Definition Of Leadership
Define Leadership
Even if it is as old as human civilization, leadership has never had the same meaning among experts or common people. What is leadership? In the specialty literature, different definitions of leadership can be found:
• It is a process through which people and / or their ideas are directed towards a specific direction, through non-coercive means;
• It is the feature related to a formal position or to the group of people, who perform the management of the organization. For example, the position of organization president can be considered leadership position. It is as well considered that the managers’ group provides leadership for the organization.
Start Your Call Center Business
• Personality trait; it is often said that some people are born to be leaders;
• Behavior type through which volunteer participation of people in an organization is obtained in order to contribute to its goals’ accomplishment
More precisely, leadership is the complex process through which guidance, orientation and training of a group are performed, without using coercive means, to a direction that will lead to meeting long-term interests of that group. Leadership is also considered a social trade process, in which the leader offers something to his or her followers and receives three variables: the leader, his / her followers, and the situation. The leader’s contribution to the leadership process is represented by his/her personality, motivations, competences, and legitimacy. A leader’s followers add up their personalities, motivations, competences and expectancies related to a specific situation.
A specific situation requires specific resources, specific tasks, or history etc. Where these three variables merge, leadership can be located. Where leadership exists, it can produce a change. When people live in peace, any army can perform its activities through good administration and management. When a conflict begins, correct administration and management similar to peaceful times are not enough. During wartime, effective leadership is necessary at all the levels of the army.
Just like armies on wartime, nowadays’ organizations discover that they need more and more managers to help them get on against the instability created, especially by considerable development of competitors. In our opinion, leadership is the service performed by the organization’s leaders. Why do organizations need leadership? Actually, they are well structured; hierarchies are clearly established, as well as their objectives and purposes or their rules and attitudes. Therefore, why are leaders necessary? D. Kats and R. Kahn consider that leadership is necessary because:
• It assures the dynamics of the organization;
• It allows a greater managerial flexibility and response time to environmental changes;
• It offers the opportunity to coordinate the efforts of different groups within the organization, especially during growth or change phases.
• It facilitates meeting organization members’ needs, as a premise of the workforce stability;
Leadership Styles
A leader must train his or her people face challenges, adjust values, change perspectives, and develop new forms of behavior. Adapting needs of the contemporary society need a leadership that is responsible, without being required. A leader must always have questions to ask.
There are two broad types of leadership: favoring harmony with people and creating dissonance. Here an important commentary must be added. The second category is sometimes necessary, as it is not harmful as long as people do not exaggerate.
There are more leading styles out of which we can mention now four, more precisely, those styles that favor harmony and make people react positively. The second leading style must be used very carefully, because it can have negative impact upon people.
First, a visionary leader directs people. He or she can show and define a target for them and directs them towards the right way. Such a leader, though, does not define the way people can get there. He or she has the vision and shares it with the others, but leaves them find on their own a way to reach objectives. Here one can spot more clearly the difference between a leader (as he or she is described in most of the books) and a manager. A manager also finds solutions and can guide systematically. A visionary leader does not do it.
Secondly, leaders who adopt the counseling style are good coaches, good listeners, and good advisers. They help people identify their strengths and encourage them to try to be always better. They are 100% by each individual in the team and they always find ways to link personal aspirations of each member to the objective of the organization they lead.
Furthermore, there are those leaders who are more interested in having fun with their team than in professional outcome. Such a leader is very useful when people need improvement of team relationships or in the general state of mind of the team. Maybe, the style gets people closer to each other, because the leader is perceived more than a workmate than a superior.
To continue with there is a leader who likes to listen to other people’s opinions and to make decisions together. The positive aspect in this case is that people understand that their opinion is important and it makes them more devoted to a specific cause. The disadvantage of this style is that if you do not confide in those people, when you do not consider their decision you can have more problems than a manager can. You have offered them confidence and then you have lost it. This can be more painful than not offering confidence at all.
These leading styles are pure patterns. It is not possible to find a leader having the traits above. In general, a good leader has a personal style that can be then divided in two or more patterns.
While we are speaking about leadership styles, we have to remember that the term leadership may bring to mind a picture of nameless persons rather than individuals with unique personalities. It is because of the individuality, which each leader brings to the plate, which allows him to be successful. A person with many of the characteristics which make a great leader may struggle with his role if he does not find the style which best suits his personality. There are several styles of leadership, which can be successful if used correctly but can fail if used incorrectly. A leader who finds it difficult to attract and motivate followers should examine his leadership style to determine if it is the cause of this struggle and perhaps adjust his style of leadership or incorporate in aspects from other styles.
Several figures have outlined styles of leadership, which are accepted in today’s culture. Three main styles, or climates, of leadership as outlined by Kurt Lewin, the man recognized as founder of social psychology, are authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire leadership. Another sociologist, Max Weber defines two dominations of leadership: bureaucratic and charismatic. Psychologist Fred Fiedler suggests leadership styles based on the focus of the leader: people or tasks.
Authoritarian leaders, or autocratic leaders, issue instructions without input from others and without joining in to complete the tasks. Although typically viewed as a negative form of leadership, authoritarian leadership works well in situations where time is limited or workers are not motivated or need close supervision.
On the other hand, a democratic (participative) leader incorporates employees in the process of making a decision yet retains power over the final decision. This method works well when workers can provide information and encourages teamwork.
A free reign leader, also known as a laissez-faire or delegative leader, gives little to no continuous feedback and allows employees to make decisions; although leadership will still be responsible. A successful leader employs this style of leadership when her employees are knowledgeable and competent. However, this style of leadership may be used by those who are not leading at all.
According to Max Weber, a bureaucratic leader is one who lives by the books, following rules that have already been established. This style of leadership is less creative and has little room for exploration. This type of leadership may be best in an institution such as a bank. Weber also suggests that a charismatic leader is one who is energetic and has a similar effect on her followers; leadership rests on this exemplary character. This leadership style works best with long time commitment to an organization so that the focus stays on the organization rather than the individual leader to prevent resignation to purse other opportunities.
According to Fred Fiedler, a people-oriented leader is one whose focus is personnel, especially the training and development to increase job satisfaction and motivation which achieves the ultimate goal of efficiency and effectiveness within the workplace.
Contrary to a people-oriented leader is one who is task oriented and instead focuses on the work and specific tasks it involves. Like autocratic leadership, motivated and creative employees may find this type of leadership limiting because it involves close supervision and thus employees may rebel.
Although this list touches on only a few, dominant styles of leadership, there are others suggested by respect social scientists.
