Current Theoretical Trends and Changing Perspectives - Assignment Example

RЕFLЕСTIVЕ DIАRY Student’s name Course & code Professor’s name University City Date Introduction In the contemporary organizations, leadership can be defined as the relationship developed between the leader and followers that influences the shared purposes for both of them (Carroll et al 2015). This aspect has been among the most studied continuums of the 21st century. Therefore, it has given rise to many theories that are brought together to present varied perspectives to leadership. This includes motivational approach that is supported by the hierarchy of needs theory, behavioral approach, and trait theory among others (Northouse 2015). This retrospect paper seeks to present a critical reflection on the seminars on leadership through providing the relationship between the theories and the ideas discussed under the seminars. Accoutrements of Leadership According to Storey 2016, leadership can be perceived from the trait perspective. Under this approach I realized that the leaders are can be distinguished basing on different characteristics. The diversity in the traits demonstrated by the leaders contribute to the realization that the leadership ability can be acquired and it is not entirely generic. According to Uhl-Bien et al 2014, these traits include honesty, integrity, self-drive and self-confidence form the personality of the leaders. This is further dependent on social characteristics like cooperativeness, education, diplomacy and tenacity and responsibility in goals pursuit. However, it can be noted that there is weak connection between leadership and the physical traits like energy, stamina but there exists strong link for cognitive traits like intelligence, judgment and decisiveness (Nyberg & Sveningsson 2014). This perspective, in respect to the trait approach to leadership theory, indicate that though some traits may be missing at some point in the leadership structure, it is possible that absence of some of these traits does not invalidate the ability of one to lead (Mihalache et al 2014). Basing on both what is held by the theory and what has been discussed in the seminar, my understanding of leadership has been reinforced in a manner that understanding the leadership structure from the traits perspective enables one to have an understanding on how some leaders demonstrate skills like administrative, charisma, intelligence, social and group task supportiveness better than others enabling an organization or a team to succeed (Dinh et al 2014). In the same workshop, I noted that leaders demonstrate behavioral characteristic which is a variant of the traits approach just as discussed by Mihalache et al 2014. It was established that the behavior demonstrated by the successful leaders can be learnt. Such behaviors include task related behaviors like innovativeness and strategy adaptation and relationship behaviors like inspiration, delegation, consultation, motivation and support. The harmonization of these behaviors under the leadership structure reveals either autocratic, democratic or a mix of the two leadership criteria. It can be noted that autocratic leaders demonstrate centralized authority leading to boss centered structure in which power is associated with the position (Mihalache et al 2014). However, democratic leaders delegate authority besides encouraging participation which reveals a subordinate centered leadership structure (Dinh et al 2014). This approach is backed up by the theoretical evidence like the perspective held b McGregor who developed Theory X and Theory Y managers. According to this theory, I noted that the leaders base their decision making assumptions on how they perceive the human nature (Carroll et al 2015). This gives a rise to two broad dimensions in managerial perspectives: Theory X where subordinates dislike work and can avoid it if given chance and therefore they should be directed and even threatened in order to curb the tendency to avoid responsibility among the subordinates. Theory Y on the other hand demonstrates that humans perceive work as a natural activity and therefore they accept responsibility through exercising self-direction hence demonstrating high level creativity and intellectual potentialities. Through the analysis of the seminar and the theoretical understanding of the behavioral approach to leadership studies, my understanding of the leadership was changed in that my earlier focus on leadership studies was directed at perceiving it through autocratic structure that is demonstrated under Theory X (Mihalache et al 2014). However, the seminar presents a better alternative to my understanding through presenting democratic perspective as discussed under Theory Y (Jarrar & Smith 2014). Seminar 1: Leadership in Contemporary Organisations Through this seminar, I realized that every exemplary leader demonstrates five practices that sets them ahead of others in the industry (Jarrar & Smith 2014). These include: Modelling of the way Inspiration of shared visions Challenging of the process of leadership Creating an enabling environment for others to act Encouraging the subordinates Harnessing these practices under leadership as proposed by Jarrar & Smith 2014 therefore generates various roles of the leaders like being spokesperson, strategic player and an entrepreneur who is a team builder and a coach besides being a team player. The theoretical placement of the seminar shows the application of Fielder’s contingency model (Northouse 2015). Through this theory, Fielder utilized three different situations that show how the leaders and managers can be seen as similar. These situations included position power in which the amount of authority associated with the position were established, task structure which involved structured and unstructured tasks and leader member relations. Based on the three situations demonstrated under the contingency model, I noted that leadership exists in many situations and the manner in which the leader handles such situations determines the kind of managers the leaders can make (Storey 2016). For instance, given the unstructured task, it is possible that the conditions around the situation are unfavorable and therefore, the leader should restructure the situation to a middle ground where it can be managed easily (Carroll et al 2015). Seminar 3: Leadership in Contemporary Organisations In seminar 3, I have noticed that personality is a key consideration under leadership studies. For instance, as discussed by Carroll et al 2015, personality can be discussed in various dimensions which facilitate to effectiveness of their personality traits to the leadership. These include the level of extroversion, the individual’s openness to experience, the level of consciousness and agreeableness which are connected to reveal the leaders emotional stability (Jarrar & Smith 2014). The personality determines how the leader forms relationship with the followers and therefore creating mutual exchange personality in which both the leader and the follower are equally agreeable and open to each other. This will develop an emotional connection between them in which both will have increased self-esteem (Storey 2016). This idea discussed here has a theoretical foundation in that, leaders in cross-cultural perspective need to demonstrate the stated personality traits in order to appeal to the people. For instance, an introvert leader will provide chances for other member of the team to air their views before making a decision (Nyberg & Sveningsson 2014). This, as discussed under leader member exchange theory, is also reflected in the level of empathy demonstrated by the leader towards the subordinates which determine the leader’s agreeableness. The discussion regarding the personality and leadership reinforced my understanding of the relationship between the personality that one has and the leadership skills demonstrated (Storey 2016). According to the leader and member exchange theory, I noted that the personality of the leader influences the relationship the leader has with the follower which is similar for the personality of the follower impacting on the relationship between them (Nyberg & Sveningsson 2014). Followership and Motivation-How Leaders Communicate As discussed under this seminar, I realized that motivation within organization influence the performance of the employees in an organization. As a matter of fact, highly motivated employees will most definitely demonstrate high performance (Vidyarthi et al 2014). This can be demonstrated through both retaining high customer loyalty and a drop in staff turnover which will likely result in profit jump. It can also be established that the motivation can take different forms, that is, either extrinsic like promotion and pay increment or extrinsic through satisfaction of the feelings of the employees like safety (Storey 2016). However, extrinsic rewards are considered to satisfy the lower needs and therefore are temporal compared to the intrinsic which fulfil the higher needs leading to the employee being in much control of themselves and are permanent (Vidyarthi et al 2014). Basing on the cognitive theories like the hierarchy of needs as proposed by Abraham Maslow, it can be understood that the fulfilment of the needs of the employees determines their ability to perceive one as a good or a bad leader (Mihalache et al 2014). Either way, the end result is that the followers have to demonstrate a high level of performance and therefore, the leader has to gratify both the low and high level needs of the employees. The appeal to motivate the followers through motivation as discussed in the seminar has changed my understanding of motivation and how it relates to leadership. For instance, my perception of motivation was focused on the extrinsic rewards like increment of salaries and promotion as the sole determiners of the performance of the employees (Mihalache et al 2014). Through this seminar, one understands that high performance of the followers is facilitated by gratification of intrinsic needs like love and safety as discussed by Abraham Maslow under the theory of hierarchy of needs (Storey 2016). Guest Lectures Under the leadership domain, there is a view that we are not all equal. This is because there are different ranks that set aside leaders from the followers. These includes social rank, psychological rank, spiritual and contextual rank. Strictly speaking, all the ranks possess authority which one needs in order to owner their ranks (Day et al 2014). However, if a leader possess a rank and fails to own it through authority, then it is possible that the leader is not perceived as successful. From the theoretical perspective, the leadership ranks, just like servant leadership theory suggests, do not arise from the desire to lead but due to the desire to serve (Storey 2016). Therefore, the contextual rank, though temporal, one leading followers under such situations demonstrates that they are interested in serving first rather than leading the group. As demonstrated by Day et al 2014 and as discussed under the seminar, the contextual leadership just like discussed under servant leadership theory has led to my understanding of why in certain situations, leaders are present even though they did not exist as leaders before the circumstances. Therefore, it is important to point out that leadership is not always about being at the top but also about serving the followers. Moreover, the seminar presented various challenges to what is universally referred to as real leadership. One of the key challenges discussed was transitional challenge in which leaders face problems when changing or substituting the existing values to another set of values. This challenge has been popular within the 21st century in which there are virtualization of various social aspects through technology and globalization (Nobre 2016). This idea is further discussed by Nobre 2016, under the e-leadership theory. Under this theory, one notices that communication and organizational management has currently focused on virtualization and use of software to replicate the face to face interaction. This has to a certain extent reduced the costs of leadership in institutions but has also had a negative impact on the teamwork development where time zones differ and the mechanism fails to create emotional link with the followers (Carroll et al 2015). Basing on the discussion from the seminar, I have established that e-leadership can provide a better alternative to leadership whereby the followers are able to make their decisions away from the leader which facilitates the development of their creativity (Storey 2016). Conclusion Conclusively, the leadership theories all seem to point at emulating a holistic view on the organization and the leadership structure. As discussed under the motivation approach to leadership, one notices that the highly motivated followers demonstrate high competence in terms of performance (Carroll et al 2015). This has also been seen under the trait theory in which the intelligent leaders are able to create successful organizations by demonstrating emotional stability and consequently boosting the self-esteem of the followers (Vidyarthi et al 2014). References Carroll, B, Ford, J & Taylor, S eds 2015, ‘Leadership: Contemporary critical perspectives’, Sage. Day, DV, Fleenor, JW, Atwater, LE, Sturm, RE & McKee, RA 2014, ‘Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25years of research and theory’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 25 no. 1, pp.63-82. Dinh, JE, Lord, RG, Gardner, WL, Meuser, JD, Liden, RC & Hu, J 2014, ‘Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 25 no. 1, pp.36-62. Jarrar, NS & Smith, M 2014, ‘Innovation in entrepreneurial organisations: A platform for contemporary management change and a value creator’, The British Accounting Review, vol. 46 no. 1, pp.60-76. Mihalache, OR, Jansen, JJ, Van den Bosch, FA & Volberda, HW 2014, ‘Top management team shared leadership and organizational ambidexterity: A moderated mediation framework’, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, vol. 8 no. 2, pp.128-148. Nobre, AL 2016, August, ‘From Heidegger Onwards–Why Data Science Is Social Semiotics? E- Leadership Takes the Lead’, In Socially Aware Organisations and Technologies Impact and Challenges: 17th IFIP WG 8.1 International Conference on Informatics and Semiotics in Organisations, ICISO 2016, Campinas, Brazil, August 1-3, 2016, Proceedings, Springer, Vol. 477, p. 237. Northouse, PG 2015, ‘Leadership: Theory and practice’, Sage publications. Nyberg, D & Sveningsson, S 2014, ‘Paradoxes of authentic leadership: Leader identity struggles’, Leadership, p.1742715013504425. Storey, J ed 2016, ‘Leadership in Organizations: Current Issues and Key Trends’, Routledge. Uhl-Bien, M, Riggio, RE, Lowe, KB & Carsten, MK 2014, ‘Followership theory: A review and research agenda’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 25 no.1, pp.83-104. Vidyarthi, PR, Anand, S & Liden, RC 2014, ‘Do emotionally perceptive leaders motivate higher employee performance? The moderating role of task interdependence and power distance’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 25 no. 2, pp.232-244. Read More