The explanation of leadership has changed through the decades from being based in terms of dominance in the 1920s to becoming more scholarly focusing on influence, traits, and transformations in character motivation by the 1980s (Northouse, 2016, pp. 2-5). Currently, academia is focusing on the process and approaches of leadership rather than defining it. This is reinforced in the research done by Epitropaki et al (2017) that shows academic publications on leadership have recurring themes of leadership development and identity within the past decade. Leadership is not confined by a set of character traits, but is a process in which a leader develops with their followers to accomplish goals towards a vision.
One debate that still goes on is the difference between leadership and management. In a sense, management can be seen as a means to accomplish activities and optimize routines whereas leadership is able to influence others and create change. The list above depicting the functions of management and leadership shows these distinctions that are generally agreed upon by scholars. Leadership in this view is multidirectional in that a leader influences the relationship that it has with their followers on a personal level and management is unidirectional in using the worker to complete a task through authoritative power. Zaleznik (1977, p. 73) further emphasizes this point that managers are unidirectional by that they maintain the balance of operations for a business whereas leaders are able to create new approaches and are innovative in exploring new visions for a business. Managers tend to be more impersonal and passive in their attitudes towards goals because they are binded to the conceptions of work that are aimed at optimizing certain aspects of business (e.g. fast-tracking scheduling, decreasing personnel issues, etc.). On the other hand, leaders adopt an active attitude that is more invested personally with goals. Leaders can invoke a vision and can determine what direction a business takes.
Northouse (2015) indicated that leadership is a process and leaders affect and are affected by followers. Northouse further discussed that leadership involves influence. Think about a leader you have worked for, whom you have influenced. In what ways did you influence the leader?
In the dichotomy between leader and follower, each role follows through a transactional process that aims at developing a mutual purpose. This mutual purpose gives meaning and a motivation for the follower that is developed by the leader. Leaders inspire and motivate followers to accomplish goals in order to reach a vision. Leaders may be the focus of the group change and embodies the will of the group, but followers keep leaders accountable. This has progressively been noted with the growth in information through technology that has enabled followers to make leaders more transparent in the power structure (Northouse, 2016, p. 10). Leaders and followers are two sides of the same coin and can influence each other.
In my personal experience as being an Officer in the United States Air Force, there has been a range of leadership styles and approaches that I have been able to witness and experience as a subordinate. Being a junior officer at my new assignment working in an explosive processing facility, I was the link between the technicians and upper management. I was able to voice concerns to upper management and could create change and influence the decisions or policies on behalf of the technicians. For example, before an revision was made on a regulation or a new policy was directed, I would be able to inform upper management on the pros and cons and how it would affect us as a section. Upper management would take my inputs and it would affect how they imposed a new rule or would modify it to cover our concerns.
How did the relationship develop?
The relationship between myself and upper management developed to become more symbiotically trustworthy and mutually respected. I became more competent in my job and upper management listened to my inputs with more reliance. Eventually this developed the relationship where upper management would give me more responsibility because they knew I would be able to handle it and deliver. I was able to develop myself from working as a manager to a manager that could lead. This type of growth is mentioned by Zaleznik (1977, p. 76) in that the development of leaders through personal influences or one-to-one relationships helps to develop a culture of individualism for leadership. Ultimately, being a good follower to upper management allowed myself to grow into a leader for them. I was eventually allowed to voice my thought on what direction the organization should take because of the trust developed between myself and the leaders of the organization.
What was one important way in which you were impacted by your relationship with that leader?
An important way that I was impacted by this relationship with my leaders was that they genuinely cared in the mission as well as myself as a person and that motivated me as a worker/follower. Because of this, I was inspired and believed in the mission and purpose of the work myself and pushed hard to succeed on the goals set forth. This reflects the integrative definition by Winston & Patterson (2016, p. 7) that mentions leaders are able to influence followers and can utilize them to achieve organizational mission goals and objectives. This development of a strong relationship between leader and follower expends spiritual, emotional, and physical energy that creates a synergetic environment. This focus can be seen in the four pillars of resiliency that the U.S. Air Force (2014) practices that aims at developing spiritual, emotional, physical, and social success. The personal bond that is developed between leader and follower takes time and effort to develop and goes beyond the managerial position to a personal investment in trust and support that transcends organizational dogma to the leader's vision in directing the organization.
References
Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C. & Lord, R.G. (2017). Leadership and followership identiy processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 104-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.
U.S. Air Force. (2014, August 19). Comprehensive airmen fitness: A lifestyle and culture. United States Air Force. Retrieved from http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/494434/comprehensive-airman-fitness-a-lifestyle-and-culture/
Winston, B.E. & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6-66.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different?. Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67-78.
No comments:
Post a Comment