I thought leadership is born.whether you can be a good leader or not,which has been decided by the moment you were born.As I read more thoeries such as trait based theories,behavior based theories, transformational leadership theories and so on, I realized leadship is ability,it can be trained. Everybody can be trained to be a successful leader.In addition,I found leadership is different from management.A manager is not equal to a leader. In my mind,a lot of people own the ability, only their leadership is matched with the situation,you can be a real leader,not just a manager.
I think the transformational leadership theories impact me a lot. In my team,I do not want to oversee your work,I do not want order you to do something you don't like. My job in our team is to make sure all of us have the same vision of future and the envirnment is fit for you guys.I will try my best to create a comfortable work atmosphere. I hope you'll enjoy the time work with me.
Since we are a team,I hope you guys know that we are a team,you should have the spirit of teamwork, and balance you family life and work life. That's important.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Charismatic leadership
Charismatic leadership
The original charismatic leadership theory by Weber (1947) described how followers attribute extraordinary qualities (charisma) to the leader. In recent years, others have modified and extended this theory to describe charismatic leadership in formal organizations . These theories describe charismatic leadership in terms of the amount of leader influence over followers and the type of leader-follower relationship that emerges.
The core behaviors in charismatic leadership vary somewhat from theory to theory, and sometimes from older to newer versions of the same theory. The key behaviors in the Conger and Kanungo (1988, 1998) theory include articulating an innovative strategic vision, showing sensitivity to member needs, displaying unconventional behavior, taking personal risks, and showing sensitivity to the environment (identifying constraints, threats, and opportunities). The key behaviors in the House (1977) and Shamir et al. (1993) theories include articulating an appealing vision, emphasizing ideological aspects of the work, communicating high performance expectations, expressing confidence that subordinates can attain them, showing self confidence, modeling exemplary behavior, and emphasizing collective identity. Some researchers have further differentiated between the content of the vision and the use of an expressive style to communicate it .
The research designed to test charismatic leadership theories has employed a wide variety of methods, including survey field studies, laboratory experiments, scenarios, content analysis of biographies and historical accounts, and case studies that compare different leaders or the same leader in different situations. The research provides evidence that supports some aspects of the major theories, but most of the propositions in these theories have yet to be tested adequately.
Only recently have behavior questionnaires been developed for testing the charismatic theories. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E. and Popper, M., 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance.Full Test developed a questionnaire to measure four behaviors that may be involved in charismatic leadership: supporting, displaying exemplary behavior (similar to role modeling), emphasizing ideology, and emphasizing collective identity. As noted earlier, House, Delbecq, and Taris (1997) developed a questionnaire with scales measuring charismatic as well as transformational behaviours.
Conger and Kanungo developed a questionnaire (the C–K Scale) based on their charismatic leadership theory (Conger; Conger and Conger). Their validation studies established moderately good support for the overall measure of charismatic behavior. The correlation among subscales was much lower for the C–K Scale than for the MLQ, which suggests that the behaviors are operationally defined more clearly and distinctly. The research also found that most of the charismatic behaviors were relatively independent of traditional leadership behaviours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_leadership
The original charismatic leadership theory by Weber (1947) described how followers attribute extraordinary qualities (charisma) to the leader. In recent years, others have modified and extended this theory to describe charismatic leadership in formal organizations . These theories describe charismatic leadership in terms of the amount of leader influence over followers and the type of leader-follower relationship that emerges.
The core behaviors in charismatic leadership vary somewhat from theory to theory, and sometimes from older to newer versions of the same theory. The key behaviors in the Conger and Kanungo (1988, 1998) theory include articulating an innovative strategic vision, showing sensitivity to member needs, displaying unconventional behavior, taking personal risks, and showing sensitivity to the environment (identifying constraints, threats, and opportunities). The key behaviors in the House (1977) and Shamir et al. (1993) theories include articulating an appealing vision, emphasizing ideological aspects of the work, communicating high performance expectations, expressing confidence that subordinates can attain them, showing self confidence, modeling exemplary behavior, and emphasizing collective identity. Some researchers have further differentiated between the content of the vision and the use of an expressive style to communicate it .
The research designed to test charismatic leadership theories has employed a wide variety of methods, including survey field studies, laboratory experiments, scenarios, content analysis of biographies and historical accounts, and case studies that compare different leaders or the same leader in different situations. The research provides evidence that supports some aspects of the major theories, but most of the propositions in these theories have yet to be tested adequately.
Only recently have behavior questionnaires been developed for testing the charismatic theories. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E. and Popper, M., 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance.Full Test developed a questionnaire to measure four behaviors that may be involved in charismatic leadership: supporting, displaying exemplary behavior (similar to role modeling), emphasizing ideology, and emphasizing collective identity. As noted earlier, House, Delbecq, and Taris (1997) developed a questionnaire with scales measuring charismatic as well as transformational behaviours.
Conger and Kanungo developed a questionnaire (the C–K Scale) based on their charismatic leadership theory (Conger; Conger and Conger). Their validation studies established moderately good support for the overall measure of charismatic behavior. The correlation among subscales was much lower for the C–K Scale than for the MLQ, which suggests that the behaviors are operationally defined more clearly and distinctly. The research also found that most of the charismatic behaviors were relatively independent of traditional leadership behaviours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_leadership
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Bio of James McGregor Burns
James McGregor Burns
is a presidential biographer, authority on Leadership Study, Woodrow Wilson Professor (emeritus) of Government at Williams College, where he also received his B.A. He was also a scholar at the James McGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland College Park.He received a Pulizter Prizeand National Book Award in 1971 for his Roosevelt:Soldier of Freedom1940-1945
His key innovation in leadership theory was shifting away from studying the traits of great men and transactional management to focus on the interaction of leaders and led as collaborators working toward mutual benefit. He is best known for contributions to the Transformational, Aspirational and Visionary schools of leadership theory. Burns has advocated repeal of the 22nd amendment to allow effective presidents to have a third or fourth term of office.
is a presidential biographer, authority on Leadership Study, Woodrow Wilson Professor (emeritus) of Government at Williams College, where he also received his B.A. He was also a scholar at the James McGregor Burns Academy of Leadership at the University of Maryland College Park.He received a Pulizter Prizeand National Book Award in 1971 for his Roosevelt:Soldier of Freedom1940-1945
His key innovation in leadership theory was shifting away from studying the traits of great men and transactional management to focus on the interaction of leaders and led as collaborators working toward mutual benefit. He is best known for contributions to the Transformational, Aspirational and Visionary schools of leadership theory. Burns has advocated repeal of the 22nd amendment to allow effective presidents to have a third or fourth term of office.
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Result of LPI Instrument
I have taken LPI(Leadership Practices Inventory) instrument,only one of my friend took took PLA.Even only one person take the instrument,but she is my closed friend,I think the result can imply some important information.
Questions Practice Self Observer
This sheet is the Leadership Behaviors Ranking,from most frequent to least frequent of all 20 leadership behaviors based on my friend's score.
From this sheet,I find that some questions we get the same score or similar score,whereas some questions we get completely different scores.The red scores means my friend and I have similar perspective in these questions,as the yellow scores means my friend and I have different scores.
I think if we have the similar or same scores express I have a clear understanding in these part.For example,question 7,22,2,both my friend and I have low scores,these three questions all belong to Inspire a Shared Vision part.I actually find that I rarely praise others.It's one of my weaknesses.I know praise sometimes can be a powerful thing in teamwork,as well as in daily life.I need to change this bad habit.
In this sheet,I find there are four questions' scores are completely different(question #25,24,16,6).#16:Asks for feedback on how his/her actions affect people's performance.My friend think I seldom ask for feedback,on the other way aroud,I think I usually ask for feedback.Overall, my friends think I am a more stubborn people. I used to be a person like that, however, since I aware of this issue I continue to change. This score indicate I need to constantly refine myself.
Questions Practice Self Observer
This sheet is the Leadership Behaviors Ranking,from most frequent to least frequent of all 20 leadership behaviors based on my friend's score.
From this sheet,I find that some questions we get the same score or similar score,whereas some questions we get completely different scores.The red scores means my friend and I have similar perspective in these questions,as the yellow scores means my friend and I have different scores.
I think if we have the similar or same scores express I have a clear understanding in these part.For example,question 7,22,2,both my friend and I have low scores,these three questions all belong to Inspire a Shared Vision part.I actually find that I rarely praise others.It's one of my weaknesses.I know praise sometimes can be a powerful thing in teamwork,as well as in daily life.I need to change this bad habit.
In this sheet,I find there are four questions' scores are completely different(question #25,24,16,6).#16:Asks for feedback on how his/her actions affect people's performance.My friend think I seldom ask for feedback,on the other way aroud,I think I usually ask for feedback.Overall, my friends think I am a more stubborn people. I used to be a person like that, however, since I aware of this issue I continue to change. This score indicate I need to constantly refine myself.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Contingency Theory VS Situational Leadership Theory
Contingency Theory,first to indicate there is no ideal leader,task-orientationed and relationship-orientationed leaders are effective if the orientation fits the situation.He said that personality/tendency doesn't change so improving effectiveness involves changing the situation
The Situational Leadership Theory is that there is no single “best” style of leadership. The effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influence, but it will also depend on the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished.
Characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of Task Behavior and Relationship Behavior that the leader provides to their followers. They categorized all leadership styles into four behaviour types, which they named S1 to S4:
S1: Derecting - is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, when, and where to do the task
S2: Coaching - while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socioemotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process.
S3: Surpporting - this is now shared decision making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing less task behaviors while maintaining high relationship behavior.
S4: Delegating - the leaders is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.
The Contingency Theory assume a person have a preference between task and relationship.And this tendency can't change.If a leader want to become effective,he or she have to change the situation to match his or her leadership style.
In the contrast,Situational Theory consider that the balance of task and relationship will make leader much more effective.Of the four typles, no one style is considered optimal for all leaders to use all the time. Effective leaders need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation.
The Situational Leadership Theory is that there is no single “best” style of leadership. The effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influence, but it will also depend on the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished.
Characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of Task Behavior and Relationship Behavior that the leader provides to their followers. They categorized all leadership styles into four behaviour types, which they named S1 to S4:
S1: Derecting - is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, when, and where to do the task
S2: Coaching - while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socioemotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process.
S3: Surpporting - this is now shared decision making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing less task behaviors while maintaining high relationship behavior.
S4: Delegating - the leaders is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.
The Contingency Theory assume a person have a preference between task and relationship.And this tendency can't change.If a leader want to become effective,he or she have to change the situation to match his or her leadership style.
In the contrast,Situational Theory consider that the balance of task and relationship will make leader much more effective.Of the four typles, no one style is considered optimal for all leaders to use all the time. Effective leaders need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)