Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Nature of Leadership
The first two definitions concern the broad nature of leadership. The first one is that all groups have role specialization, and someone has the primary responsibility for the specialized leadership role while others are to follow (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). This notion is valuable since Yukl and Gardner (2020) emphasize that leadership may be viewed as attributable to certain personal qualities. Perhaps, the authors highlight the wider perspective of individual-centered leadership as a driver for progress. The second notion is that a process of influence occurs naturally in a social system and spreads among its members (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). Leadership functions can be performed by different influential group members, both formal and informal, controlling the nature, method, and hierarchy around the task (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). Through this concept, Yukl and Gardner (2020) attribute leadership to social processes or patterns of relationships rather than to a specialized role. This definition is important since it shows that anyone can be a leader depending on the circumstances.
Contributing Factors
Flexible and adaptive leadership hinges on the leading individual, external and internal conditions, and the leaders vision. Yukl and Gardner (2020) connect these concepts by presenting a trio of demands, constraints, and choices. Constraints are characteristics of the organization and the external environment that limit the managers capabilities (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). Further, most leader-centered and contingency theories emphasize that leadership, in addition to the external conditions, depends on the leaders behavior and followers perception. A leader can thus adapt to the circumstances through relevant behaviors: communicating a vision of change, proposing and implementing specific changes, and encouraging innovation (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). Yukl and Gardner (2020) link vision to effective leadership, stating that a leader should avoid assuming that all followers support the proposed vision, communicate clearly and be attentive to feedback. This is perhaps because the success of a major change will depend on how well leaders can communicate their reasons.
Leadership Perspectives
While leadership cannot occur without followers, the followership notion is rarely discussed. The trait, behavior, and situational approaches focus almost exclusively on the characteristics and behavior of a leader (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). Similarly, the power-influence approach one-sidedly discusses the influence of leaders on their followers (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). The values-based approach is perhaps the only approach that considers both sides by exploring why followers are drawn to certain leaders (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). Followers often identify with the leader and emulate the leaders beliefs and behavior due to having common expressed values or seeing the character they admire (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). Hence, the predominant focus in the research literature seems to approach organizational group dynamics from the leadership perspective.
Perspectives on Leadership
To this day, the two predominant leadership perspectives are transactional leadership (TSL) and transformational leadership (TFL). TSL operates through three strategies: contingent reward, management-by-exception active [MBEA], and management-by-exception passive [MBEP] (Youngsam et al., 2019, p. 190). Leaders who offer conditional rewards motivate their followers to perform as expected using constructive transactions or exchanges (Youngsam et al., 2019). MBEP involves corrective action when the transactions between leader and follower do not meet expectations (Youngsam et al., 2019). MBEA involves intervening before problems occur; such leaders monitor their followers performance and take preventive action when necessary (Youngsam et al., 2019). Hence, TSL relies on the exchange, expectation, and rewards basis.
In contrast, TFL transforms followers through encouragement and personal-organization values alignment. Specifically, TFL behaviors can be divided into idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual approach (Youngsam et al., 2019). The first entails benevolent, admirable, and charismatic leadership behaviors that attract followers; the second views leaders as vision creators who can inspire followers to see the organizations possibilities (Youngsam et al., 2019). Third, intellectually stimulating leaders offer ideas to their followers while encouraging them to take risks and analyze prior assumptions. Finally, good leaders perceive their followers as special and remain perceptive to any input.
There are several additional theories discussed in the research on the topic. For instance, Willis et al. (2017) discuss MBEA leadership as a separate notion, comparing it to TFL in safety-critical contexts. MBEA leadership was more beneficial for contextual performance and safety participation in high accident likelihood conditions (Willis et al., 2017). Further, Andersen (2018) discusses servant leadership (SL) and compares it with TFL. SL posits that long-term organizational goals can be achieved by first facilitating the development and well-being of followers (Andersen, 2018). Andersen (2018) concludes that SL goes beyond transformational leadership in selecting the needs of others as its highest priority. Generally, the extant literature on the topic mentions TFL and TCL in combination, comparing them with numerous other strategies. It would be challenging to summarize all potential findings comprehensively, but these two examples provide an insight into the diverse world of leadership research.
Tangible Outcomes
Strategic goals represent tangible outcomes or results to be achieved, sometimes by a certain date. The goals can be formulated in terms of an absolute or a relative level of performance, but none are likely to be associated with persistent ideological themes (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). Therefore, in leadership, performance goals are useful for planning and evaluating progress, but the focus should be on values and ideological themes, not on steps toward achieving them. Hence, the major contrast between strategic goals and peoples personal beliefs is the difference between the means versus the end goal.
References
Andersen, J. A. (2018). Servant leadership and transformational leadership: From comparisons to farewells. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(6), 762774. Web.
Willis, S., Clarke, S., & OConnor, E. (2017). Contextualizing leadership: Transformational leadership and Management-By-Exception-Active in safety-critical contexts. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 90(3), 281305. Web.
Youngsam, C., Mannsoo, S., Billing, T. K., & Bhagat, R. S. (2019). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and affective organizational commitment: A closer look at their relationships in two distinct national contexts. Asian Business & Management, 18(3), 187210. Web.
Yukl, G. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2020). Leadership in organizations (9th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.