It would not be enough to say that organizations are complex in fact creating a literature search on the various elements that make up the efficiency and affectivity of an organization would probably bring out hundreds or even thousands of articles written from different academic and practical perspectives. Therefore, it would not be wise to claim -- although it would wish to do so -- by this paper that leadership remains to be the single most important factor that drives organizational change. What could be claimed by the paper, however, is that leadership has become such an important factor that organizations have given heavy focus on training, development, and various associated activities that are related to leadership. In fact, even the academic world management, a training ground for future leaders, has developed various essential theories that have become important in the forefront of these actual training and development scenarios for real-world corporations and companies.
These leadership theories, in order for there to be a universal approach, could be applied from the smallest organization, to medium-size organizations, and even to large multinational global firms. And although there are specific studies which have indeed focused on leadership from individual perspectives and company perspectives -- the studies are usually done by the companies themselves in order to create performance appraisals of the various managerial and leadership elements by their companies ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM sorttrue,citationItemsitemID13109 (House, Javidan, Hanges, Dorfman, 2002)-- such universal models have also become popular because of their wide acceptability and integration of these theories from the discipline of management, psychology, and even recently, as would be discussed in the final few paragraphs of this paper, statistics as a prediction model for the affectivity of leadership on organizational functions ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM sorttrue,citationItemsitemID1527 (Yukl, 1999).
Therefore, the basic organizational structure of this paper would be as follows it has the first objective of being able to highlight and summarizes various popular leadership models in management theory today. The second part of this paper -- a part that is mostly integrated especially in the description and comparison of the various leadership models -- is actual implications of these models especially to modern-day management. A word of caution, however, before we proceed. First, although there are four major leadership models that has been integrated into the management literature, there are yet other leadership models that have been developed by theorists and academics which would not anymore be considered by this paper. The reason for doing this is that in order for there to be a cohesive comparison since most of the recent developments in leadership models that do not fall under the four.
The first and definitely the most popular leadership model or framework is a structural approach to leadership ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM sorttrue,citationItemsitemID6363 (Northouse, 2006). This approach claims that leaders are social architects and must focus on the structure of an organization in order for it to be effective. The main focus of this leadership style is through the achieving the goals through a process oriented method of formulating processes within organizations so that each individual member of the organization that falls under that leader -- and even other leaders that also report under general and higher leader -- are able to achieve these goals which are aligned with each other. This method is usually implemented especially in large organizations where management and the dynamics of leadership become sneaky and important issue because of the large number of human resources that are involved in the management of the company. Also, the structural approach highlights that the leader is significantly different from a follower because of the difference in their responsibilities of one from the other. Such examples of structural leadership are those in higher-level management positions such as the chief executive officer, and directors in country managers especially for global organizations.
The second leadership framework in academic discussions is the human resource framework and model for leadership. If in the previous leadership model, the focus was a top-down approach for management were in higher management are the ones responsible for directing and making the decisions for other departments and lower levels of the company ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM sorttrue,citationItemsitemID4990 (Shamir, House, Arthur, 1993), this leadership framework focuses more on the inputs and issues that have been developed from a bottom-up approach where in the leader is generally classified only as a catalyst for the overall productivity and efficiency of the team. Although the leader would also be considered as a driving force for the development of the organization, the leader is basically considered to be a support service for those in the lower level staff and management that are those that are primarily responsible for directly interacting with day-to-day business operations. In the previous model, information sharing is basically done by information retrieval by higher-level management and leadership. This becomes effective especially for specific circumstances like finance, resource management, and the like. In this theory in model of leadership, however, information sharing is done in a matrix level where all essential units of the business process is taken into consideration with respect to valuable information and improvement of the process model that is being used in such operations.
Yet another framework and model for leadership is the political framework and is highly valuable especially in organizations that have large interactions with various stakeholders. Previously, the two generic models had highlighted the importance of the structure of the organization and how it operates with respect to efficiency of the business process. In this model for analysis, however, the focus is more towards the actual individuals within the organization and highlights that the distribution of power and interests within an organization plays a key role in the improvement of not only the organization as a whole but also individual units within such an organization. However, there are many criticisms of a leadership model that is based primarily on the political framework because there are tendencies for such individuals to be highly motivated by profit and gain and have even been claimed by many to be manipulative in certain aspects.
The last model that is essential for the analysis is that of the framework of symbolic leadership which claims that true leadership should not only be operational and efficient in structure but also be symbolic and inspirational for its followers. This final framework and model highlights the importance of information together with inspiration in the development of human resources which would be a driving force in future innovations for the company. Although having specific plans and frameworks for system development, as well as human resource management and political goals could be important in organizational, the primary role of the leader and therefore the benchmark and appraisal which those leaders should be measured upon is the ability of that leader to inspire such followers. Usually, at least for the purpose of classification, this could be seen for nongovernment organizations for those falling under the category of religious organizations ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM sorttrue,citationItemsitemID10646 (B. M. Bass R. Bass, 2008).
There are many examples which our paper may be able to make use of in order to present the various challenges that are faced by such leadership dynamics today. However, in order for there to be a more clear perception of these various comparisons with respect to modern leadership frameworks, we should not look farther than the recent financial crisis that has hit the United States modern economy where in many of the problems that have been experienced by companies are directly related to leadership dynamics and leadership issues. Here, leadership frameworks may be able to present various opinions and frameworks of analysis.
For example, the political transaction framework to be able to explain and defend the actions of the various stakeholders within the organization for their actions as a means to rise in the political ladder of such an organization. On the other hand, the structural approach to leadership may point out that the failures for these companies are the failures of these leaders to have specific plans and their action for the organization, while the human resource approach may be able to point out that the problems associated with the economic crisis for such large companies are their failure to listen to lower level staff and human resources in order to solve such issues. Symbolic leadership framework analysis, on the other hand, may specifically point out to the lack of morals and judgment procedures by these leaders which resulted in the collapse of such large companies in the face of global economic crisis.
Because of the generic nature of such leadership models and frameworks, they could be used in a variety of different methods. Ranging from the simple analysis to the highly advanced, these leadership models may be able to contribute to the overall body of knowledge towards understanding modern leadership methods and their effect on real-world organizations and companies may they be small and medium enterprises to global corporations.
These leadership theories, in order for there to be a universal approach, could be applied from the smallest organization, to medium-size organizations, and even to large multinational global firms. And although there are specific studies which have indeed focused on leadership from individual perspectives and company perspectives -- the studies are usually done by the companies themselves in order to create performance appraisals of the various managerial and leadership elements by their companies ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM sorttrue,citationItemsitemID13109 (House, Javidan, Hanges, Dorfman, 2002)-- such universal models have also become popular because of their wide acceptability and integration of these theories from the discipline of management, psychology, and even recently, as would be discussed in the final few paragraphs of this paper, statistics as a prediction model for the affectivity of leadership on organizational functions ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM sorttrue,citationItemsitemID1527 (Yukl, 1999).
Therefore, the basic organizational structure of this paper would be as follows it has the first objective of being able to highlight and summarizes various popular leadership models in management theory today. The second part of this paper -- a part that is mostly integrated especially in the description and comparison of the various leadership models -- is actual implications of these models especially to modern-day management. A word of caution, however, before we proceed. First, although there are four major leadership models that has been integrated into the management literature, there are yet other leadership models that have been developed by theorists and academics which would not anymore be considered by this paper. The reason for doing this is that in order for there to be a cohesive comparison since most of the recent developments in leadership models that do not fall under the four.
The first and definitely the most popular leadership model or framework is a structural approach to leadership ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM sorttrue,citationItemsitemID6363 (Northouse, 2006). This approach claims that leaders are social architects and must focus on the structure of an organization in order for it to be effective. The main focus of this leadership style is through the achieving the goals through a process oriented method of formulating processes within organizations so that each individual member of the organization that falls under that leader -- and even other leaders that also report under general and higher leader -- are able to achieve these goals which are aligned with each other. This method is usually implemented especially in large organizations where management and the dynamics of leadership become sneaky and important issue because of the large number of human resources that are involved in the management of the company. Also, the structural approach highlights that the leader is significantly different from a follower because of the difference in their responsibilities of one from the other. Such examples of structural leadership are those in higher-level management positions such as the chief executive officer, and directors in country managers especially for global organizations.
The second leadership framework in academic discussions is the human resource framework and model for leadership. If in the previous leadership model, the focus was a top-down approach for management were in higher management are the ones responsible for directing and making the decisions for other departments and lower levels of the company ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM sorttrue,citationItemsitemID4990 (Shamir, House, Arthur, 1993), this leadership framework focuses more on the inputs and issues that have been developed from a bottom-up approach where in the leader is generally classified only as a catalyst for the overall productivity and efficiency of the team. Although the leader would also be considered as a driving force for the development of the organization, the leader is basically considered to be a support service for those in the lower level staff and management that are those that are primarily responsible for directly interacting with day-to-day business operations. In the previous model, information sharing is basically done by information retrieval by higher-level management and leadership. This becomes effective especially for specific circumstances like finance, resource management, and the like. In this theory in model of leadership, however, information sharing is done in a matrix level where all essential units of the business process is taken into consideration with respect to valuable information and improvement of the process model that is being used in such operations.
Yet another framework and model for leadership is the political framework and is highly valuable especially in organizations that have large interactions with various stakeholders. Previously, the two generic models had highlighted the importance of the structure of the organization and how it operates with respect to efficiency of the business process. In this model for analysis, however, the focus is more towards the actual individuals within the organization and highlights that the distribution of power and interests within an organization plays a key role in the improvement of not only the organization as a whole but also individual units within such an organization. However, there are many criticisms of a leadership model that is based primarily on the political framework because there are tendencies for such individuals to be highly motivated by profit and gain and have even been claimed by many to be manipulative in certain aspects.
The last model that is essential for the analysis is that of the framework of symbolic leadership which claims that true leadership should not only be operational and efficient in structure but also be symbolic and inspirational for its followers. This final framework and model highlights the importance of information together with inspiration in the development of human resources which would be a driving force in future innovations for the company. Although having specific plans and frameworks for system development, as well as human resource management and political goals could be important in organizational, the primary role of the leader and therefore the benchmark and appraisal which those leaders should be measured upon is the ability of that leader to inspire such followers. Usually, at least for the purpose of classification, this could be seen for nongovernment organizations for those falling under the category of religious organizations ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM sorttrue,citationItemsitemID10646 (B. M. Bass R. Bass, 2008).
There are many examples which our paper may be able to make use of in order to present the various challenges that are faced by such leadership dynamics today. However, in order for there to be a more clear perception of these various comparisons with respect to modern leadership frameworks, we should not look farther than the recent financial crisis that has hit the United States modern economy where in many of the problems that have been experienced by companies are directly related to leadership dynamics and leadership issues. Here, leadership frameworks may be able to present various opinions and frameworks of analysis.
For example, the political transaction framework to be able to explain and defend the actions of the various stakeholders within the organization for their actions as a means to rise in the political ladder of such an organization. On the other hand, the structural approach to leadership may point out that the failures for these companies are the failures of these leaders to have specific plans and their action for the organization, while the human resource approach may be able to point out that the problems associated with the economic crisis for such large companies are their failure to listen to lower level staff and human resources in order to solve such issues. Symbolic leadership framework analysis, on the other hand, may specifically point out to the lack of morals and judgment procedures by these leaders which resulted in the collapse of such large companies in the face of global economic crisis.
Because of the generic nature of such leadership models and frameworks, they could be used in a variety of different methods. Ranging from the simple analysis to the highly advanced, these leadership models may be able to contribute to the overall body of knowledge towards understanding modern leadership methods and their effect on real-world organizations and companies may they be small and medium enterprises to global corporations.
No comments:
Post a Comment