Leadership and Personal Development - Coursework Example

Insert name Instructors’ name Course Date Leadership, self and Creating the Future Introduction Leadership is a complicated concept than it sounds or appears to the average student. Apparently, most people, even the most learned of scholars, find it difficult to differentiate between leadership and management. Noteworthy is the reality that there is a significant difference between leadership and management. Managers are more concerned with the status quo. On the contrary, leaders are more concerned with change management. They endeavor to challenge the status quo. Whether there are specific metrics by which one is judged as a leader or otherwise, has remained a topic of contention in the broader field of social sciences (Adair 22). Notably, leadership is among the most essential determinants. In actual fact, some management gurus argue that leadership is the key to organizational success. While this remains a topic of research, people need to understand various theories and skills associated with leadership. This paper is a personal reflection on the essence, skills and theories of leadership. This reflection entails the use of such tools of cognitive psychology as the Johari Window. Additionally, the reflection has the primary objective of identifying individual developmental goals. Personal Reflection on Leadership and Personal development Leadership has been defined variously as the ability and deliberate efforts to influence the thinking and decision making processes of other people, so as to achieve desired objectives, both individual and communal. Leadership is found in almost all domains of human life, and is as old as when human beings started living in groups. In every group, there is need making decisions. Making such decisions calls for coordination and ultimately, coordination calls for the presence of an efficient leader. In the past, leaders were identified as people with outstanding natural capabilities to bring people together and guide them in decision making. While this definition makes sense, it is a little obsolescent considering that leadership in the modern world is another subject of the nurture – nature debate (Graetz et al 25). Worth mentioning at this point is the reality that leaders in the modern world, are mostly products of nurture and not nature. Essentially, the environment creates leaders and such leaders change their characters in such a way that they gain some traits that enable them influence others effectively. When is a leader, they are charged with responsibilities relating to the groups that they lead. Leaders are in such a manner that they can represent a group effectively. The philosophy that guides people in making decisions and taking responsibility of a group is that, at all times, individual interest shall be subordinated to group or organizational interest (Wandberg 58). Leadership is described as the key to organizational success since the fundamental role of leaders is to influence the way people think. Consequently, they define the long term direction of the organization. As a way of defining the long term direction of the organization, leaders are charged with the responsibility of creating and addressing various challenges and organizational objectives. They are then required to provide strategies that will drive the organization towards the attainment of such goals. This creates what is referred to as organizational culture and shared values. Intrapersonal communication has over the years been identified as the most complicated form of communication. The primary reason why intrapersonal communication is considered complicated is the actuality that personal prejudices impair decision making ability. Personal prejudices work negatively on the objectivity of decisions made (Winkler 47). Worth mentioning therefore is the fact that a person must conquer personal prejudices before endeavoring to influence others. As a matter of general knowledge, people will rarely accept as their leader a person with partiality and opinionated mind over issues affecting all people in the group. Such a leader will not be of constructiveness to the group, but rather a hitch in the development of the group. Worth mentioning is the reality that intrapersonal communication determines the manner in which an individual will communicate with other people in a process referred to as interpersonal communication. Theories of leadership From what I Have learnt, there are many theories of leadership. Even so, the most prominent theories are relationship theories of leadership, value-based theories of leadership, contextual leadership, management leadership and participative leadership. Such theories vary from one another in the sense that the underlying principles are different and will always vary depending on how the leader and the people around him conduct themselves. Basically, then, the theories explain the relationship between the leader and the team he is leading. In an organizational setting, such theories define the relationships between the leaders and the employees. Relationship theories of leadership Relationship theory of leadership is based on the novel concept of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership entails the leader influencing the followers to see the positive side and wider good of the task. Transformation leadership is change oriented. They are always ready to challenge the status quo by introducing appropriate ways of handling a task (Wheatley 11). As opposed to transactional approaches to leadership, transformational leaders are concerned with encouraging the followers to embrace change for the betterment of both the organization and themselves. Transformational or relationship theories are concerned with shared values and all stake-holder engagement. Value-Based Theories of leadership Some leaders would not go against their personal beliefs, even if going against such beliefs would bring the hugest profits and benefits to an organization. Such leaders are described as value based leaders. They do not consider the end as the justifier of the course. Rather, they believe that the course to attaining an end should be acceptable to all people by all standards. Worth mentioning is the reality that value based leadership borrows a lot from the deontological theories of ethics (Adair 67). Deontology entails doing the right things. As opposed to utilitarian thinking, deontology cannot approve of such things as corruption. On the contrary, utilitarianism will approve of corruption, if such corruption will cause the organization to gain. Value based theories entail doing only those things that are right. As such, value-based theories are also referred to as ethical theories of leadership. Contextual theories of leadership Contextual theories of leadership advocate for leading people in line with how the environment is at the moment (Adair 42). This is to say that leadership under this theory is considerably flexible. If a leader under this theory goes to an organization where the systems are rigid and call for bureaucratic decision making, they will act as such. Conversely, if the organization has a flexible culture, the leader will act accordingly. In my view, this theory of leadership has extreme pros and cons. The strongest pro is the fact that such a leader can effectively lead people in the modern complicated world, where cultural diversity and complexity is paramount. The biggest disadvantage of this system however is the fact that people will not use their talents and innate skills in guiding decisions. This may make the organization appear mechanistic in such a manner that it does not adopt people-oriented processes. Management theories of leadership The management theory of management concerns itself with transactional leadership. By transaction, there is an implication that under this theory, the deal is give and take. Transactional leaders believe in a system of rewards and punishments. The leaders in this system believe that people should be rewarded for the good things they do, and get reprimanded for all wrongs that they do. Apparently, employees in this system are rewarded and punished as a way of motivating good conduct and performance, while shunning unprofessional conduct and unacceptable performance. Participative theories of leadership Participative theories of leadership entail the involvement of followers in making key decisions. Worth mentioning is the actuality that participative leaders are popular in the organization in the sense that the all decisions made involve the followers. As such, followers never reject any change associated with the decisions made. This type of leadership is the most effective when it comes to introducing change (Owen 61). The participative manager uses theory Y in managing people because by involving tem in decision making, he gives them a sense of affiliation. The approach is usually used where there is need to motivate the workforce, while making all employees the agents of change in the organization. Participative leadership is described as the strongest tool in implementing change. Strategic and experiential learning from practical leadership This is, arguably, the most critical part of this personal reflection as it borrows from practical knowledge. While working in the organizational setting as a supervisor and ultimately, the team leader, I have had to make decisions in which not all people were satisfied. As a leader, I often found myself in a dilemma, both ethical and practical. Such dilemmas call for values and skill since some parties are bound to be satisfied, while others will be frustrated by the decisions made. As a leader, I always believed in participative management and inclusive leadership. Inclusive leadership is, much like participative management, a type of man management, where the leader includes the followers in all decision making processes. Essentially, as a participative leader, I would always summon all the people directly under my leadership in the event that there was an issue requiring urgent attention. In making urgent decisions, I would always ensure that all the members of my team had understood every little detail of the task. I would then facilitate the making of a consensus. All people having agreed to the decision, I knew we were good to go, and work could begin immediately. Perhaps the most challenging issue about my position as a leader in the organization had to deal with conflicts. Conflicts are an integral part of any society. Conflicts will always arise as a result of varied ideologies and personal beliefs among the members of a team (West and Lynn 46). I dealt with conflicts of many types, most of them entailing people differing on principle. When people could differ, they could report to me before going to the human resource authorities. It was my responsibility to ensure cohesiveness in my team. Fortunately, from my research, I had gained knowledge on how to handle disputes. Whenever a dispute was reported, I would follow a certain procedure in coming to a conclusion and establishing a lasting solution. Leadership entails impartiality. First it is important for a leader to listen before he speaks. This means that the leader has to remain objective all through. As such, objectivity will be achieved quite easily. Before talking, I would always, independently summon either party to the conflict. Listening to them independently would always help me get the views, complaints and feelings of either party. After listening, the leader should then summon the concerned parties, and any relevant witnesses. As a participative leader, I always made sure I involved witnesses and other members of the team, unless the matter being contested involved information that was particularly confidential. After summoning the conflicting parties, I would table the facts given by either side and require them to object any false accusations from the opponent. If there was no opposition, I would ask the team and the witnesses to suggest the way forward. Here I strictly remained impartial and stuck to the principle that justice could not, at any time, be postponed. Justice and solutions had to be established immediately. By involving other members of the team, I was confident that I was nurturing leadership skills among them, while encouraging them to desist from behaviors that would cause conflict. Notably, making a person participate is the best way of helping them learn. After discussions between the parties, the witnesses and the team involved, we would come to a conclusion by establishing a solution that was acceptable to either side. My philosophy as a leader always emphasized teamwork. Team work entails people moving in one direction and having one ideology and mindset. Teamwork is the best way of minimizing conflicts in an organization as it eliminates any chances of conflicts (Graetz et al 25). The people look upon one another as agents of the same philosophy. The implication here is that they will assist one another towards achieving the collective goals of the organization. Teamwork is associated with high morale as it encourages the formation of informal groups. Scientific managers have established that informal groups are considerably more effective than the work groups formed by management. As a leader, I believe in praising hard work and shunning laziness and any form of laxity within an organization. I praised the hardworking, and encouraged the slow people to catch up with the rest for better results. One good thing about participative leadership is that it makes the leader a favorite of the group as he is not bossy at all. Instead, he unites the group and considers himself part of it. Modern views on leadership The modern world organizations are tending to the concept of servant leadership. The concept has been described variously as the art of working for, with and through people. This entails creating a shared vision and working towards the vision. This means that the individual has to show individual commitment to the shared vision developed. Servant leadership is an aspect of inclusive leadership. Organizations that employ servant leadership are considerably prosperous, as far as human recourses and motivation is concerned than those using the autocratic leadership (Northouse 123). The leader is a person with people’s feelings at heart. Apparently, research indicates that organization are moving from being led by managers to being run be leaders. Modern research, theory and practice seek to establish the main differences between management and leadership. Managers have no place in post modern organizations, leaders do. In differentiating leaders from managers, modern researchers argue that managers seek to maintain the status quo. On the contrary, leaders seek to challenge the status quo. It is imperative to note that managers tend to be in favor of the status quo because they work with structures and systems instead of working with people and adopting a human oriented approach. Another difference is the fact that managers have a short decision making horizon. On the contrary, leaders focus into the far future. They may give up some things today, for the sake of the future. This explains why leaders instigate change while managers cling to the past and the present. Apparently, a manager is an individual that considers himself the boss and, ultimately, the issuer of unquestionable order (Meindl and Birgit 67). A manger does not participate actively in the meeting of the vision of the organization. They prefer to work from a distance through the employees. The difference here is the fact that a leader will always work with, for, and through people while a manager will only work through people. Managers, therefore prefer autocratic systems of management. Conversely, leaders prefer inclusive and participative systems where they work with the people. While a manager will prefer to be called boss, the leader will always prefer to be referred to as team leader. This again explains why leaders are more acceptable. They amalgamate themselves into the team that they are supposed to guide (Griffin and Gregory 34). Leaders do not use such authoritative terms as “I have decide. . .” instead, unlike mangers, they say “We will do. . . “. This tendency reduces the likelihood of the employees resisting change. While a manager believes in punishments, a leader believes in such novel concepts as emotional intelligence as well as industrial and organizational counseling. Currently, almost all organizations are in search of leaders to lead their human resources. Such leaders are found in managers that buy the idea of participative management, and change as a driving force towards achieving the long term endeavors of the organization. In my opinion, leadership is much better than autocratic management since it takes a people oriented approach. Considering that employees are the most important stakeholders within an organization, they deserve to be treated as such. This means that they should be given priority over the rigid systems and bureaucratic decision making structures. My understanding of leadership In my unique understanding of leadership, I maintain that leadership is the art of using critical thinking and various cognitive models to influence people into doing things which are desirable, for the sake of the wider interest and the highest good. What I mean is that a leader can be defined by the various cognitive or mental models that they use in judging the world. Apparently, people see the world differently following different mental models and subjective thinking. A good leader should not look at things subjectively. For instance, they should endeavor to be critical enough as to embrace objectivity in making decisions. Leaders should not employ personal prejudices when dealing with people (Kromah et al 111). For instance, it would be grossly immoral for a leader to identify people along such lines as racism, color, gender and creed. A leader should ultimately consider all people equal and treat them as such. Of importance to note is the fact that leaders are more of servants than mangers of people. Further, I maintain that leaders should work with, for, and trough people. This means that a leader will be willing to serve at all times. At the same time, he should be willing to be part of the team and not just controlling the team remotely. The leader should involve all people that he leads in making decisions. Ensuring minimal conflicts is one of the ways through which a leader can bring people together in working towards a common goal (Wallace 98). Leaders should not be the designers of the organization’s vision only. They should as well endeavor to implement that development agenda that they jointly developed. About the nature – nurture argument, I tend to think leaders are made and not born. Arguing that leaders are born makes little sense since it narrows down leadership to inborn skills, which is never the case. Conversely, leadership is defined by, in addition to inborn skills, learned skills, cultural development, social awareness, and professional competence. The values embraced by the person can determine whether or not the individual is a leader. Personal development goals The Johari Window, a self evaluation concept discovered by Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham in 1955, is a model that enables people discovers themselves – both the known and the unknown parts. Applying the Johari Window concept to my character and behavior, it becomes apparent to me that there are some areas that need tremendous development. Among the parts that I seriously need to develop is objectivity in judgment. Presently, I observe and use many prejudices in understanding people. Such prejudices are likely to affect my leadership in a negative sense. Secondly, I ought to work on my patience. Apparently, leaders are patient people. As a matter of common knowledge, nobody can stoop low to work with the slow pace of a team if they are as impatient as I am. Conclusion In conclusion, it is clear to see that leadership is a complex art of dealing with people since the people to be led usually have different mental capabilities and judgments. Essentially, leadership, unlike management deals with people more than systems and structures. As such, a leader must possess such qualities as humility, patience, honesty, hard work and be a team player. Such qualities will help an individual handle people with ease. The main roles of a leader include man management and conflict resolution. Spearheading organizational vision is as well as key role of leadership. Worth noting, therefore, is the actuality that people will always prefer that leader who is ready to work with them. Works cited Adair, John E. Develop Your Leadership Skills. , 2013. Print. Graetz, Fiona, et al. Managing organizational change. John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Griffin, Ricky W, and Gregory Moorehead. Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Australia: South-Western/Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Kromah, Momo D., Oluremi B. Ayoko, and Neal Ashkanasy. "Extending the self-based psychological theory of change: the role of territoriality in managing change in organisations." ANZAM 2012 Conference. Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 2012. Meindl, James R, and Birgit Schyns. Implicit Leadership Theories: Essays and Explorations. Greenwich, Conn: Information Age Publ, 2005. Print. Northouse, Peter G. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2010. Print. Owen, Jo. The Leadership Skills Handbook: 50 Key Skills from 1000 Real Leaders. Philadelphia: Kogan Page, 2006. Print. Wallace, Rocky. Servant Leadership: Leaving a Legacy. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2012. Print. Wandberg, Robert. Conflict Resolution: Communication, Cooperation, Compromise. Mankato, Minn: LifeMatters, 2001. Print. West, Richard L, and Lynn H. Turner. Understanding Interpersonal Communication: Making Choices in Changing Times. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011. Print. Wheatley, Margaret J. Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. ReadHowYouWant. com, 2010. Winkler, Ingo. Contemporary Leadership Theories: Enhancing the Understanding of the Complexity, Subjectivity and Dynamic of Leadership. Berlin: Physica-Verlag, 2010. Print Read More