The 14 Leadership Traits below are time tested and proven character attributes that every leader must possess to reach his or her full potential.
Justice - Justice is defined as the practice of being fair and consistent. A just person gives consideration to each side of a situation and bases rewards or punishments on merit.
Judgment - Judgment is your ability to think about things clearly, calmly, and in an orderly fashion so that you can make good decisions.
Dependability - Dependability means that you can be relied upon to perform your duties properly. It means that you can be trusted to complete a job. It is the willing and voluntary support of the policies and orders of the chain of command. Dependability also means consistently putting forth your best effort in an attempt to achieve the highest standards of performance.
Initiative - Initiative is taking action even though you haven't been given orders. It means meeting new and unexpected situations with prompt action. It includes using resourcefulness to get something done without the normal material or methods being available to you.
Decisiveness - Decisiveness means that you are able to make good decisions without delay. Get all the facts and weight them against each other. By acting calmly and quickly, you should arrive at a sound decision. You announce your decisions in a clear, firm, professional manner.
Tact - Tact means that you can deal with people in a manner that will maintain good relations and avoid problems. It means that you are polite, calm, and firm.
Integrity - Integrity means that you are honest and truthful in what you say or do. You put honesty, sense of duty, and sound moral principles above all else. Integrity is doing the right thing, all the time, regardless of personal cost or credit to you.
Endurance - Endurance is the mental and physical stamina that is measured by your ability to withstand pain, fatigue, stress, and hardship. For example, enduring pain during a conditioning march in order to improve stamina is crucial in the development of leadership.
Bearing - Bearing is the way you conduct and carry yourself. Your manner and posture should reflect alertness, competence, confidence, and control.
Unselfishness - Unselfishness means that you avoid making yourself comfortable at the expense of others. Be considerate of others. Give credit to those who deserve it.
Courage - Courage is what allows you to remain calm while recognizing fear. Moral courage means having the inner strength to stand up for what is right and to accept blame when something is your fault. Physical courage means that you can continue to function effectively when there is physical danger present.
Knowledge - Knowledge is the understanding of a science or art. Knowledge means that you have acquired information and that you understand people. Your knowledge should be broad, and in addition to knowing your job, you should know your unit's policies and keep up with current events.
Loyalty - Loyalty means that you are devoted to your God, your country, your unit, and to your seniors, peers, and subordinates. The motto of the Marine Corps is Semper Fidelis (Always Faithful). You owe unwavering loyalty up and down the chain of command, to seniors, subordinates, and peers.
Enthusiasm - Enthusiasm is defined as a sincere interest and exuberance in the performance of your duties. If you are enthusiastic, you are optimistic, cheerful, and willing to accept the challenges.
http://nbhs-njrotc.org/LEADER_TRAITS.htm
About Me
- Education For All
- I am creative, outgoing and love nature. I am at the top of it all and I know who got me there. My daily Prayer to the Most High God is-- "Oh that Thou wouldest bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast, and that Thine hand might be with me, and that Thou wouldest keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me!"
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Leadership Traits
We've all heard of the stories about how someone stepped up and became a leader. You may have even heard someone make the comment "Well that kid was born a leader." Unfortunately, it is not all that simple. Leadership traits are not necessarily hereditary - the particular debate goes back to your beliefs about nature versus nurture.
Nurture, Nature and Leadership Traits
The Nature or Nurture argument in a leadership setting means this: Was the person born that way (nature), or did they learn about leadership from someone else (nurture)? The theories of leadership we've studied as well as the traits of a leader, lean more towards nurture.
Leadership traits are learned from observing the successes and failures of others, or through direct trial and error experiences. Whether or not a person accepts the responsibility of being a leader is a function of their personality. The difference is subtle but important. A person's experience allows them to understand what it takes to be a leader, but whether they express these leadership traits themselves is a personal choice.
Leadership Traits and Emotional Intelligence
Daniel Goleman has written extensively about what makes a person a leader. In his book Emotional Intelligence, Goleman divides leadership traits into two broad categories:
• Self Management Skills, and
• The Ability to Relate to Others
Within these two broad categories, Goleman goes on to describe five components, or traits, of emotional intelligence that help to make a person into a leader. Below is a brief summary of Goleman's findings.
Self Management Skills
This first broad category of leadership traits has to do with the abilities of leaders to "manage" themselves. The hypothesis here is that leaders must first look inwards, and be in control of themselves, before they can start to lead others.
• Self Awareness - When we have a deep understanding of ourselves, including our strengths and weaknesses, then we are said to be self aware. For example, if you know that you do not work well under pressure, then you are exhibiting the trait of self awareness.
• Self Regulation - The leadership trait of self regulation leverages self awareness but takes it one step further. People that exhibit self regulation are able to not only understand their impulsive behaviors, but also control them.
• Motivation - Have you ever been asked this question: How can I get this worker motivated? Well, the answer is quite simple: You cannot motivate others. Motivation comes from within, and is a driving passion that exists inside a person. The most a leader can do is to create an environment where motivation thrives. Understanding the nuances of motivation is an essential trait for anyone in a leadership role.
The Ability to Relate to Others
The second broad category of leadership traits you need to master are those involving your ability to relate to those around you. They describe, quite simply, a leader's ability to relate to others.
• Empathy - In order to be a successful leader, you must be able to deal effectively with others. The first step in understanding another person's viewpoint is through the leadership trait of empathy. Putting yourself in their shoes, and taking into account their reaction to your decisions.
• Social Skills - Goleman maintains that all of the other leadership traits culminate in this skill. In this context, social skills are defined as the ability to build rapport with others, and get them to work together towards a common goal.
You may not see a lot of nature in the above leadership traits. People are not born with good social skills. They develop them by observing what is acceptable in society, and what is effective. We also talked about personalities that will accept the role of a leader. That is where motivation becomes so important. We can learn to master these leadership traits, but without the right motivation you are simply a bystander.
Leadership Traits versus Leadership Styles
As a reminder, all of these leadership traits should not be confused with leadership styles. In the above, we are talking about the traits or characteristics of a leader. The things we might see in ourselves, or in leaders around us. This is not to be confused with how to effectively lead others, which has more to do with leadership styles.
If you're interested in learning more about recognizing the most effective way to lead others in a variety of work environments, then you'll want to take a look at our article onLeadership Styles.
Copyright © 2004 - 2010 Money-Zine.com
Nurture, Nature and Leadership Traits
The Nature or Nurture argument in a leadership setting means this: Was the person born that way (nature), or did they learn about leadership from someone else (nurture)? The theories of leadership we've studied as well as the traits of a leader, lean more towards nurture.
Leadership traits are learned from observing the successes and failures of others, or through direct trial and error experiences. Whether or not a person accepts the responsibility of being a leader is a function of their personality. The difference is subtle but important. A person's experience allows them to understand what it takes to be a leader, but whether they express these leadership traits themselves is a personal choice.
Leadership Traits and Emotional Intelligence
Daniel Goleman has written extensively about what makes a person a leader. In his book Emotional Intelligence, Goleman divides leadership traits into two broad categories:
• Self Management Skills, and
• The Ability to Relate to Others
Within these two broad categories, Goleman goes on to describe five components, or traits, of emotional intelligence that help to make a person into a leader. Below is a brief summary of Goleman's findings.
Self Management Skills
This first broad category of leadership traits has to do with the abilities of leaders to "manage" themselves. The hypothesis here is that leaders must first look inwards, and be in control of themselves, before they can start to lead others.
• Self Awareness - When we have a deep understanding of ourselves, including our strengths and weaknesses, then we are said to be self aware. For example, if you know that you do not work well under pressure, then you are exhibiting the trait of self awareness.
• Self Regulation - The leadership trait of self regulation leverages self awareness but takes it one step further. People that exhibit self regulation are able to not only understand their impulsive behaviors, but also control them.
• Motivation - Have you ever been asked this question: How can I get this worker motivated? Well, the answer is quite simple: You cannot motivate others. Motivation comes from within, and is a driving passion that exists inside a person. The most a leader can do is to create an environment where motivation thrives. Understanding the nuances of motivation is an essential trait for anyone in a leadership role.
The Ability to Relate to Others
The second broad category of leadership traits you need to master are those involving your ability to relate to those around you. They describe, quite simply, a leader's ability to relate to others.
• Empathy - In order to be a successful leader, you must be able to deal effectively with others. The first step in understanding another person's viewpoint is through the leadership trait of empathy. Putting yourself in their shoes, and taking into account their reaction to your decisions.
• Social Skills - Goleman maintains that all of the other leadership traits culminate in this skill. In this context, social skills are defined as the ability to build rapport with others, and get them to work together towards a common goal.
You may not see a lot of nature in the above leadership traits. People are not born with good social skills. They develop them by observing what is acceptable in society, and what is effective. We also talked about personalities that will accept the role of a leader. That is where motivation becomes so important. We can learn to master these leadership traits, but without the right motivation you are simply a bystander.
Leadership Traits versus Leadership Styles
As a reminder, all of these leadership traits should not be confused with leadership styles. In the above, we are talking about the traits or characteristics of a leader. The things we might see in ourselves, or in leaders around us. This is not to be confused with how to effectively lead others, which has more to do with leadership styles.
If you're interested in learning more about recognizing the most effective way to lead others in a variety of work environments, then you'll want to take a look at our article onLeadership Styles.
Copyright © 2004 - 2010 Money-Zine.com
Five Leadership Traits/Leadership Qualities
Some sit and pontificate about whether leaders are made or born. The true leader ignores such arguments and instead concentrates on developing the leadership qualities necessary for success. In this article, we are going to discuss five leadership traits or leadership qualities that people look for in a leader. If you are able to increase your skill in displaying these five quality characteristics, you will make it easier for people to want to follow you. The less time you have to spend on getting others to follow you, the more time you have to spend refining exactly where you want to go and how to get there.
The five leadership traits/leadership qualities are:
Honest
Forward-Looking
Competent
Inspiring
Intelligent
These five qualities come from Kouzes and Posner’s research into leadership that was done for the book The Leadership Challenge.
Your skill at exhibiting these five leadership qualities is strongly correlated with people’s desire to follow your lead. Exhibiting these traits will inspire confidence in your leadership. Not exhibiting these traits or exhibiting the opposite of these traits will decrease your leadership influence with those around you.
It is important to exhibit, model and display these traits. Simply possessing each trait is not enough; you have to display it in a way that people notice. People want to see that you actively demonstrate these leadership qualities and will not just assume that you have them. It isn’t enough to just be neutral. For example, just because you are not dishonest will not cause people to recognize that you are honest. Just avoiding displays of incompetence won’t inspire the same confidence as truly displaying competence.
The focus of each of these five traits needs to be on what people see you do–not just the things they don’t see you do. Being honest isn’t a matter of not lying–it is taking the extra effort to display honesty.
Honesty as a Leadership Quality
People want to follow an honest leader. Years ago, many employees started out by assuming that their leadership was honest simply because the authority of their position. With modern scandals, this is no longer true.
When you start a leadership position, you need to assume that people will think you are a little dishonest. In order to be seen as an honest individual, you will have to go out of your way to display honesty. People will not assume you are honest simply because you have never been caught lying.
One of the most frequent places where leaders miss an opportunity to display honesty is in handling mistakes. Much of a leader’s job is to try new things and refine the ideas that don’t work. However, many leaders want to avoid failure to the extent that they don’t admit when something did not work.
There was a medium size organization that was attempting to move to a less centralized structure. Instead of one location serving an entire city, they wanted to put smaller offices throughout the entire metro area. At the same time, they were planning an expansion for headquarters to accommodate more customers at the main site. The smaller remote offices was heralded as a way to reach more customers at a lower cost and cover more demographic areas.
After spending a considerable amount of money on a satellite location, it became clear that the cost structure would not support a separate smaller office. As the construction completed on the expanded headquarters building, the smaller office was closed. This was good decision making. The smaller offices seemed like a good idea, but when the advantages didn’t materialize (due to poor management or incorrect assumptions) it made sense to abandon the model. This was a chance for the leadership to display honesty with the employees, be candid about why things didn’t work out as expected, learn from the mistakes an move on.
Unfortunately in this situation the leadership told employees that they had planned on closing the satellite location all along and it was just a temporary measure until construction was completed on the larger headquarters building. While this wasn’t necessarily true, it didn’t quite cross over into the area of lying. Within a few months the situation was mostly forgotten and everyone moved on. Few of the employees felt that leadership was being dishonest. However, they had passed up a marvelous opportunity to display the trait of honesty in admitting a mistake.
Opportunities to display honesty on a large scale may not happen every day. As a leader, showing people that you are honest even when it means admitting to a mistake, displays a key trait that people are looking for in their leaders. By demonstrating honesty with yourself, with your organization and with outside organizations, you will increase your leadership influence. People will trust someone who actively displays honesty–not just as an honest individual, but as someone who is worth following.
Forward-Looking as a Leadership Trait
The whole point of leadership is figuring out where to go from where you are now. While you may know where you want to go, people won’t see that unless you actively communicate it with them. Remember, these traits aren’t just things you need to have, they are things you need to actively display to those around you.
When people do not consider their leader forward-looking, that leader is usually suffering from one of two possible problems:
The leader doesn’t have a forward-looking vision.
The leader is unwilling or scared to share the vision with others.
When a leader doesn’t have a vision for the future, it usually because they are spending so much time on today, that they haven’t really thought about tomorrow. On a very simplistic level this can be solved simply by setting aside some time for planning, strategizing and thinking about the future.
Many times when a leader has no time to think and plan for the future, it is because they are doing a poor job of leading in the present. They have created an organization and systems that rely too much on the leader for input at every stage.
Some leaders have a clear vision, but don’t wish to share it with others. Most of the time they are concerned that they will lose credibility if they share a vision of the future that doesn’t come about. This is a legitimate concern. However, people need to know that a leader has a strong vision for the future and a strong plan for going forward. Leaders run into trouble sharing their vision of the future when they start making promises to individuals. This goes back to the trait of honesty. If a leader tells someone that “next year I’m going to make you manager of your own division”, that may be a promise they can’t keep. The leader is probably basing this promotion on the organization meeting financial goals, but the individual will only hear the personal promise.
An organization I was working with was floundering. It seemed like everyone had a different idea about what they were trying to achieve. Each department head was headed in a different direction and there was very little synergy as small fiefdoms and internal politics took their toll.
Eventually a consulting firm was called in to help fix the problem. They analyzed the situation, talked to customers, talked to employees and set up a meeting with the CEO. They were going to ask him about his vision for the future. The employees were excited that finally there would be a report stating the direction for the organization.
After the meeting, the consultants came out shaking their heads. The employees asked how the important question had gone to which the consultants replied, “we asked him, but you aren’t going to like the answer”. The CEO had told the consultant that, while he had a vision and plan for the future, he wasn’t going to share it with anyone because he didn’t want there to be any disappointment if the goals were not reached.
Leaders can communicate their goals and vision for the future without making promises that they may not be able to keep. If a leader needs to make a promise to an individual, it should be tied to certain measurable objectives being met. The CEO in the example didn’t realize how much damage he was doing by not demonstrating the trait of being forward-looking by communicating his vision with the organization.
The CEO was forward-looking. He had a plan and a vision and he spent a lot of time thinking about where the organization was headed. However, his fear of communicating these things to the rest of the organization hampered his leadership potential.
Competency as a Leadership Quality
People want to follow someone who is competent. This doesn’t mean a leader needs to be the foremost expert on every area of the entire organization, but they need to be able to demonstrate competency.
For a leader to demonstrate that they are competent, it isn’t enough to just avoid displaying incompetency. Some people will assume you are competent because of your leadership position, but most will have to see demonstrations before deciding that you are competent.
When people under your leadership look at some action you have taken and think, “that just goes to show why he is the one in charge”, you are demonstrating competency. If these moments are infrequent, it is likely that some demonstrations of competency will help boost your leadership influence.
Like the other traits, it isn’t enough for a leader to be competent. They must demonstrate competency in a way that people notice. This can be a delicate balance. There is a danger of drawing too much attention to yourself in a way that makes the leader seem arrogant. Another potential danger is that of minimizing others contributions and appearing to take credit for the work of others.
As a leader, one of the safest ways to “toot you own horn without blowing it”, is to celebrate and bring attention to team achievements. In this way you indirectly point out your competency as a leader. For example: “Last year I set a goal of reaching $12 million in sales and, thanks to everyone’s hard word, as of today, we have reached $13.5 million.”
Inspiration as a Leadership Trait
People want to be inspired. In fact, there is a whole class of people who will follow an inspiring leader–even when the leader has no other qualities. If you have developed the other traits in this article, being inspiring is usually just a matter of communicating clearly and with passion. Being inspiring means telling people how your organization is going to change the world.
A great example of inspiration is when Steve Jobs stole the CEO from Pepsi by asking him, “Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to change the world?” Being inspiring means showing people the big picture and helping them see beyond a narrow focus and understand how their part fits into the big picture.
One technique to develop your ability to inspire is telling stories. Stories can be examples from your customers, fictitious examples from your customers, or even historical fables and myths. Stories can help you vividly illustrate what you are trying to communicate. Stories that communicate on an emotional level help communicate deeper than words and leave an imprint much stronger than anything you can achieve through a simple stating of the facts.
Learning to be inspiring is not easy–particularly for individuals lacking in charisma. It can be learned. Take note of people who inspire you and analyze the way they communicate. Look for ways to passionately express your vision. While there will always be room for improvement, a small investment in effort and awareness will give you a significant improvement in this leadership trait.
Intelligence as a Leadership Trait
Intelligence is something that can be difficult to develop. The road toward becoming more intelligent is difficult, long and can’t be completed without investing considerable time. Developing intelligence is a lifestyle choice. Your college graduation was the beginning of your education, not the end. In fact, much of what is taught in college functions merely as a foundational language for lifelong educational experiences.
To develop intelligence you need to commit to continual learning–both formally and informally. With modern advances in distance, education it is easy to take a class or two each year from well respected professors in the evening at your computer.
Informally, you can develop a great deal of intelligence in any field simply by investing a reasonable amount of time to reading on a daily basis. The fact is that most people won’t make a regular investment in their education. Spending 30 minutes of focused reading every day will give you 182 hours of study time each year.
For the most part, people will notice if you are intelligent by observing your behavior and attitude. Trying to display your intelligence is likely to be counterproductive. One of the greatest signs of someone who is truly intelligent is humility. The greater your education, the greater your understanding of how little we really understand.
You can demonstrate your intelligence by gently leading people toward understanding–even when you know the answer. Your focus needs to be on helping others learn–not demonstrating how smart you are. Arrogance will put you in a position where people are secretly hopeful that you’ll make a mistake and appear foolish.
As unintuitive as it may seem, one of the best ways to exhibit intelligence is by asking questions. Learning from the people you lead by asking intelligent thoughtful questions will do more to enhance your intelligence credibility than just about anything. Of course this means you need to be capable of asking intelligent questions.
Everyone considers themselves intelligent. If you ask them to explain parts of their area of expertise and spend the time to really understand (as demonstrated by asking questions), their opinion of your intelligence will go up. After all, you now know more about what makes them so intelligent, so you must be smart as well. Your ability to demonstrate respect for the intellect of others will probably do more to influence the perception of your intellect than your actual intelligence.
Summary of the Five Leadership Qualities
By consciously making an effort to exhibit these traits, people will be more likely to follow you. These are the most important traits that people look for in their leaders. By exhibiting them on a regular basis, you will be able to grow your influence to its potential as a leader.
Terms referencing this article:
leadership qualities
leadership traits
leadership
leadership characteristics
QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP
traits of a leader
characteristics of a leader
traits of leadership
leadership quality
leader qualities
http://www.leadership501.com/five-most-important-leadership-traits/27/
The five leadership traits/leadership qualities are:
Honest
Forward-Looking
Competent
Inspiring
Intelligent
These five qualities come from Kouzes and Posner’s research into leadership that was done for the book The Leadership Challenge.
Your skill at exhibiting these five leadership qualities is strongly correlated with people’s desire to follow your lead. Exhibiting these traits will inspire confidence in your leadership. Not exhibiting these traits or exhibiting the opposite of these traits will decrease your leadership influence with those around you.
It is important to exhibit, model and display these traits. Simply possessing each trait is not enough; you have to display it in a way that people notice. People want to see that you actively demonstrate these leadership qualities and will not just assume that you have them. It isn’t enough to just be neutral. For example, just because you are not dishonest will not cause people to recognize that you are honest. Just avoiding displays of incompetence won’t inspire the same confidence as truly displaying competence.
The focus of each of these five traits needs to be on what people see you do–not just the things they don’t see you do. Being honest isn’t a matter of not lying–it is taking the extra effort to display honesty.
Honesty as a Leadership Quality
People want to follow an honest leader. Years ago, many employees started out by assuming that their leadership was honest simply because the authority of their position. With modern scandals, this is no longer true.
When you start a leadership position, you need to assume that people will think you are a little dishonest. In order to be seen as an honest individual, you will have to go out of your way to display honesty. People will not assume you are honest simply because you have never been caught lying.
One of the most frequent places where leaders miss an opportunity to display honesty is in handling mistakes. Much of a leader’s job is to try new things and refine the ideas that don’t work. However, many leaders want to avoid failure to the extent that they don’t admit when something did not work.
There was a medium size organization that was attempting to move to a less centralized structure. Instead of one location serving an entire city, they wanted to put smaller offices throughout the entire metro area. At the same time, they were planning an expansion for headquarters to accommodate more customers at the main site. The smaller remote offices was heralded as a way to reach more customers at a lower cost and cover more demographic areas.
After spending a considerable amount of money on a satellite location, it became clear that the cost structure would not support a separate smaller office. As the construction completed on the expanded headquarters building, the smaller office was closed. This was good decision making. The smaller offices seemed like a good idea, but when the advantages didn’t materialize (due to poor management or incorrect assumptions) it made sense to abandon the model. This was a chance for the leadership to display honesty with the employees, be candid about why things didn’t work out as expected, learn from the mistakes an move on.
Unfortunately in this situation the leadership told employees that they had planned on closing the satellite location all along and it was just a temporary measure until construction was completed on the larger headquarters building. While this wasn’t necessarily true, it didn’t quite cross over into the area of lying. Within a few months the situation was mostly forgotten and everyone moved on. Few of the employees felt that leadership was being dishonest. However, they had passed up a marvelous opportunity to display the trait of honesty in admitting a mistake.
Opportunities to display honesty on a large scale may not happen every day. As a leader, showing people that you are honest even when it means admitting to a mistake, displays a key trait that people are looking for in their leaders. By demonstrating honesty with yourself, with your organization and with outside organizations, you will increase your leadership influence. People will trust someone who actively displays honesty–not just as an honest individual, but as someone who is worth following.
Forward-Looking as a Leadership Trait
The whole point of leadership is figuring out where to go from where you are now. While you may know where you want to go, people won’t see that unless you actively communicate it with them. Remember, these traits aren’t just things you need to have, they are things you need to actively display to those around you.
When people do not consider their leader forward-looking, that leader is usually suffering from one of two possible problems:
The leader doesn’t have a forward-looking vision.
The leader is unwilling or scared to share the vision with others.
When a leader doesn’t have a vision for the future, it usually because they are spending so much time on today, that they haven’t really thought about tomorrow. On a very simplistic level this can be solved simply by setting aside some time for planning, strategizing and thinking about the future.
Many times when a leader has no time to think and plan for the future, it is because they are doing a poor job of leading in the present. They have created an organization and systems that rely too much on the leader for input at every stage.
Some leaders have a clear vision, but don’t wish to share it with others. Most of the time they are concerned that they will lose credibility if they share a vision of the future that doesn’t come about. This is a legitimate concern. However, people need to know that a leader has a strong vision for the future and a strong plan for going forward. Leaders run into trouble sharing their vision of the future when they start making promises to individuals. This goes back to the trait of honesty. If a leader tells someone that “next year I’m going to make you manager of your own division”, that may be a promise they can’t keep. The leader is probably basing this promotion on the organization meeting financial goals, but the individual will only hear the personal promise.
An organization I was working with was floundering. It seemed like everyone had a different idea about what they were trying to achieve. Each department head was headed in a different direction and there was very little synergy as small fiefdoms and internal politics took their toll.
Eventually a consulting firm was called in to help fix the problem. They analyzed the situation, talked to customers, talked to employees and set up a meeting with the CEO. They were going to ask him about his vision for the future. The employees were excited that finally there would be a report stating the direction for the organization.
After the meeting, the consultants came out shaking their heads. The employees asked how the important question had gone to which the consultants replied, “we asked him, but you aren’t going to like the answer”. The CEO had told the consultant that, while he had a vision and plan for the future, he wasn’t going to share it with anyone because he didn’t want there to be any disappointment if the goals were not reached.
Leaders can communicate their goals and vision for the future without making promises that they may not be able to keep. If a leader needs to make a promise to an individual, it should be tied to certain measurable objectives being met. The CEO in the example didn’t realize how much damage he was doing by not demonstrating the trait of being forward-looking by communicating his vision with the organization.
The CEO was forward-looking. He had a plan and a vision and he spent a lot of time thinking about where the organization was headed. However, his fear of communicating these things to the rest of the organization hampered his leadership potential.
Competency as a Leadership Quality
People want to follow someone who is competent. This doesn’t mean a leader needs to be the foremost expert on every area of the entire organization, but they need to be able to demonstrate competency.
For a leader to demonstrate that they are competent, it isn’t enough to just avoid displaying incompetency. Some people will assume you are competent because of your leadership position, but most will have to see demonstrations before deciding that you are competent.
When people under your leadership look at some action you have taken and think, “that just goes to show why he is the one in charge”, you are demonstrating competency. If these moments are infrequent, it is likely that some demonstrations of competency will help boost your leadership influence.
Like the other traits, it isn’t enough for a leader to be competent. They must demonstrate competency in a way that people notice. This can be a delicate balance. There is a danger of drawing too much attention to yourself in a way that makes the leader seem arrogant. Another potential danger is that of minimizing others contributions and appearing to take credit for the work of others.
As a leader, one of the safest ways to “toot you own horn without blowing it”, is to celebrate and bring attention to team achievements. In this way you indirectly point out your competency as a leader. For example: “Last year I set a goal of reaching $12 million in sales and, thanks to everyone’s hard word, as of today, we have reached $13.5 million.”
Inspiration as a Leadership Trait
People want to be inspired. In fact, there is a whole class of people who will follow an inspiring leader–even when the leader has no other qualities. If you have developed the other traits in this article, being inspiring is usually just a matter of communicating clearly and with passion. Being inspiring means telling people how your organization is going to change the world.
A great example of inspiration is when Steve Jobs stole the CEO from Pepsi by asking him, “Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to change the world?” Being inspiring means showing people the big picture and helping them see beyond a narrow focus and understand how their part fits into the big picture.
One technique to develop your ability to inspire is telling stories. Stories can be examples from your customers, fictitious examples from your customers, or even historical fables and myths. Stories can help you vividly illustrate what you are trying to communicate. Stories that communicate on an emotional level help communicate deeper than words and leave an imprint much stronger than anything you can achieve through a simple stating of the facts.
Learning to be inspiring is not easy–particularly for individuals lacking in charisma. It can be learned. Take note of people who inspire you and analyze the way they communicate. Look for ways to passionately express your vision. While there will always be room for improvement, a small investment in effort and awareness will give you a significant improvement in this leadership trait.
Intelligence as a Leadership Trait
Intelligence is something that can be difficult to develop. The road toward becoming more intelligent is difficult, long and can’t be completed without investing considerable time. Developing intelligence is a lifestyle choice. Your college graduation was the beginning of your education, not the end. In fact, much of what is taught in college functions merely as a foundational language for lifelong educational experiences.
To develop intelligence you need to commit to continual learning–both formally and informally. With modern advances in distance, education it is easy to take a class or two each year from well respected professors in the evening at your computer.
Informally, you can develop a great deal of intelligence in any field simply by investing a reasonable amount of time to reading on a daily basis. The fact is that most people won’t make a regular investment in their education. Spending 30 minutes of focused reading every day will give you 182 hours of study time each year.
For the most part, people will notice if you are intelligent by observing your behavior and attitude. Trying to display your intelligence is likely to be counterproductive. One of the greatest signs of someone who is truly intelligent is humility. The greater your education, the greater your understanding of how little we really understand.
You can demonstrate your intelligence by gently leading people toward understanding–even when you know the answer. Your focus needs to be on helping others learn–not demonstrating how smart you are. Arrogance will put you in a position where people are secretly hopeful that you’ll make a mistake and appear foolish.
As unintuitive as it may seem, one of the best ways to exhibit intelligence is by asking questions. Learning from the people you lead by asking intelligent thoughtful questions will do more to enhance your intelligence credibility than just about anything. Of course this means you need to be capable of asking intelligent questions.
Everyone considers themselves intelligent. If you ask them to explain parts of their area of expertise and spend the time to really understand (as demonstrated by asking questions), their opinion of your intelligence will go up. After all, you now know more about what makes them so intelligent, so you must be smart as well. Your ability to demonstrate respect for the intellect of others will probably do more to influence the perception of your intellect than your actual intelligence.
Summary of the Five Leadership Qualities
By consciously making an effort to exhibit these traits, people will be more likely to follow you. These are the most important traits that people look for in their leaders. By exhibiting them on a regular basis, you will be able to grow your influence to its potential as a leader.
Terms referencing this article:
leadership qualities
leadership traits
leadership
leadership characteristics
QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP
traits of a leader
characteristics of a leader
traits of leadership
leadership quality
leader qualities
http://www.leadership501.com/five-most-important-leadership-traits/27/
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Administrative and Leadership Theories
CLASSICAL ORGANIZATION THEORY
Scientific management theory concerned the optimization of individual workers and work processes. During the same period, classical organization theory complimented scientific management by providing a framework for the structuring the organization. The leading proponents of classical organization theory were Henri Fayol (a French engineer), Lyndall Urwick (a British company manager), and Max Weber (a German sociologist).
Classical organization theory is the “B” in bureaucracy. Weber defined the organization elements which comprised the “ideal bureaucracy.” These included:
• A clearly defined (and documented) set of rules and procedures. This is the company handbook, and other written instruments of company policy.
• Division of labor according to functional expertise. This is the notion of individual departments (sales, purchasing, accounting, etc.)
• A clear chain of command. There is a hierarchy based on management rank. Weber also stipulated that authority in an organizational setting should be based on the office itself—not on the individual. (Consider a political analogy: Neither Gerald Ford nor Jimmy Carter would be empowered to declare war or veto a bill today. Their past executive powers were based on the office they held—not on their individual persons.)
• Individual advancement based on merit. Promotions should go to those who deserve who perform well on the job.
• Professional managers. The person (or other entity) who owns the company doesn’t necessarily possess the expertise needed to keep it running smoothly on a day-to-day basis.
As you can see, many aspects of Weber’s “ideal bureaucracy” are simply measures that ensure fairness and objectivity. But critics of classical organization theory charged that it placed too much faith in the infallibility of rules and procedures, while ignoring important aspects of individual motivation.
Classical organization theory - key criticisms
Thompson and McHugh (2002: 87) point out that early 20th century management theory was promoted by engineers (among other groups) who were trying to 'extend the boundaries of their profession by trading on the general rise of interest in management and planning that was characteristic of the early part of the century.' Citing P. Armstrong from 1984, they observe that engineers found it difficult to 'sustain the privileged role as the focal point of management' as their own knowledge base became 'increasingly disconnected from their productive expertise.'
Thompson and McHugh regard these theories as being essentially prescriptive. That is to say that there was an implicit belief in underlying principles or 'laws' that governed management activities and functions. But there were also some assumptions about the role of workers in all this.
Argyris (1957) noted that if classical principles of formal organization are used, employees work in an environment in which:
1. They have minimal control over their working lives.
2. They are expected to be subordinate, passive and dependent.
3. They work to a short-term perspective.
4. They are 'induced to perfect and value the frequent use of a few skin-surface shallow abilities'.
5. Their working conditions are conducive to psychological failure. In short, people are treated more as infants than competent human beings:
"...organizations are willing to pay high wages and provide adequate seniority if mature adults will, for eight hours a day, behave in a less than mature manner!"
This approach is entirely at variance with the rhetoric (but perhaps not the reality) of modern management thinking with its emphasis on empowerment, team-work and motivated performance.
Another weakness in classical organizational theory is the assumption that all organizations are somehow alike. Thompson and McHugh (2002: 6) quote Salaman (1979: 33) who states that:
"a genuine sociology of organizations is not assisted by the efforts of some organization analysts to develop hypotheses about organizations in general, lumping together such diverse examples as voluntary organizations, charities and political organizations ... It also obstructs the analysis of those structural elements which are dramatically revealed in employing organizations, but not necessarily in all forms of organization”.
Thompson and McHugh point out that most of the literature about organizations is about work organizations. They argue that the distinctive nature of management, control and other social relations in such organizations is due to their profit-seeking nature. But they also concede that all large organizations share some characteristics noting (p7) that '...as Weber recognised, there are continuities of structure and practice deriving from the bureaucratic form present within all large-scale organizations.' They also acknowledge that many organizations within the public sector have been operating within a market environment.
Administrative Theory (Fayol)
Developed at same time as scientific management, Scott notes that administrative theory "emphasized management functions and attempted to generate broad administrative principles that would serve as guidelines for the rationalization of organizational activities" p. 36
While Taylor reorganized from "bottom up", administrative theorists looked at productivity improvements from the "top down". Early influencers were Henri Fayol (1949 trans.), Mooney and Reiley (1939) and Gulick and Urwick (1937).
Administrative theorists developed general guidelines of how to formalize organizational structures and relationships. They viewed the job as antecedent to the worker. Primarily these principles were broad guidelines for decision making.
Administrative theory was attacked by other rational theorists, especially Simon, who considered them not theory but merely truisms or contradictory statements.
These principles or "truisms" (depending on your perspective) included the following. Under coordination activities, Fayol and others suggested:
Scalar Principle
Recommends and emphasizes the hierarchical, pyrimidal structure of control relations (Scott p. 36)
Exception Principle
Recommends that all routine matters be handled by subordinates leaving superiors free to deal with exceptional issues where existing rules are inapplicable.
Span of Control Principle
Specifies that superior should have no more subordinates than they can effectively oversee.
Unity-of-Command Principle
Emphasizes that no subordinates should receive orders from more than one superior. Parsons and others have argued that this often doesn't happen effectively in most organizations (often the excecutive isn't qualified to handle more than external relations and thus delegates responsibility to more capable underlings).
Under the category of specialization issues, which are decisions about how activities are to be distributed among organizational positions and how to group positions into work groups and subunits, they suggested:
Departmentalization Principle
Activities should be grouped to combine related activities in the same administrative unit. Related activities could be based on similarity of purpose, process, clientele, or place.
Line-Staff Principle
Recommends that all activities directly related to organizational goals are line functions -- all others are staff functions that advise, service, or support. Staff units are segregated from line functions and are ultimately
subordinate to them.
THE BEHAVIORAL APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT.
What are the objectives of the Behavioural Science Model of management?
The behavioural science models of management were created based on criticisms of the classical and the human relations approaches to management. The classical theories were to the extreme that emphasized the formal organization as the key to understanding behaviour, whilst the human relations theories emphasized the informal organization and individual relations having a greater influence in organizational development. The behavioural scientists implemented their theories to integrate the classical and human relations approaches and created a symmetry between the two and also identified deficiencies as it relates to organizational development. The behavioural scientists attempted to explain the inconsistencies and conflicts that occurred in organizations that were not vindicated by the classical and human relations theorists.
Contributions to the behavioural theory
Chester Barnard (1938) construed the concept of cooperative system that must lead to outcomes of effectiveness and efficiency. He stated that management must express the importance of effectiveness which is the level by which the ultimate objectives of an organization is attained. Management must also be aware of the impact of efficiency, which is the satisfaction of individual motives of employees. Barnard recognized that there must be equilibrium between effectiveness and efficiency; for organization to be effective and progressive it is necessary to maintain cooperation from employees by sustaining the condition of efficiency.
Chris Argyris (1957-1993) contribution highlighted that the conflict between the organization and employees occur from disparity of the individual's maturing personality and the repressive nature of the organization (Lunenburg and Ornstein). Argyris developed the immaturity/maturity theory that postulated seven changes that should occur for maturity development in individuals. He stated that sometimes organizations prevent individuals to processed through these stages, keeping them in dependent state. This will lead to frustration of the employee that will ultimately have adverse effects on performance to achieving the organization's goals.
Jacob Getzels and Egon Guba (1957) formulated the nomothetic approach and the idiographic approach to management. Though independent, these two approaches are interactive with each other to compliment the cooperative system of effectiveness and efficiency developed by Chester Barnard. The nomothetic approach focuses on the roles, laws, structure and expectations of the organization. The idiographic approach focuses on the uniqueness, varied personalities and the needs of the individuals within the organization.
Abraham Maslow (1943), the father of motivational theories is noted for his conceptualization of a need hierarchy. The need hierarchy, constructed from the base of a pyramid, starting with the physiological needs, safety needs, belonging needs, esteem needs to self- actualization. The theory stipulated that management must be aware of these needs and create an organizational environment in which employees' needs can be satisfied. Dissatisfaction of needs demotivate employees that inherently leads to frustration, poor work ethics and unaccomplished organizational goals.
Douglas McGregor (1960) based his Theory X and Theory Y assumptions of people's work attitude on Maslow's need hierarchy. Theory X basic assumption is that the average human being has innate dislike of work and will anything to avoid work. McGregor believed that this assumption spurred the development of classical theories. Theory Y basic assumption is that individuals possess needs of self-esteem and self- actualization (Maslow's higher level of needs) that are never completely satisfied. It is on this basis, that McGregor proposed that Theory Y should be the foundation to guide managers in viewing their subordinates. Under Theory Y, work is seen as a part of satisfying an individual's need; with this assumption the personal needs of the individual is align with the organization's goals thus producing desired outcomes.
Frederick Herzberg (1993) expanded on Maslow's theory by producing a two factor theory of motivation called hygiene factors and motivation factors. The hygiene factors that include work and organizational environment such as organization's policies, working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary and status are elements that can cause dissatisfaction but do not lead to motivation (compare Maslow's lower level needs). While the motivation factors are elements such as achievement, recognition, growth or advancement and interest in the job (compare Maslow's higher level needs). The management style of classical and the human relations approaches ignore these motivational elements.
Rensis Likert contributed his four system theory: exploitative-authoritative system, benevolent-authoritative system, consultative system and participative-group system. The exploitative-authoritative system defines the organization where decisions are imposed on subordinates, motivation is given by threats, little communication, work is done in extreme restrictive and rigorous conditions created by management. Benevolent-authoritative system defines the organization where managers extend leadership in condescending form, little communication, motivation is given by rewards and there is little teamwork.
Consultative system defines the organization that leadership by superiors is substantial but there is no complete trust in subordinates. Motivation is garnered by rewards and some involvement and there moderate communication and teamwork.
Participative-group system is the ideal system for Likert which provides ultimate solution for leadership style for managers as complete confidence is given to subordinate, supportive relationships, group involvement and decision making and high performance by all counterparts. This system leads to higher degree of motivation.
References:
1. Argyris, C. (1957) Personality and organization: The conflict between system and the individual, Harper.
2. Thompson, P. and McHugh, D. (2002) Work Organisations, 3rd edition, Palgrave.
3. Fred C. Lunenburg and Allan C. Ornstein, Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices, 5th ed. (Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2008)
4. Accel Team Development
www.accel-team.com/human_relations
Scientific management theory concerned the optimization of individual workers and work processes. During the same period, classical organization theory complimented scientific management by providing a framework for the structuring the organization. The leading proponents of classical organization theory were Henri Fayol (a French engineer), Lyndall Urwick (a British company manager), and Max Weber (a German sociologist).
Classical organization theory is the “B” in bureaucracy. Weber defined the organization elements which comprised the “ideal bureaucracy.” These included:
• A clearly defined (and documented) set of rules and procedures. This is the company handbook, and other written instruments of company policy.
• Division of labor according to functional expertise. This is the notion of individual departments (sales, purchasing, accounting, etc.)
• A clear chain of command. There is a hierarchy based on management rank. Weber also stipulated that authority in an organizational setting should be based on the office itself—not on the individual. (Consider a political analogy: Neither Gerald Ford nor Jimmy Carter would be empowered to declare war or veto a bill today. Their past executive powers were based on the office they held—not on their individual persons.)
• Individual advancement based on merit. Promotions should go to those who deserve who perform well on the job.
• Professional managers. The person (or other entity) who owns the company doesn’t necessarily possess the expertise needed to keep it running smoothly on a day-to-day basis.
As you can see, many aspects of Weber’s “ideal bureaucracy” are simply measures that ensure fairness and objectivity. But critics of classical organization theory charged that it placed too much faith in the infallibility of rules and procedures, while ignoring important aspects of individual motivation.
Classical organization theory - key criticisms
Thompson and McHugh (2002: 87) point out that early 20th century management theory was promoted by engineers (among other groups) who were trying to 'extend the boundaries of their profession by trading on the general rise of interest in management and planning that was characteristic of the early part of the century.' Citing P. Armstrong from 1984, they observe that engineers found it difficult to 'sustain the privileged role as the focal point of management' as their own knowledge base became 'increasingly disconnected from their productive expertise.'
Thompson and McHugh regard these theories as being essentially prescriptive. That is to say that there was an implicit belief in underlying principles or 'laws' that governed management activities and functions. But there were also some assumptions about the role of workers in all this.
Argyris (1957) noted that if classical principles of formal organization are used, employees work in an environment in which:
1. They have minimal control over their working lives.
2. They are expected to be subordinate, passive and dependent.
3. They work to a short-term perspective.
4. They are 'induced to perfect and value the frequent use of a few skin-surface shallow abilities'.
5. Their working conditions are conducive to psychological failure. In short, people are treated more as infants than competent human beings:
"...organizations are willing to pay high wages and provide adequate seniority if mature adults will, for eight hours a day, behave in a less than mature manner!"
This approach is entirely at variance with the rhetoric (but perhaps not the reality) of modern management thinking with its emphasis on empowerment, team-work and motivated performance.
Another weakness in classical organizational theory is the assumption that all organizations are somehow alike. Thompson and McHugh (2002: 6) quote Salaman (1979: 33) who states that:
"a genuine sociology of organizations is not assisted by the efforts of some organization analysts to develop hypotheses about organizations in general, lumping together such diverse examples as voluntary organizations, charities and political organizations ... It also obstructs the analysis of those structural elements which are dramatically revealed in employing organizations, but not necessarily in all forms of organization”.
Thompson and McHugh point out that most of the literature about organizations is about work organizations. They argue that the distinctive nature of management, control and other social relations in such organizations is due to their profit-seeking nature. But they also concede that all large organizations share some characteristics noting (p7) that '...as Weber recognised, there are continuities of structure and practice deriving from the bureaucratic form present within all large-scale organizations.' They also acknowledge that many organizations within the public sector have been operating within a market environment.
Administrative Theory (Fayol)
Developed at same time as scientific management, Scott notes that administrative theory "emphasized management functions and attempted to generate broad administrative principles that would serve as guidelines for the rationalization of organizational activities" p. 36
While Taylor reorganized from "bottom up", administrative theorists looked at productivity improvements from the "top down". Early influencers were Henri Fayol (1949 trans.), Mooney and Reiley (1939) and Gulick and Urwick (1937).
Administrative theorists developed general guidelines of how to formalize organizational structures and relationships. They viewed the job as antecedent to the worker. Primarily these principles were broad guidelines for decision making.
Administrative theory was attacked by other rational theorists, especially Simon, who considered them not theory but merely truisms or contradictory statements.
These principles or "truisms" (depending on your perspective) included the following. Under coordination activities, Fayol and others suggested:
Scalar Principle
Recommends and emphasizes the hierarchical, pyrimidal structure of control relations (Scott p. 36)
Exception Principle
Recommends that all routine matters be handled by subordinates leaving superiors free to deal with exceptional issues where existing rules are inapplicable.
Span of Control Principle
Specifies that superior should have no more subordinates than they can effectively oversee.
Unity-of-Command Principle
Emphasizes that no subordinates should receive orders from more than one superior. Parsons and others have argued that this often doesn't happen effectively in most organizations (often the excecutive isn't qualified to handle more than external relations and thus delegates responsibility to more capable underlings).
Under the category of specialization issues, which are decisions about how activities are to be distributed among organizational positions and how to group positions into work groups and subunits, they suggested:
Departmentalization Principle
Activities should be grouped to combine related activities in the same administrative unit. Related activities could be based on similarity of purpose, process, clientele, or place.
Line-Staff Principle
Recommends that all activities directly related to organizational goals are line functions -- all others are staff functions that advise, service, or support. Staff units are segregated from line functions and are ultimately
subordinate to them.
THE BEHAVIORAL APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT.
What are the objectives of the Behavioural Science Model of management?
The behavioural science models of management were created based on criticisms of the classical and the human relations approaches to management. The classical theories were to the extreme that emphasized the formal organization as the key to understanding behaviour, whilst the human relations theories emphasized the informal organization and individual relations having a greater influence in organizational development. The behavioural scientists implemented their theories to integrate the classical and human relations approaches and created a symmetry between the two and also identified deficiencies as it relates to organizational development. The behavioural scientists attempted to explain the inconsistencies and conflicts that occurred in organizations that were not vindicated by the classical and human relations theorists.
Contributions to the behavioural theory
Chester Barnard (1938) construed the concept of cooperative system that must lead to outcomes of effectiveness and efficiency. He stated that management must express the importance of effectiveness which is the level by which the ultimate objectives of an organization is attained. Management must also be aware of the impact of efficiency, which is the satisfaction of individual motives of employees. Barnard recognized that there must be equilibrium between effectiveness and efficiency; for organization to be effective and progressive it is necessary to maintain cooperation from employees by sustaining the condition of efficiency.
Chris Argyris (1957-1993) contribution highlighted that the conflict between the organization and employees occur from disparity of the individual's maturing personality and the repressive nature of the organization (Lunenburg and Ornstein). Argyris developed the immaturity/maturity theory that postulated seven changes that should occur for maturity development in individuals. He stated that sometimes organizations prevent individuals to processed through these stages, keeping them in dependent state. This will lead to frustration of the employee that will ultimately have adverse effects on performance to achieving the organization's goals.
Jacob Getzels and Egon Guba (1957) formulated the nomothetic approach and the idiographic approach to management. Though independent, these two approaches are interactive with each other to compliment the cooperative system of effectiveness and efficiency developed by Chester Barnard. The nomothetic approach focuses on the roles, laws, structure and expectations of the organization. The idiographic approach focuses on the uniqueness, varied personalities and the needs of the individuals within the organization.
Abraham Maslow (1943), the father of motivational theories is noted for his conceptualization of a need hierarchy. The need hierarchy, constructed from the base of a pyramid, starting with the physiological needs, safety needs, belonging needs, esteem needs to self- actualization. The theory stipulated that management must be aware of these needs and create an organizational environment in which employees' needs can be satisfied. Dissatisfaction of needs demotivate employees that inherently leads to frustration, poor work ethics and unaccomplished organizational goals.
Douglas McGregor (1960) based his Theory X and Theory Y assumptions of people's work attitude on Maslow's need hierarchy. Theory X basic assumption is that the average human being has innate dislike of work and will anything to avoid work. McGregor believed that this assumption spurred the development of classical theories. Theory Y basic assumption is that individuals possess needs of self-esteem and self- actualization (Maslow's higher level of needs) that are never completely satisfied. It is on this basis, that McGregor proposed that Theory Y should be the foundation to guide managers in viewing their subordinates. Under Theory Y, work is seen as a part of satisfying an individual's need; with this assumption the personal needs of the individual is align with the organization's goals thus producing desired outcomes.
Frederick Herzberg (1993) expanded on Maslow's theory by producing a two factor theory of motivation called hygiene factors and motivation factors. The hygiene factors that include work and organizational environment such as organization's policies, working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary and status are elements that can cause dissatisfaction but do not lead to motivation (compare Maslow's lower level needs). While the motivation factors are elements such as achievement, recognition, growth or advancement and interest in the job (compare Maslow's higher level needs). The management style of classical and the human relations approaches ignore these motivational elements.
Rensis Likert contributed his four system theory: exploitative-authoritative system, benevolent-authoritative system, consultative system and participative-group system. The exploitative-authoritative system defines the organization where decisions are imposed on subordinates, motivation is given by threats, little communication, work is done in extreme restrictive and rigorous conditions created by management. Benevolent-authoritative system defines the organization where managers extend leadership in condescending form, little communication, motivation is given by rewards and there is little teamwork.
Consultative system defines the organization that leadership by superiors is substantial but there is no complete trust in subordinates. Motivation is garnered by rewards and some involvement and there moderate communication and teamwork.
Participative-group system is the ideal system for Likert which provides ultimate solution for leadership style for managers as complete confidence is given to subordinate, supportive relationships, group involvement and decision making and high performance by all counterparts. This system leads to higher degree of motivation.
References:
1. Argyris, C. (1957) Personality and organization: The conflict between system and the individual, Harper.
2. Thompson, P. and McHugh, D. (2002) Work Organisations, 3rd edition, Palgrave.
3. Fred C. Lunenburg and Allan C. Ornstein, Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices, 5th ed. (Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2008)
4. Accel Team Development
www.accel-team.com/human_relations
Administrative and Leadership Theories
ACTION-BASED CONCEPT
1.
Specialization, division of work, path of authority, and chain of command are all important elements of management.
2.
Maximizing output and efficiency and minimizing strain and waste are important elements of management.
3.
Planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting are important elements of management.
4.
Management gets things done through people, and efforts to improve the working environment and worker satisfaction usually increase productivity.
5.
No one theory will fit all situations. Managers must understand the particular circumstances and utilize appropriate elements of each major theory while maintaining flexibility.
6.
Management is action-oriented, and managers need lots of energy, the ability to be decisive, and the ability to cope with stress.
7.
Extensive reading and informal communication are needed by managers, yet finding the time to read and communicate informally is often the most difficult task.
8.
Leadership implies change and involves management of planned change. High-level managers will also have leadership responsibilities, and leaders often have management responsibilities.
9.
Leaders innovate, inspire trust, make long-range plans, and motivate people to change.
10.
Managers devote their time to solving personnel problems, financial problems, and legal problems, whereas leaders plan and manage change.
Source: http://www.jbpub.com/samples/0763742376/42376_CH02_011_026.pdf
1.
Specialization, division of work, path of authority, and chain of command are all important elements of management.
2.
Maximizing output and efficiency and minimizing strain and waste are important elements of management.
3.
Planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting are important elements of management.
4.
Management gets things done through people, and efforts to improve the working environment and worker satisfaction usually increase productivity.
5.
No one theory will fit all situations. Managers must understand the particular circumstances and utilize appropriate elements of each major theory while maintaining flexibility.
6.
Management is action-oriented, and managers need lots of energy, the ability to be decisive, and the ability to cope with stress.
7.
Extensive reading and informal communication are needed by managers, yet finding the time to read and communicate informally is often the most difficult task.
8.
Leadership implies change and involves management of planned change. High-level managers will also have leadership responsibilities, and leaders often have management responsibilities.
9.
Leaders innovate, inspire trust, make long-range plans, and motivate people to change.
10.
Managers devote their time to solving personnel problems, financial problems, and legal problems, whereas leaders plan and manage change.
Source: http://www.jbpub.com/samples/0763742376/42376_CH02_011_026.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)