Follow this blog another your assignment will not be considered for the assessment.
Pawan Dhankhar
Asst Prof.
KITM
9253143317
Pawan Dhankhar
Asst Prof.
KITM
9253143317
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
Planning By
PLANNING
Definitions of Planning
Different authors have given different
definitions of planning from time to time. The main definitions of planning are
as follows:
• According
to Alford and Beatt, "Planning is the thinking process, the organized
foresight, the vision based on fact and experience that is required for
intelligent action."
• According
to Theo Haimann, "Planning is deciding in advance what is to be done. When
a manager plans, he projects a course of action for further attempting to
achieve a consistent co-ordinate structure of operations aimed at the desired
results.
• According
to Billy E. Goetz, "Planning is fundamentally choosing and a planning
problem arises when an alternative course of action is discovered."
• According
to Koontz and O' Donnell, "Planning is an intellectual process, conscious
determination of course of action, the basing of decision on purpose, facts and
considered estimates."
• According
to Allen, "A plan is a trap to capture the future."laid
Meaning and Concept of Planning
In simple words, planning is deciding
in advance what is to be done, when where, how and by whom it is to be done.
Planning bridges the gap from where we are to where we want to go. It includes
the selection of objectives, policies, procedures and programmes from among
alternatives. A plan is a predetermined course of action to achieve a specified
goal. It is an intellectual process characterized by thinking before doing. It
is an attempt on the part of manager to anticipate the future in order to
achieve better performance. Planning is the primary function of management.
Objectives and policies
The objectives
The objectives are general parts of the
planning process. They are the end-results towards which all business
activities are directed. They are needed in every aspect where performance and
result directly and vitally affect the survival and success of the firm. In
other words, the objective of the firm justifies its existence.
Newman and Summer stated that "For
managerial purposes, it is useful to think of objectives as the results we want
to achieve. Objective covers firm's long-range plans specific departmental
goals and short-term individual assignment also".
The policies
Policies are specific guidelines and
constraints for managerial thinking on decision-making and action. Policies
provide the framework within which decision-makers are expected to operate
while making organizational decisions. They are the basic guides to be
consistent in decision-making.
Planning basics
Essentials of planning
Planning is not done off hand. It is
prepared after careful and extensive research. For a comprehensive business
plan, management has to: Clearly define the target/goal in writing. It should
be set by a person having authority. The goal should be realistic, specific,
acceptable to the organization, and easily measurable. Identify all the main
issues which need to be addressed. Review past performance. Decide budgetary
requirement. Focus on matters of strategic importance. What are requirements
and how will they be met? What will be the likely length of the plan and its
structure? Identify shortcomings in the concept and gaps. Strategies for
implementation. Review periodically.
Applications
In organizations
Planning is also a management process,
concerned with defining goals for future organizational performance and
deciding on the tasks and resources to be used in order to attain those goals.
To meet the goals, managers may develop plans such as a business plan or a
marketing plan. Planning always has a purpose. The purpose may be achievement
of certain goals or targets. The planning helps to achieve these goals or
target by using the available time and resources. To minimize the timing and
resources also require proper planning. The concept of planning is to identify
what the organization wants to do by using the four questions which are
"where are we today in terms of our business or strategy planning? Where
are we going? Where do we want to go? How are we going to get there?
In public policy
Planning refers to the practice and the
profession associated with the idea of planning an idea yourself (land use
planning, urban planning or spatial planning). In many countries, the operation
of a town and country planning system is often referred to as "planning"
and the professionals which operate the system are known as
"planners".
It is a conscious as well as
sub-conscious activity. It is "an anticipatory decision making
process" that helps in coping with complexities. It is deciding future
course of action from amongst alternatives. It is a process that involves
making and evaluating each set of interrelated decisions. It is selection of
missions, objectives and "translation of knowledge into action." A
planned performance brings better results compared to an unplanned one. A
manager's job is planning, monitoring and controlling. Planning and goal
setting are important traits of an organization. It is done at all levels of
the organization. Planning includes the plan, the thought process, action, and
implementation. Planning gives more power over the future. Planning is deciding
in advance what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and who should do it. This
bridges the gap from where the organization is to where it wants to be. The
planning function involves establishing goals and arranging them in logical
order.
Meaning and Concept of Planning
In simple words, planning is deciding
in advance what is to be done, when where, how and by whom it is to be done.
Planning bridges the gap from where we are to where we want to go. It includes
the selection of objectives, policies, procedures and programmes from among
alternatives. A plan is a predetermined course of action to achieve a specified
goal. It is an intellectual process characterized by thinking before doing. It
is an attempt on the part of manager to anticipate the future in order to
achieve better performance. Planning is the primary function of management.
Nature / Characteristics of Planning
The main characteristics or nature of
planning is given below
Planning is an Intellectual Process
Planning is an intellectual process of
thinking in advance. It is a process of deciding the future on the series of
events to follow. Planning is a process where a number of steps are to be taken
to decide the future course of action. Managers or executives have to consider
various courses of action, achieve the desired goals, go in details of the pros
and cons of every course of action and then finally decide what course of
action may suit them best.
Planning Contributes to the Objectives
Planning contributes positively in
attaining the objectives of the business enterprise. Since plans are there from
the very first stage of operation, the management is able to handle every
problem successfully. Plan try to set everything right. A purposeful, sound and
effective planning process knows how and when to tackle a problem. This leads
to success. Objectives thus are easily achieved.
Planning is a Primary Function of
Management
Planning precedes other functions in
the management process. Certainly, setting of goals to be achieved and lines of
action to be followed precedes the organization, direction, supervision and
control. No doubt, planning precedes other functions of management. It is
primary requisite before other managerial functions step in. But all functions
are inter-connected. It is mixed in all managerial functions but there too it
gets precedence. It thus gets primary everywhere.
A continuous Process
Planning is a continuous process and a
never ending activity of a manager in an enterprise based upon some assumptions
which may or may not come true in the future. Therefore, the manager has to go
on modifying revising and adjusting plans in the light of changing
circumstances. According to George R. Terry, "Planning is a continuous
process and there is no end to it. It involves continuous collection,
evaluation and selection of data, and scientific investigation and analysis of
the possible alternative courses of action and the selection of the best
alternative.
Planning Pervades Managerial Activities
From primary of planning follows
pervasiveness of planning. It is the function of every managerial personnel.
The character, nature and scope of planning may change fro personnel to
personnel but the planning as an action remains intact. According to Billy E.
Goetz, "Plans cannot make an enterprise successful. Action is required,
the enterprise must operate managerial planning seeks to achieve a consistent,
coordinated structure of operations focused on desired trends. Without plans,
action must become merely activity producing nothing but chaos."
Meaning and Concept of Planning
In simple words, planning is deciding
in advance what is to be done, when where, how and by whom it is to be done.
Planning bridges the gap from where we are to where we want to go. It includes
the selection of objectives, policies, procedures and programmes from among
alternatives. A plan is a predetermined course of action to achieve a specified
goal. It is an intellectual process characterized by thinking before doing. It
is an attempt on the part of manager to anticipate the future in order to
achieve better performance. Planning is the primary function of management.
CHARACTERISTICS
________________________________________
The main characteristics or nature of
planning is given below:
Planning is an Intellectual Process
Planning is an intellectual process of
thinking in advance. It is a process of deciding the future on the series of
events to follow. Planning is a process where a number of steps are to be taken
to decide the future course of action. Managers or executives have to consider
various courses of action, achieve the desired goals, go in details of the pros
and cons of every course of action and then finally decide what course of
action may suit them best.
Contributes Planning to the Objectives
Planning contributes positively in
attaining the objectives of the business enterprise. Since plans are there from
the very first stage of operation, the management is able to handle every
problem successfully. Plan try to set everything right. A purposeful, sound and
effective planning process knows how and when to tackle a problem. This leads
to success. Objectives thus are easily achieved.
Function of Management Planning is a
Primary
Planning precedes other functions in
the management process. Certainly, setting of goals to be achieved and lines of
action to be followed precedes the organization, direction, supervision and
control. No doubt, planning precedes other functions of management. It is primary
requisite before other managerial functions step in. But all functions are
inter-connected. It is mixed in all managerial functions but there too it gets
precedence. It thus gets primary everywhere.
A continuous Process
Planning is a continuous process and a
never ending activity of a manager in an enterprise based upon some assumptions
which may or may not come true in the future. Therefore, the manager has to go
on modifying revising and adjusting plans in the light of changing
circumstances. According to George R. Terry, "Planning is a continuous
process and there is no end to it. It involves continuous collection,
evaluation and selection of data, and scientific investigation and analysis of
the possible alternative courses of action and the selection of the best
alternative.
Planning Pervades Managerial Activities
From primary of planning follows
pervasiveness of planning. It is the function of every managerial personnel.
The character, nature and scope of planning may change fro personnel to
personnel but the planning as an action remains intact. According to Billy E.
Goetz, "Plans cannot make an enterprise successful. Action is required,
the enterprise must operate managerial planning seeks to achieve a consistent,
coordinated structure of operations focused on desired trends. Without plans,
action must become merely activity producing nothing but chaos."
Role, Significance, Importance &
Advantages of Planning
________________________________________
An organisation without planning is
like a sailboat minus its rudder. Without planning, organisation, are subject
to the winds of organizational change. Planning is one of the most important
and crucial functions of management. According to Koontz and O'Donnell,
"Without planning business becomes random in nature and decisions become
meaningless and adhoc choices." According to Geroge R. Terry,
"Planning is the foundation of most successful actions of any
enterprise." Planning becomes necessary due to the following reasons:
Reduction of Uncertainty
Future is always full of uncertainties.
A business organisation has to function in these uncertainties. It can operate
successfully if it is able to predict the uncertainties. Some of the
uncertainties can be predicted by undertaking systematic. Some of the
uncertainties can be predicted by undertaking systematic forecasting. Thus,
planning helps in foreseeing uncertainties which may be caused by changes in
technology, fashion and taste of people, government rules and regulations, etc.
Better Utilization of Resources
An important advantage of planning is
that it makes effective and proper utilization of enterprise resources. It
identifies all such available resources and makes optimum use of these
resources.
Increases Organizational Effectiveness
Planning ensures organizational
effectiveness. Effectiveness ensures that the organisation is in a position to
achieve its objective due to increased efficiency of the organisation.
Reduces the Cost of Performance
Planning assists in reducing the cost
of performance. It includes the selection of only one course of action amongst
the different courses of action that would yield the best results at minimum
cost. It removes hesitancy, avoids crises and chaos, eliminates false steps and
protects against improper deviations.
Concentration on Objectives
It is a basic characteristic of
planning that it is related to the organizational objectives. All the
operations are planned to achieve the organizational objectives. Planning
facilitates the achievement of objectives by focusing attention on them. It
requires the clear definition of objectives so that most appropriate
alternative courses of action are chosen.
Helps in Co-ordination
Good plans unify the interdepartmental
activity and clearly lay down the area of freedom in the development of various
sub-plans. Various departments work in accordance with the overall plans of the
organisation. Thus, there is harmony in the organisation, and duplication of
efforts and conflict of jurisdiction are avoided.
Makes Control Effective
Planning and control are inseparable in
the sense that unplanned action cannot be controlled because control involves
keeping activities on the predetermined course by rectifying deviations from
plans. Planning helps control by furnishing standards of performance.
Encouragement to Innovation
Planning helps innovative and creative
thinking among the managers because many new ideas come to the mind of a
manager when he is planning. It creates
a forward-looking attitude among the managers.
Increase in Competitive Strength
Effective planning gives a competitive
edge to the enterprise over other enterprises that do not have planning or have
ineffective planning. This is because planning may involve expansion of
capacity, changes in work methods, changes in quality, anticipation of tastes
and fashions of people and technological changes etc.
Delegation is Facilitated
A good plan always facilitates
delegation of authority in a better way to subordinates.
Steps involved in Planning
________________________________________
Planning is a process which embraces a
number of steps to be taken. Planning is an intellectual exercise and a
conscious determination of courses of action. Therefore, it requires courses of
action. The planning process is valid for one organisation and for one plan,
may not be valid for other organizations or for all types of plans, because
various factors that go into planning process may differ from organisation to
organisation or from plan to plan. For example, planning process for a large
organisation may not be the same for a small organisation. However, the major
steps involved in the planning process of a major organisation or enterprise
are as follows:
Establishing objectives
The first and primary step in planning
process is the establishment of planning objectives or goals. Definite
objectives, in fact, speak categorically about what is to be done, where to
place the initial emphasis and the things to be accomplished by the network of
policies, procedures, budgets and programmes, the lack of which would
invariably result in either faulty or ineffective planning.
It needs mentioning in this connection
that objectives must be understandable and rational to make planning effective.
Because the major objective, in all enterprise, needs be translated into
derivative objective, accomplishment of enterprise objective needs a concrete
endeavor of all the departments.
Establishment of Planning Premises
Planning premises are assumptions about
the future understanding of the expected situations. These are the conditions
under which planning activities are to be undertaken. These premises may be
internal or external. Internal premises are internal variables that affect the
planning. These include organizational polices, various resources and the
ability of the organisation to withstand the environmental pressure. External
premises include all factors in task environment like political, social
technological, competitors' plans and actions, government policies, market
conditions. Both internal factors should be considered in formulating plans. At
the top level mainly external premises are considered. As one moves downward,
internal premises gain importance.
Determining Alternative Courses
The next logical step in planning is to
determine and evaluate alternative courses of action. It may be mentioned that
there can hardly be any occasion when there are no alternatives. And it is most
likely that alternatives properly assessed may prove worthy and meaningful. As
a matter of fact, it is imperative that alternative courses of action must be
developed before deciding upon the exact plan.
Evaluation of Alternatives
Having sought out the available
alternatives along with their strong and weak points, planners are required to
evaluate the alternatives giving due weight-age to various factors involved,
for one alternative may appear to be most profitable involving heavy cash
outlay whereas the other less profitable but involve least risk. Likewise,
another course of action may be found contributing significantly to the company's
long-range objectives although immediate expectations are likely to go
unfulfilled.
Evidently, evaluation of alternative is
a must to arrive at a decision. Otherwise, it would be difficult to choose the
best course of action in the perspective of company needs and resources as well
as objectives laid down.
Selecting a Course of Action
The fifth step in planning is selecting
a course of action from among alternatives. In fact, it is the point of
decision-making-deciding upon the plan to be adopted for accomplishing the
enterprise objectives.
Formulating Derivative Plans
To make any planning process complete
the final step is to formulate derivative plans to give effect to and support
the basic plan. For example, if Indian Airlines decide to run Jumbo Jets between
Delhi an Patna, obliviously, a number of derivative plans have to be framed to
support the decision, e.g., a staffing plan, operating plans for fuelling,
maintenance, stores purchase, etc. In other words, plans do not accomplish
themselves. They require to be broken down into supporting plans. Each manager
and department of the organisation is to contribute to the accomplishment of
the master plan on the basis of the derivative plans.
Establishing Sequence of Activities
Timing an sequence of activities are
determined after formulating basic and derivative plans, so that plans may be
put into action. Timing is an essential consideration in planning. It gives
practical shape and concrete form to the programmes. The starting and finishing
times are fixed for each piece of work, so as to indicate when the within what
time that work is to be commenced and completed. Bad timing of programmes
results in their failure. To maintain a symmetry of performance and a smooth
flow of work, the sequence of operation shaped be arranged carefully by giving
priorities to some work in preference to others. Under sequence it should be
decided as to who will don what and at what time.
Feedback or Follow-up Action
Formulating plans and chalking out of
programmes are not sufficient, unless follow-up action is provided to see that
plans so prepared and programmes chalked out are being carried out in
accordance with the plan and to see whether these are not kept in cold storage.
It is also required to see whether the plan is working well in the present
situation. If conditions have changed, the plan current plan has become
outdated or inoperative it should be replaced by another plan. A regular
follow-up is necessary and desirable from effective implementation and
accomplishment of tasks assigned.
The plan should be communicated to all
persons concerned in the organisation. Its objectives and course of action must
be clearly defined leaving no ambiguity in the minds of those who are
responsible for its execution. Planning is effective only when the persons
involved work in a team spirit and all are committed to
Types of Plans
Plans commit individuals, departments,
organizations, and the resources of each to specific actions for the future.
Effectively designed organizational goals fit into a hierarchy so that the
achievement of goals at low levels permits the attainment of high-level goals.
This process is called a means-ends chain because low-level goals lead to
accomplishment of high-level goals.
Three major types of plans can help
managers achieve their organization's goals: strategic, tactical, and
operational. Operational plans lead to the achievement of tactical plans, which
in turn lead to the attainment of strategic plans. In addition to these three
types of plans, managers should also develop a contingency plan in case their
original plans fail.
Operational plans
The specific results expected from
departments, work groups, and individuals are the operational goals. These
goals are precise and measurable. “Process 150 sales applications each week” or
“Publish 20 books this quarter” are examples of operational goals.
An operational plan is one that a
manager uses to accomplish his or her job responsibilities. Supervisors, team
leaders, and facilitators develop operational plans to support tactical plans
(see the next section). Operational plans can be a single-use plan or an
ongoing plan.
• Single-use
plans apply to activities that do not recur or repeat. A one-time occurrence,
such as a special sales program, is a single-use plan because it deals with the
who, what, where, how, and how much of an activity. A budget is also a
single-use plan because it predicts sources and amounts of income and how much
they are used for a specific project.
• Continuing
or ongoing plans are usually made once and retain their value over a period of
years while undergoing periodic revisions and updates. The following are
examples of ongoing plans:
• A
policy provides a broad guideline for managers to follow when dealing with
important areas of decision making. Policies are general statements that
explain how a manager should attempt to handle routine management
responsibilities. Typical human resources policies, for example, address such
matters as employee hiring, terminations, performance appraisals, pay
increases, and discipline.
• A
procedure is a set of step-by-step directions that explains how activities or
tasks are to be carried out. Most organizations have procedures for purchasing
supplies and equipment, for example. This procedure usually begins with a
supervisor completing a purchasing requisition. The requisition is then sent to
the next level of management for approval. The approved requisition is
forwarded to the purchasing department. Depending on the amount of the request,
the purchasing department may place an order, or they may need to secure
quotations and/or bids for several vendors before placing the order. By
defining the steps to be taken and the order in which they are to be done,
procedures provide a standardized way of responding to a repetitive problem.
• A
rule is an explicit statement that tells an employee what he or she can and
cannot do. Rules are “do” and “don't” statements put into place to promote the
safety of employees and the uniform treatment and behavior of employees. For
example, rules about tardiness and absenteeism permit supervisors to make
discipline decisions rapidly and with a high degree of fairness.
Tactical plans
A tactical plan is concerned with what
the lower level units within each division must do, how they must do it, and
who is in charge at each level. Tactics are the means needed to activate a
strategy and make it work.
Tactical plans are concerned with
shorter time frames and narrower scopes than are strategic plans. These plans
usually span one year or less because they are considered short-term goals.
Long-term goals, on the other hand, can take several years or more to
accomplish. Normally, it is the middle manager's responsibility to take the
broad strategic plan and identify specific tactical actions.
Strategic plans
A strategic plan is an outline of steps
designed with the goals of the entire organization as a whole in mind, rather
than with the goals of specific divisions or departments. Strategic planning
begins with an organization's mission.
Strategic plans look ahead over the
next two, three, five, or even more years to move the organization from where
it currently is to where it wants to be. Requiring multilevel involvement,
these plans demand harmony among all levels of management within the
organization. Top-level management develops the directional objectives for the
entire organization, while lower levels of management develop compatible
objectives and plans to achieve them. Top management's strategic plan for the
entire organization becomes the framework and sets dimensions for the lower
level planning.
Contingency plans
Intelligent and successful management
depends upon a constant pursuit of adaptation, flexibility, and mastery of
changing conditions. Strong management requires a “keeping all options open”
approach at all times — that's where contingency planning comes in.
Contingency planning involves
identifying alternative courses of action that can be implemented if and when
the original plan proves inadequate because of changing circumstances.
Keep in mind that events beyond a
manager's control may cause even the most carefully prepared alternative future
scenarios to go awry. Unexpected problems and events frequently occur. When
they do, managers may need to change their plans. Anticipating change during
the planning process is best in case things don't go as expected. Management
can then develop alternatives to the existing plan and ready them for use when
and if circumstances make these alternatives appropriate.
Communication
By Shristi Sharma ECE
COMMUNICATION
“COMMUNICATION” is the
activity of conveying information.
Communication has been derived from the Latin word "communis",
meaning to share. Communication requires a sender, a message, and
an intended recipient, although the receiver need not be present or aware of
the sender's intent to communicate at the time of communication; thus
communication can occur across vast distances in time and space. Communication
requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative
commonality. The communication process is complete once the receiver has
understood the message of the sender. Feedback is critical to effective
communication between parties.
Barriers to
effective communication
Communication is the key factor in the success of any
organization. When it comes to effective communication, there are certain
barriers that every organization faces. People often feel that communication is
as easy and simple as it sounds. No doubt, but what makes it complex, difficult
and frustrating are the barriers that come in its way. Some of these barriers
are mentioned below.
Barriers to successful communication include message overload (when a person receives
too many messages at the same time), and message
complexity.
1.Physical barriers: Physical
barriers are often due to the nature of the environment. Thus, for example, the
natural barrier which exists, if staff are located in different buildings or on
different sites. Likewise, poor or outdated equipment, particularly the failure
of management to introduce new technology, may also cause problems. Staff
shortages are another factor which frequently causes communication difficulties
for an organization. Whilst distractions like background noise, poor lighting
or an environment which is too hot or cold can all affect people's morale and
concentration, which in turn interfere with effective communication.
a.System design: System
design faults refer to problems with the structures or systems in place in an
organization. Examples might include an organizational structure which is
unclear and therefore makes it confusing to know who to communicate with. Other
examples could be inefficient or inappropriate information systems, a lack of
supervision or training, and a lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities
which can
lead to staff being uncertain about what is expected of them.
2.Attitudinal barriers
Attitudinal barriers come about as a result of problems with
staff in an organization. These may be brought about, for example, by such
factors as poor management, lack of consultation with employees, personality
conflicts which can result in people delaying or refusing to communicate, the
personal attitudes of individual employees which may be due to lack of
motivation or dissatisfaction at work, brought about by insufficient training
to enable them to carry out particular tasks, or just resistance to change due
to entrenched attitudes and ideas.
3.Ambiguity of
Words/Phrases
Words sounding the
same but having different meaning can convey a different meaning altogether.
Hence the communicator must ensure that the receiver receives the same meaning.
It would be better if such words can be avoided by using alternatives.
4.Individual linguistic
ability
It is also important. The use of difficult or inappropriate
words in communication can prevent people from understanding the message.
Poorly explained or misunderstood messages can also result in confusion.
Interestingly, however, research in communication has shown that confusion can
lend legitimacy to research when persuasion fails.
5.Physiological barriers
It may result from individuals' personal discomfort,
caused—for example—by ill health, poor eyesight or hearing.
5.a.Presentation of
information
It is also important to aid understanding. Simply put, the
communicator must consider the audience before making the presentation itself
and in cases where it is not possible the presenter can at least trfy his/her
vocabulary so that majority can understand
Communication cycle:
Shannon and Weaver Model of Communication
Communication major dimensions scheme
Interactional Model of Communication
Berlo's Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver Model of
Communication
Transactional Model of Communication
The first major model for communication came in 1949 by
Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver for Bell Laboratories[9] The
original model was designed to mirror the functioning of radio and telephone
technologies. Their initial model consisted of three primary parts: sender,
channel, and receiver. The sender was the part of a telephone a person spoke
into, the channel was the telephone itself, and the receiver was the part of
the phone where one could hear the other person. Shannon and interferes with
one listening to a telephone conversation, which they deemed noise.
.In 1960, David Berlo expanded on Shannon and Weaver’s
(1949) linear model of communication and created the SMCR Model of
Communication.[10] The
Sender-Message-Channel-Receiver Model of communication separated the model into
clear parts and has been expanded upon by other scholars.
Communication is usually described along a few major
dimensions: Message (what type of things are communicated), source / emisor /
sender / encoder (by
whom), form (in which form), channel (through which medium),
destination / receiver / target / decoder (to
whom), and Receiver. Wilbur Schram (1954) also indicated that we should also
examine the impact that a message has (both desired and undesired) on the
target of the message.[11]
Between parties, communication includes acts that confer knowledge and
experiences, give advice and commands, and ask questions. These acts may take
many forms, in one of the various manners of communication. The form depends on
the abilities of the group communicating. Together, communication content and
form make messages that
are sent towards a destination. The target can be oneself, another person or
being, another entity (such as a corporation or group of beings).
Communication can be seen as processes of information
transmission governed by three levels of semiotic rules:
Therefore, communication is social
interaction where at least two interacting agents share a common set of
signs and a common set of semiotic rules.
This commonly held rule in some sense ignores autocommunication,
including intrapersonal
communication via diaries or
self-talk, both secondary phenomena that followed the primary acquisition of
communicative competences within social interactions.
In light of these weaknesses, Barnlund (2008) proposed a
transactional model of communication.[12] The
basic premise of the transactional model of communication is that individuals
are simultaneously engaging in the sending and receiving of messages.
In a slightly more complex form a sender and a receiver are
linked reciprocally. This
second attitude of communication, referred to as the constitutive model or
constructionist view, focuses on how an individual communicates as the
determining factor of the way the message will be interpreted. Communication is
viewed as a conduit; a passage in which information travels from one individual
to another and this information becomes separate from the communication itself.
A particular instance of communication is called a speech act. The
sender's personal filters and the receiver's personal filters may vary
depending upon different regional traditions, cultures, or gender; which may
alter the intended meaning of message contents. In the presence of "communication noise"
on the transmission channel (air, in this case), reception and decoding of
content may be faulty, and thus the speech act may not achieve the desired
effect. One problem with this encode-transmit-receive-decode model is that the
processes of encoding and decoding imply that the sender and receiver each
possess something that functions as a codebook, and
that these two code books are, at the very least, similar if not identical.
Although something like code books is implied by the model, they are nowhere
represented in the model, which creates many conceptual difficulties.
Theories of coregulation
describe communication as a creative and dynamic continuous process, rather
than a discrete exchange of information. Canadian media scholar Harold Innis had
the theory that people use different types of media to communicate and which
one they choose to use will offer different possibilities for the shape and
durability of society (Wark, McKenzie 1997). His famous example of this is
using ancient Egypt and
looking at the ways they built themselves out of media with very different
properties stone and papyrus. Papyrus is what he called 'Space Binding'. it made possible the transmission of written orders
across space, empires and enables the waging of distant military campaigns and
colonial administration. The other is stone and 'Time Binding', through the construction of temples and the pyramids
can sustain their authority generation to generation, through this media they
can change and shape communication in their society (Wark, McKenzie 1997).
Bernard Luskin, UCLA, 1970, advanced computer assisted
instruction and began to connect media and psychology into what is now the
field of media psychology. In 1998, the American Association of Psychology,
Media Psychology Division 46 Task Force report on psychology and new
technologies combined media and communication as pictures, graphics and sound
increasingly dominate modern communication.
.Semantics is related to
meanings of words. To be more exact, it is related to connotative and
denotative meanings of words and its study. Every word has a direct meaning
called the denotative meaning. In addition to its exact or lexical meaning,
words also acquire implied meanings called connotative meanings. Connotations
are understood based only on an individual’s experience. If the encoder and
decoder do not share the some connotative meaning for a word, miscommunication
occurs.
Psychological Barriers in Communication
The
prolific writer and renaissance man Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe once said
"No one would talk much in society, if he knew how often he misunderstands
others." Goethe had it right that communication often fails to achieve its
intended goal. Psychological barriers account for an overwhelming number of
communication problems and are caused by someone's state of mind interrupting
her speaking or listening skills.,
Individual Barriers to Communication
Effective
communication in the workplace is one of the foundations of efficient teamwork
and accurate results. However, there are a number of barriers to communication
that employees experience on an individual level, whether it has to do with
perceptions of their own skills and abilities or a reaction to the
personalities and values of those around them.
Organizational Barriers to Communication
The success or
failure of an organization often depends on its ability to communicate with its
members, according to The Communications Department at California State
University. New technologies, mixed with culturally diverse audiences, have
increased the importance of organizational communications, but have also made
the field more complex. Understanding some of the common barriers can improve
an organization's ability to communicate.
Leadership
By Shobita ECE
Leadership.
Leadership has been described as “a
process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support
of others in the accomplishment of a common task".Other in-depth
definitions of leadership have also emerged.
Theories
Leadership is "organizing a group
of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may or may not have any
formal authority. Students of leadership have produced theories involving
traits,[2] situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and
values,[3] charisma, and intelligence, among others.
Early western history
The search for the characteristics or
traits of leaders has been ongoing for centuries. History's greatest
philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives have explored
the question "What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?"
Underlying this search was the early recognition of the importance of
leadership and the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics
that certain individuals possess. This idea that leadership is based on
individual attributes is known as the "trait theory of leadership".
The trait theory was explored at length
in a number of works in the 19th century. Most notable are the writings of
Thomas Carlyle and Francis Galton, whose works have prompted decades of
research.[4] InHeroes and Hero Worship (1841), Carlyle identified the talents,
skills, and physical characteristics of men who rose to power. In Galton's
Hereditary Genius (1869), he examined leadership qualities in the families of
powerful men. After showing that the numbers of eminent relatives dropped off
when moving from first degree to second degree relatives, Galton concluded that
leadership was inherited. In other words, leaders were born, not developed.
Both of these notable works lent great initial support for the notion that
leadership is rooted in characteristics of the leader.
Rise of alternative theories
In the late 1940s and early 1950s,
however, a series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940;[5]
Stogdill, 1948;[6] Mann, 1959[7]) prompted researchers to take a drastically
different view of the driving forces behind leadership. In reviewing the extant
literature, Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were common across a
number of studies, the overall evidence suggested that persons who are leaders
in one situation may not necessarily be leaders in other situations.
Subsequently, leadership was no longer characterized as an enduring individual
trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below)
posited that individuals can be effective in certain situations, but not
others. This approach dominated much of the leadership theory and research for
the next few decades.
Reemergence of trait theory
New methods and measurements were developed
after these influential reviews that would ultimately reestablish the trait
theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. For example,
improvements in researchers' use of the round robin research design methodology
allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders across
a variety of situations and tasks.[8] Additionally, during the 1980s
statistical advances allowed researchers to conduct meta-analyses, in which
they could quantitatively analyze and summarize the findings from a wide array
of studies. This advent allowed trait theorists to create a comprehensive
picture of previous leadership research rather than rely on the qualitative
reviews of the past. Equipped with new methods, leadership researchers revealed
the following:
Individuals
can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.[8]
Significant
relationships exist between leadership and such individual traits as:
intelligence[9]
adjustment[9]
extraversion[9]
conscientiousness[10][11][12]
openness
to experience[11][13]
general
self-efficacy[14][15]
While the trait theory of leadership
has certainly regained popularity, its reemergence has not been accompanied by
a corresponding increase in sophisticated conceptual frameworks.[16]
Specifically, Zaccaro (2007)[16] noted
that trait theories still:
1. focus
on a small set of individual attributes such as Big Five personality traits, to
the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise,
and problem-solving skills;
2. fail
to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes;
3. do
not distinguish between those leader attributes that are generally not
malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational
influences;
4. do
not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity
necessary for effective leadership.
Attribute pattern approach
Considering the criticisms of the trait
theory outlined above, several researchers have begun to adopt a different perspective
of leader individual differences—the leader attribute pattern
approach.[15][17][18][19][20]In contrast to the traditional approach, the
leader attribute pattern approach is based on theorists' arguments that the
influence of individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by
considering the person as an integrated totality rather than a summation of
individual variables.[19][21] In other words, the leader attribute pattern
approach argues that integrated constellations or combinations of individual
differences may explain substantial variance in both leader emergence and
leader effectiveness beyond that explained by single attributes, or by additive
combinations of multiple attributes.
Behavioral and style theories
In response to the early criticisms of
the trait approach, theorists began to research leadership as a set of
behaviors, evaluating the behavior of successful leaders, determining a
behavior taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles.[22] David
McClelland, for example, posited that leadership takes a strong personality
with a well-developed positive ego. To lead, self-confidence and high
self-esteem are useful, perhaps even essential.[23]
Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph
White developed in 1939 the seminal work on the influence of leadership styles
and performance. The researchers evaluated the performance of groups of
eleven-year-old boys under different types of work climate. In each, the leader
exercised his influence regarding the type of group decision making,praise and
criticism (feedback), and the management of the group tasks (project
management) according to three styles: authoritarian, democratic, and
laissez-faire.[24]
The managerial grid model is also based
on a behavioral theory. The model was developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton
in 1964 and suggests five different leadership styles, based on the leaders'
concern for people and their concern for goal achievement.[25]
Positive reinforcement
B.F. Skinner is the father of behavior
modification and developed the concept of positive reinforcement. Positive
reinforcement occurs when a positive stimulus is presented in response to a
behavior, increasing the likelihood of that behavior in the future.[26] The
following is an example of how positive reinforcement can be used in a business
setting. Assume praise is a positive reinforcerfor a particular employee. This
employee does not show up to work on time every day. The manager of this
employee decides to praise the employee for showing up on time every day the
employee actually shows up to work on time. As a result, the employee comes to
work on time more often because the employee likes to be praised. In this
example, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for this employee
because the employee arrives at work on time (the behavior) more frequently
after being praised for showing up to work on time.
The use of positive reinforcement is a
successful and growing technique used by leaders to motivate and attain desired
behaviors from subordinates. Organizations such as Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich,
Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight have all used reinforcement to increase
productivity.[27] Empirical research covering the last 20 years suggests that
reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance. Additionally,
many reinforcement techniques such as the use of praise are inexpensive,
providing higher performance for lower costs.
Situational and contingency theories
Situational theory also appeared as a
reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Social scientists argued that
history was more than the result of intervention of great men as Carlyle
suggested. Herbert Spencer(1884) (and Karl Marx) said that the times produce
the person and not the other way around.[28] This theory assumes that different
situations call for different characteristics; according to this group of
theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists. According
to the theory, "what an individual actually does when acting as a leader
is in large part dependent upon characteristics of the situation in which he
functions."[29]
Some theorists started to synthesize
the trait and situational approaches. Building upon the research of Lewin et
al., academics began to normalize the descriptive models of leadership
climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations
each style works better in. The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is
approved in periods of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds"
of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more
adequate in situations that require consensus building; finally, the
laissez-faire leadership style is appreciated for the degree of freedom it
provides, but as the leaders do not "take charge", they can be
perceived as a failure in protracted or thorny organizational problems.[30]
Thus, theorists defined the style of leadership as contingent to the situation,
which is sometimes classified as contingency theory. Four contingency
leadership theories appear more prominently in recent years: Fiedler
contingency model, Vroom-Yetton decision model, the path-goal theory, and the
Hersey-Blanchard situational theory.
The Fiedler contingency model bases the
leader's effectiveness on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency.
This results from the interaction of leadership style and situational
favorability (later calledsituational control). The theory defined two types of
leader: those who tend to accomplish the task by developing good relationships
with the group (relationship-oriented), and those who have as their prime
concern carrying out the task itself (task-oriented).[31] According to Fiedler,
there is no ideal leader. Both task-oriented and relationship-oriented leaders
can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. When there
is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader
position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation".
Fiedler found that task-oriented leaders are more effective in extremely
favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas relationship-oriented leaders
perform best in situations with intermediate favorability.
Victor Vroom, in collaboration with Phillip
Yetton (1973)[32] and later with Arthur Jago (1988),[33] developed a taxonomy
for describing leadership situations, which was used in a normative decision
model where leadership styles were connected to situational variables, defining
which approach was more suitable to which situation.[34] This approach was
novel because it supported the idea that the same manager could rely on
different group decision making approaches depending on the attributes of each
situation. This model was later referred to as situational contingency
theory.[35]
The path-goal theory of leadership was
developed by Robert House (1971) and was based on the expectancy theory of
Victor Vroom.[36] According to House, the essence of the theory is "the
meta proposition that leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that
complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that
compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction
and individual and work unit performance".[37] The theory identifies four
leader behaviors, achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and
supportive, that are contingent to the environment factors and follower
characteristics. In contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, the path-goal
model states that the four leadership behaviors are fluid, and that leaders can
adopt any of the four depending on what the situation demands. The path-goal
model can be classified both as a contingency theory, as it depends on the
circumstances, and as a transactional leadership theory, as the theory
emphasizes the reciprocity behavior between the leader and the followers.
The situational leadership model
proposed by Hersey and Blanchard suggests four leadership-styles and four
levels of follower-development. For effectiveness, the model posits that the
leadership-style must match the appropriate level of follower-development. In
this model, leadership behavior becomes a function not only of the
characteristics of the leader, but of the characteristics of followers as
well.[38]
Functional theory
Functional leadership theory (Hackman
& Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962) is a particularly useful theory for
addressing specific leader behaviors expected to contribute to organizational
or unit effectiveness. This theory argues that the leader's main job is to see
that whatever is necessary to group needs is taken care of; thus, a leader can
be said to have done their job well when they have contributed to group
effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman &Wageman, 2005;
Hackman & Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory has most often
been applied to team leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has
also been effectively applied to broader organizational leadership as well
(Zaccaro, 2001). In summarizing literature on functional leadership (see
Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman and Walton (1986),
Hackman &Wageman (2005), Morgeson (2005)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao
(2006) observed five broad functions a leader performs when promoting organization's
effectiveness. These functions include environmental monitoring, organizing
subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates, motivating others,
and intervening actively in the group's work.
A variety of leadership behaviors are
expected to facilitate these functions. In initial work identifying leader
behavior, Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates perceived their
supervisors' behavior in terms of two broad categories referred to as
consideration and initiating structure. Consideration includes behavior
involved in fostering effective relationships. Examples of such behavior would
include showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner
towards others. Initiating structure involves the actions of the leader focused
specifically on task accomplishment. This could include role clarification,
setting performance standards, and holding subordinates accountable to those
standards.
Transactional and transformational
theories
Eric Berne[39] first analyzed the
relations between a group and its leadership in terms of transactional
analysis.
The transactional leader (Burns,
1978)[40] is given power to perform certain tasks and reward or punish for the
team's performance. It gives the opportunity to the manager to lead the group and
the group agrees to follow his lead to accomplish a predetermined goal in
exchange for something else. Power is given to the leader to evaluate, correct,
and train subordinates when productivity is not up to the desired level, and
reward effectiveness when expected outcome is reached. Idiosyncrasy Credits,
first posited by Edward Hollander (1971) is one example of a concept closely
related to transactional leadership.
Emotions
Leadership can be perceived as a
particularly emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social
influence process.[41] In an organization, the leader's mood has some effects
on his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels:
1. The
mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a positive mood
experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a negative
mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the
mechanism of emotional contagion.[42] Mood contagion may be one of the
psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers.
2. The
affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or
homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an
aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to
mood at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood
have a more positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative
mood.
3. Group
processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public
expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people
experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their
goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For
example, expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem
progress toward goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals
cognitively and behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.
In research about client service, it was
found that expressions of positive mood by the leader improve the performance
of the group, although in other sectors there were other findings.
Beyond the leader's mood, her/his
behavior is a source for employee positive and negative emotions at work. The
leader creates situations and events that lead to emotional response. Certain
leader behaviors displayed during interactions with their employees are the
sources of these affective events. Leaders shape workplace affective events.
Examples – feedback giving, allocating tasks, resource distribution. Since
employee behavior and productivity are directly affected by their emotional
states, it is imperative to consider employee emotional responses to
organizational leaders.[45] Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand
and manage moods and emotions in the self and others, contributes to effective
leadership within organizations.
Neo-emergent theory
The Neo-emergent leadership theory
(from the Oxford school of leadership) espouses that leadership is created
through the emergence of information by the leader or other stakeholders, not
through the true actions of the leader himself. In other words, the reproduction
of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by the
majority. It is well known that the great naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote
his own versions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived home in
England he would receive a true hero's welcome. In modern society, the press,
blogs and other sources report their own views of a leader, which may be based
on reality, but may also be based on a political command, a payment, or an
inherent interest of the author, media, or leader. Therefore, it can be
contended that the perception of all leaders is created and in fact does not
reflect their true leadership qualities at all.
Styles
Leadership style refers to a leader's
behavior. It is the result of the philosophy, personality, and experience of
the leader. Rhetoric specialists have also developed models for understanding
leadership (Robert Hariman, Political Style, Philippe-Joseph Salazar,
L'Hyperpolitique. Technologies politiques De La Domination[
Different situations call for different
leadership styles. In an emergency when there is little time to converge on an
agreement and where a designated authority has significantly more experience or
expertise than the rest of the team, an autocratic leadership style may be most
effective; however, in a highly motivated and aligned team with a homogeneous
level of expertise, a more democratic or laissez-faire style may be more
effective. The style adopted should be the one that most effectively achieves
the objectives of the group while balancing the interests of its individual
members.
Autocratic or authoritarian style
Under the autocratic leadership style,
all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader, as with dictators.
Leaders do not entertain any
suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. The autocratic management has
been successful as it provides strong motivation to the manager. It permits
quick decision-making, as only one person decides for the whole group and keeps
each decision to him/herself until he/she feels it needs to be shared with the
rest of the group.
Participative or democratic style
The democratic leadership style
consists of the leader sharing the decision-making abilities with group members
by promoting the interests of the group members and by practicing social
equality.
Laissez-faire or free rein style
A person may be in a leadership
position without providing leadership, leaving the group to fend for itself.
Subordinates are given a free hand in deciding their own policies and methods.
Narcissistic leadership
Various academics such as Kets de
Vries, Maccoby, and Thomas have identified narcissistic leadership as an
important and common leadership style.
Toxic leadership
A toxic leader is someone who has
responsibility over a group of people or an organization, and who abuses the
leader-follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a
worse-off condition than when he/she first found them.
Performance
In the past, some researchers have
argued that the actual influence of leaders on organizational outcomes is
overrated and romanticized as a result of biased attributions about leaders
(Meindl& Ehrlich, 1987). Despite these assertions, however, it is largely
recognized and accepted by practitioners and researchers that leadership is
important, and research supports the notion that leaders do contribute to key
organizational outcomes (Day & Lord, 1988; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig,
2008). To facilitate successful performance it is important to understand and
accurately measure leadership performance.
Job performance generally refers to
behavior that is expected to contribute to organizational success (Campbell,
1990). Campbell identified a number of specific types of performance
dimensions; leadership was one of the dimensions that he identified. There is
no consistent, overall definition of leadership performance (Yukl, 2006). Many
distinct conceptualizations are often lumped together under the umbrella of
leadership performance, including outcomes such as leader effectiveness, leader
advancement, and leader emergence (Kaiser et al., 2008). For instance,
leadership performance may be used to refer to the career success of the
individual leader, performance of the group or organization, or even leader
emergence. Each of these measures can be considered conceptually distinct.
While these aspects may be related, they are different outcomes and their
inclusion should depend on the applied or research focus.
The Ontological/Phenomenological Model
for Leadership
One of the more recent definitions of
leadership comes from Werner Erhard, Michael C. Jensen, Steve Zaffron, and Kari
Granger who describe leadership as “an exercise in language that results in the
realization of a future that wasn’t going to happen anyway, which future
fulfills (or contributes to fulfilling) the concerns of the relevant parties…”.
This definition ensures that leadership is talking about the future and
includes the fundamental concerns of the relevant parties. This differs from
relating to the relevant parties as “followers” and calling up an image of a
single leader with others following. Rather, a future that fulfills on the
fundamental concerns of the relevant parties indicates the future that wasn’t
going to happen is not the “idea of the leader”, but rather is what emerges
from digging deep to find the underlying concerns of those who are impacted by
the leadership.
Contexts
Organizations
An organization that is established as
an instrument or means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to as
a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and
reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments,
sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus, the
formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to
relationships with clients or with its members. According to Weber's
definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority.
Employees receive a salary and enjoy a degree of tenure that safeguards them
from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher
one's position in the hierarchy, the greater one's presumed expertise in
adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work carried out at
lower levels of the organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms
the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions
in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to their
position.[50]
In contrast to the appointed head or
chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges within the context of the
informal organization that underlies the formal structure. The informal
organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the individual
membership. Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of
the formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension of
the social structures that generally characterize human life — the spontaneous
emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.
In prehistoric times, humanity was
preoccupied with personal security, maintenance, protection, and survival. Now
humanity spends a major portion of waking hours working for organizations. The
need to identify with a community that provides security, protection, maintenance,
and a feeling of belonging has continued unchanged from prehistoric times. This
need is met by the informal organization and its emergent, or unofficial,
leaders.
Leaders emerge from within the
structure of the informal organization. Their personal qualities, the demands
of the situation, or a combination of these and other factors attract followers
who accept their leadership within one or several overlay structures. Instead
of the authority of position held by an appointed head or chief, the emergent
leader wields influence or power. Influence is the ability of a person to gain
co-operation from others by means of persuasion or control over rewards. Power
is a stronger form of influence because it reflects a person's ability to
enforce action through the control of a means of punishment.
A leader is a person who influences a
group of people towards a specific result. It is not dependent on title or
formal authority. (Elevos, paraphrased from Leaders, Bennis, and Leadership
Presence, Halpern &Lubar.) Ogbonnia (2007) defines an effective leader
"as an individual with the capacity to consistently succeed in a given
condition and be viewed as meeting the expectations of an organization or
society." Leaders are recognized by their capacity for caring for others,
clear communication, and a commitment to persist.An individual who is appointed
to a managerial position has the right to command and enforce obedience by
virtue of the authority of his position. However, she or he must possess
adequate personal attributes to match this authority, because authority is only
potentially available to him/her. In the absence of sufficient personal
competence, a manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge
her/his role in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead.
However, only authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It
follows that whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this
only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with commensurate
authority.Leadership can be defined as one's ability to get others to willingly
follow. Every organization needs leaders at every level
Management
Over the years the philosophical
terminology of "management" and "leadership" have, in the
organizational context, been used both as synonyms and with clearly
differentiated meanings. Debate is fairly common about whether the use of these
terms should be restricted, and generally reflects an awareness of the
distinction made by Burns (1978) between "transactional" leadership
(characterized by e.g. emphasis on procedures, contingent reward, management by
exception) and "transformational" leadership (characterized by e.g.
charisma, personal relationships, creativity).
Group leadership
In contrast to individual leadership,
some organizations have adopted group leadership. In this situation, more than
one person provides direction to the group as a whole. Some organizations have
taken this approach in hopes of increasing creativity, reducing costs, or
downsizing. Others may see the traditional leadership of a boss as costing too
much in team performance. In some situations, the team members best able to
handle any given phase of the project become the temporary leaders.
Additionally, as each team member has the opportunity to experience the
elevated level of empowerment, it energizes staff and feeds the cycle of such.
Leaders who demonstrate persistence,
tenacity, determination, and synergistic communication skills will bring out
the same qualities in their groups. Good leaders use their own inner mentors to
energize their team and organizations and lead a team to achieve success.
According to the National School Boards
Association (USA):
These Group Leaderships or Leadership
Teams have specific characteristics:
Characteristics of a Team
There
must be an awareness of unity on the part of all its members.
There
must be interpersonal relationship. Members must have a chance to contribute,
and learn from and work with others.
The
members must have the ability to act together toward a common goal.
Ten characteristics of well-functioning
teams:
Purpose:
Members proudly share a sense of why the team exists and are invested in
accomplishing its mission and goals.
Priorities:
Members know what needs to be done next, by whom, and by when to achieve team
goals.
Roles:
Members know their roles in getting tasks done and when to allow a more
skillful member to do a certain task.
Decisions:
Authority and decision-making lines are clearly understood.
Conflict:
Conflict is dealt with openly and is considered important to decision-making
and personal growth.
Personal
traits: members feel their unique personalities are appreciated and well
utilized.
Norms:
Group norms for working together are set and seen as standards for every one in
the groups.
Effectiveness:
Members find team meetings efficient and productive and look forward to this
time together.
Success:
Members know clearly when the team has met with success and share in this
equally and proudly.
Training:
Opportunities for feedback and updating skills are provided and taken advantage
of by team members.
Self-Leadership
Self-Leadership is a process that
occurs within an individual, rather than an external act. It is an expression
of who we are as people
Primates
Mark van Vugt and AnjanaAhuja in
Naturally Selected: The Evolutionary Science of Leadership present evidence of
leadership in nonhuman animals, from ants and bees to baboons and chimpanzees.
They suggest that leadership has a long evolutionary history and that the same
mechanisms underpinning leadership in humans can be found in other social
species, too.[59] Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson, in Demonic Males: Apes
and the Origins of Human Violence, present evidence that only humans and
chimpanzees, among all the animals living on Earth, share a similar tendency
for a cluster of behaviors:violence, territoriality, and competition for
uniting behind the one chief male of the land.[60] This position is
contentious. Many animals beyond apes are territorial, compete, exhibit
violence, and have a social structure controlled by a dominant male (lions,
wolves, etc.), suggesting Wrangham and Peterson's evidence is not empirical.
However, we must examine other species as well, including elephants (which are
matriarchal and follow an alpha female), meerkats (who are likewise
matriarchal), and many others.
By comparison, bonobos, the
second-closest species-relatives of humans, do not unite behind the chief male
of the land. The bonobos show deference to an alpha or top-ranking female that,
with the support of her coalition of other females, can prove as strong as the
strongest male. Thus, if leadership amounts to getting the greatest number of
followers, then among the bonobos, a female almost always exerts the strongest
and most effective leadership. However, not all scientists agree on the
allegedly peaceful nature of the bonobo or its reputation as a "hippie
chimp".
Aristocratic thinkers have postulated
that leadership depends on one's "blue blood" or genes. Monarchy
takes an extreme view of the same idea, and may prop up its assertions against
the claims of mere aristocrats by invoking divine sanction (see the divine
right of kings). Contrariwise, more democratically-inclined theorists have
pointed to examples of meritocratic leaders, such as the Napoleonic marshals
profiting from careers open to talent.
In the autocratic/paternalistic strain
of thought, traditionalists recall the role of leadership of the Roman pater
familias. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may object to such models as
patriarchal and posit against them emotionally-attuned, responsive, and
consensual empathetic guidance, which is sometimes associated with
matriarchies.
Comparable to the Roman tradition, the
views of Confucianism on "right living" relate very much to the ideal
of the (male) scholar-leader and his benevolent rule, buttressed by a tradition
of filial piety.
Leadership is a matter of intelligence,
trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline . . . Reliance on
intelligence alone results in rebelliousness. Exercise of humaneness alone
results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in folly. Dependence on the
strength of courage results in violence. Excessive discipline and sternness in
command result in cruelty. When one has all five virtues together, each
appropriate to its function, then one can be a leader. — Sun Tzu
In the 19th century, the elaboration of
anarchist thought called the whole concept of leadership into question. (Note
that the Oxford English Dictionary traces the word "leadership" in
English only as far back as the 19th century.) One response to this denial of
élitism came with Leninism, which demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres
to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, bringing into existence
thedictatorship of the proletariat.
Other historical views of leadership
have addressed the seeming contrasts between secular and religious leadership.
The doctrines of Caesaro-papism have recurred and had their detractors over
several centuries. Christian thinking on leadership has often emphasized
stewardship of divinely-provided resources—human and material—and their
deployment in accordance with a Divine plan. Compare servant leadership.
For a more general take on leadership
in politics, compare the concept of the statesperson.
Leadership Myths
Leadership, although largely talked
about, has been described as one of the least understood concepts across all
cultures and civilizations. Over the years, many researchers have stressed the
prevalence of this misunderstanding, stating that the existence of several
flawed assumptions, or myths, concerning leadership often interferes with
individuals’ conception of what leadership is all about (Gardner, 1965; Bennis,
1975).[63][64]
Leadership is innate
According to some, leadership is
determined by distinctive dispositional characteristics present at birth (e.g.,
extraversion; intelligence; ingenuity). However, it is important to note that
leadership also develops through hard work and careful observation.[65] Thus,
effective leadership can result from nature (i.e., innate talents) as well as
nurture (i.e., acquired skills).
Leadership is possessing power over
others
Although leadership is certainly a form
of power, it is not demarcated by power over people – rather, it is a power
with people that exists as a reciprocal relationship between a leader and his/her
followers (Forsyth, 2009).[65] Despite popular belief, the use of manipulation,
coercion, and domination to influence others is not a requirement for
leadership. In actuality, individuals who seek group consent and strive to act
in the best interests of others can also become effective leaders (e.g., class
president; court judge).
Leaders are positively influential
The validity of the assertion that
groups flourish when guided by effective leaders can be illustrated using
several examples. For instance, according to Baumeister et al. (1988), the
bystander effect (failure to respond or offer assistance) that tends to develop
within groups faced with an emergency is significantly reduced in groups guided
by a leader.[66] Moreover, it has been documented that group
performance,[67]creativity,[68] and efficiency [69] all tend to climb in
businesses with designated managers or CEOs. However, the difference leaders
make is not always positive in nature. Leaders sometimes focus on fulfilling
their own agendas at the expense of others, including his/her own followers
(e.g., Pol Pot; Josef Stalin). Leaders who focus on personal gain by employing
stringent and manipulative leadership styles often make a difference, but
usually do so through negative means.[70]
Leaders entirely control group outcomes
In Western cultures it is generally
assumed that group leaders make all the difference when it comes to group
influence and overall goal-attainment. Although common, this romanticized view
of leadership (i.e., the tendency to overestimate the degree of control leaders
have over their groups and their groups’ outcomes) ignores the existence of
many other factors that influence group dynamics.[71] For example, group
cohesion, communication patterns among members, individual personality traits,
group context, the nature or orientation of the work, as well as behavioral
norms and established standards influence group functionality in varying
capacities. For this reason, it is unwarranted to assume that all leaders are
in complete control of their groups' achievements.
All groups have a designated leader
Despite preconceived notions, not all
groups need have a designated leader. Groups that are primarily composed of
women, are limited in size, are free from stressful decision-making,[74] or
only exist for a short period of time (e.g., student work groups; pub
quiz/trivia teams) often undergo a diffusion of responsibility, where
leadership tasks and roles are shared amongst members (Schmid Mast, 2002;
Berdahl& Anderson, 2007; Guastello, 2007).
Group members resist leaders
Although research has indicated that
group members’ dependence on group leaders can lead to reduced self-reliance
and overall group strength, most people actually prefer to be led than to be
without a leader (Berkowitz, 1953). This "need for a leader" becomes
especially strong in troubled groups that are experiencing some sort of
conflict. Group members tend to be more contented and productive when they have
a leader to guide them. Although individuals filling leadership roles can be a
direct source of resentment for followers, most people appreciate the
contributions that leaders make to their groups and consequently welcome the
guidance of a leader (Stewart &Manz, 1995).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)