Definition of leadership(2)

?succeed in speaking to followers at an emotional or spiritual level (logical appeals by themselves seldom create a following; practical alternatives don't count)

For leadership to occur, the vision must be communicated to others in such a way that they adopt the vision as their own. Leaders must not just see the vision themselves, they must be capable of getting others to see it also. Numerous techniques are used to do this including: narratives, metaphors, symbolic actions, leading by example, incentives, and penalties.

It has been claimed, by Stacey (1992), that the emphasis on vision puts an unrealistic burden on the leader. It is said to perpetuate the myth that on organization must depend on a single uncommonly talented individual to decide what to do. He claims that this fosters a culture of dependency and conformity in which followers take no proactive incentives nor think independently.

Leadership and management

Leadership links closely with the idea of management, some would regard the two as synonymous. If you accept this premise, you can view leadership as being either:

?centralized or decentralized;

?broad or focused;

?decision-oriented or morale-centred;

?intrinsic or derived from some authority.

But a more accurate claim is that there is a reciprocal relationship between leadership and management, that is, an effective manager must have leadership skills, and an effective leader must have management skills. Although even this claim is too strong according to many. The difference between leadership and management was clearly delineated by Abraham Zaleznik (1977). Leaders he said, are inspiring visionaries who are concerned about substance, while managers are planners who are concerned with process. The dichotomy between managers and leaders was further explicated by Warren Bennis (1989). He draws twelve distinctions between the two groups:

?Managers administer ; leaders innovate,

?Managers ask how and when, leaders ask what and why,

?Managers focus on systems ; leaders focus on people,

?Managers do things right ; leaders do the right things,

?Managers maintain ; leaders develop,

?Managers rely on control ; leaders inspire trust,

?Managers have a short-term perspective ; leaders have a longer-term perspective,

?Managers accept the status-quo ; leaders challenge the status-quo,

?Managers have an eye on the bottom line ; leaders have an eye on the horizon,

?Managers imitate ; leaders originate,

?Managers are the classic good soldier ; leaders are their own person,

?Managers are a copy ; leaders are original.

Paul Birch (1999) also sees a distinction between leadership and management. He says, that as a broad generalization managers are concerned with tasks and leaders are concerned with people. This is not to say that leaders do not focus on the task. Indeed, one thing that characterizes a great leader is that they achieve. The difference is that the leader realizes that the achievement of the task is through the goodwill and support of others, while the manager may not.

This goodwill and support is generated by seeing people as people, not as another resource to be deployed in support of the task. The role of a manager is often to organize resources to get something done. People are one of these resources and many of the worst managers treat people as just another interchangeable item. The role of a leader is to cause others to follow a path you have laid or a vision you have created in order to achieve a task. Often the task is seen as subordinate to the vision. For instance, an organization might have the overall task of generating profit, but a good leader will see profit as a by-product that flows from whatever aspect of their vision differentiates their company from the competition.

This is not to say that leadership is purely a business phenomenon. Most of us can think of an inspiring leader we have met in our lives who has nothing whatever to do with business. It might be a politician, it might be an officer in the armed forces, it might be a Scout or Guide leader, it might even have been a teacher or head teacher. Similarly, management is not a purely business phenomenon. Again, we can think of examples of people that we have met who fill the management niche in non-business organizations. In non-business organizations it should be easier to find an inspiring vision that is not money driven that will support true leadership. However, this is often not the case.

Differences in the mix of leadership and management can define various management styles. Some management styles tend to be relatively weak on leadership. Included in this group one could include participatory management, democratic management, and collaborative management styles. Other management styles, such as authoritarian management and top-down management depend more on a leader to provide direction. It should be mentioned, however, that just because an organization has no single leader giving it direction, does not mean it necessarily has weak leadership. In some cases group leadership (multiple leaders) can be effective. The advantage of a single leader is that decisions can be made quickly and decisively when needed. Group decision making is sometimes given the derisive label "committee-itis" because of the time required to make a decision. The advantage of group leadership is it can bring more expertise, experience, and perspectives to a process.

Patricia Pitcher (1994) has challenged this bifurcation into leaders and managers. She used a factor analysis technique on data collected over 8 years, and concluded that three types of leaders exist, each with very different psychological profiles.

?One group is imaginative, inspiring, visionary, entrepreneurial, intuitive, daring, and

emotional. She calls these &quo …… 此处隐藏：6409字，全部文档内容请下载后查看。喜欢就下载吧 ……