadership for New Managers: Book Two.
Since the 1930s, other studies have identified more leadership styles.
1. Transactional Leadership
This approach assumes that people do things for reward and for no other reason. Therefore, it focuses on designing tasks and reward structures. While this may not be the most appealing leadership strategy in terms of building relationships and developing a highly motivating work environment, it does work, and leaders in most organizations use it on a daily basis to get
things done.
This leadership style also assumes that associates agree to obey their leader when they accept a job. The "transaction" involves the organization paying associates in return for their work and compliance. The leader has a right to punish associates if their work does not meet an appropriate standard. Although this might sound controlling and paternalistic, transactional leadership offers some benefits. For one, it clarifies everyone's roles and responsibilities. Since associates are judged on performance, people who are ambitious or who are motivated by external rewards do well. However, it can stifle innovation and creativity and lead to high turnover. It has serious
limitations for knowledge-based or creative work.
2. Bureaucratic Leadership
Bureaucratic leaders follow rules rigorously, and ensure that their people follow procedures precisely. This is an appropriate leadership style for work involving serious safety risks such as working with machinery, with toxic substances, or at dangerous heights or where large sums of money are involved. Bureaucratic leadership is also useful in organizations where associates do routine tasks such as in manufacturing.
However, it is ineffective in organizations that rely on team work, flexibility, creativity, or innovation. Bureaucratic leaders achieve their position because of their ability to conform to and uphold standards, not because of their qualifications or expertise. This can cause resentment when
associates do not value their expertise or advice.
3. Charismatic Leadership
A charismatic leadership style can resemble transformational leadership because these leaders inspire enthusiasm in their associates and are energetic motivators. This excitement and commitment from associates an enormous benefit. The difference between charismatic leaders and transformational leaders lies in their intention. Transformational leaders want to transform their
organizations. Charismatic leaders are focused on themselves, and may not want to change anything. They can believe more in themselves than in their associates. This can create the risk that a project or even an entire organization might collapse if the leader leaves. They might believe that she/he can do no wrong, even ignoring when others are warning them. They often make
their own rules. This feeling of invincibility can ruin an organization. Also, in the followers' eyes, success is directly connected to the presence of the charismatic leader. As such, charismatic leadership carries great responsibility, and it needs a long-term commitment from the
leader.
4. Task-Oriented Leaders
Task-oriented leaders focus on getting the job done and can be autocratic. They actively define the work and the roles required, put structures in place, and plan, organize, and monitor work. These leaders also perform other key tasks, such as creating and maintaining standards for
performance.
The benefit of task-oriented leadership is that it ensures that deadlines are met, and it's especially useful for associates who do not manage time well. However, this approach can suffer many of the problems of autocratic leadership, including high absenteeism and high turnover. Task-oriented leadership would be advisable in natural disaster, like a hurricanes or tornadoes. In an uncertain situation the leader-associate relations are usually poor, the task is unstructured, and the position power is weak. The one who emerges as a leader to direct the group's activity usually does not know subordinates personally. The task-oriented leader who gets things accomplished proves to be the most successful.
The leader's position power is stronger if management backs their decision. Leader-follower relations may be extremely strong if the leader can gain promotions and salary increases for ssociates. Under these situations the task-oriented style of leadership maybe preferred over the relationship-oriented
style.
More tomorrow.
RSS Feed
