Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
transformational leadership compared to autocratic
Types of charismatic leadership
core elements of democratic leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: transformational leadership compared to autocratic
Leadership styles can be divided, primarily, into the two categories of democratic and authoritarian leadership styles. This study will examine the three democratic styles of transformational, servant, and charismatic leadership. The study will both broaden the knowledge of these forms of leadership and examine their effect on performance, engagement, and job satisfaction. The research will further attempt to properly define each style, identify their goals, and effect on innovation. The styles will ultimately be compared and measured against one another to determine their merits and perils. This review will add to the discourse of democratic leadership styles and serve to establish a framework whereby charismatic, transformational, and …show more content…
“Servant leaders act in the best interest of the employee and prioritize their individual growth and development. These actions result in higher levels of organizational commitment” (Jaramillo, Bande, & Varela, 2014, p. 108). In continuing the theme of ethics and ethical leaders, the servant leader is principled and adheres to a high values system. According to Jaramillo, Bande, and Varela, the high ethical standards established by the servant leader aims to improve employee and follower performance through genuine concern (Jaramillo, Bande, & Varela, 3014, p. …show more content…
As stated in Discourses of Charisma: Barack Obama’s First 6 Months as President of the USA, “charismatic leadership can be divided into ethical and unethical charisma” (Takala, Tanttu, Lamsa, & Virtanan, 2013, p. 155). For the above noted reason, the charismatic leader is heavily reliant on impression management, resourcefulness, and manipulation. When considering methods to garner production and increase performance, then, the charismatic leader seeks domination as a means to complete self-interest for their own purposes. This observation is in stark contrast to the individual consideration exhibited by the transformational leader and the characteristic of servitude from the servant
Servant leadership, as defined by Kretiner and Kinkicki (2015, p.486), is putting the needs of others, including employees, customers, and community ahead of one’s own needs. This management style requires selflessness and humility from management so the organization can focus on serving key stakeholders. There are ten characteristics of a servant-leader as identified in the text
Servant leadership is a perplexing theory. It takes on radical ideas like a lifetime employment policy, or employee-wide furlough, to illustrate how putting the leader at the service of their employees can result in efficient leadership. “When individuals engage in servant leadership, it is likely to improve outcomes at the individual, organizational, and societal levels (PSU, 2014)". The servant leadership actions of Charlie Kim and Bob Chapman depict how the proper use of servant leadership creates trust, and inspires productivity; benefiting their organization, their employees, and
Idealized influence. Idealized influence includes leaders’ charisma, or their ability to generate strong emotions in followers, and is considered the most important of the four characteristics of transformational leaders (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Charismatic leaders are confident in themselves and hold a strong conviction in their beliefs, evoking passion in their followers (Bass, 1985). They many times place the team’s needs before their own, and they guide the organizational culture into the change envisioned (Bass et al., 2003). Bass (1985) suggested that charismatic leadership strongly influences followers, thus positively influencing organizational performance. This ability to influence is due largely in part to the charisma exhibited by the leader (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Ehrhart and Klein’s (2001) review of literature concerning charismatic leadership found four behaviors repeatedly referred to as “charismatic”: (a) communicating high performance expectations, (b) exhibiting confidence in followers’ ability to reach goals, (c) taking calculated risks, and (d) articulating a value-based vision of the future (Kark & Van Dijk, 2007). Accumulated evidence points to transformational and charismatic leadership as influential modes of leadership that are associated with high levels of individual and organizational performance (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996).
The idea of approaching leadership from the standpoint of values has been echoed in several studies. O’Toole (1995) compared and contrasted contingency and situational approach to leadership with value-based leadership. He stated that all leadership styles eventually enforces the individuals to follow what their leader commands them to do rather than focusing on what is the will of the followers – this he called as disrespect for the individuals. It is important for the leader to understand, why people are resistant to change in reality and must make a personal commitment to overcome this resistance to changing environment or culture. He suggested that if the company wants to initiate change that is constructive, focus must be placed on the
Many leadership styles exist. The determining factor if a leadership style is effective or not is often how it is carried out and if it is appeasing to those, the leader is attempting to lead. One of the leadership styles that has become popular is Servant leadership. Although Greenleaf developed servant leadership more than thirty-five years ago and he identified ten characteristics that pertain to servant leadership. (book p. 56) Servant leadership has been successful in various industries and its popularity continues to increase.
In the same sense, authentic leaders can impact the engagement and performance of followers (Gardner et al., 2005), whereas Howell and Avolio (1993) assert that transformational leader behavior has been linked to the effectiveness of the leader, follower satisfaction and effort, and overall organizational performance. Additionally, the charisma of the leader has a positive impact on performance regardless of the level of support for innovation (Gardner et al., 2005). Peterson et al., (2012) were able to demonstrate that the relationship between CEO antecedents (narcissism and founder status) and CEO servant leadership was mediated by identification with the organization. On the other hand, despite the similarities between the three models of leadership there are some differences between transformational, servant, and authentic leadership. Transformational leaders have a more focus on stimulating followers intellectually than the other two models. servant leadership emphasize on the development of followers through facilitating their personal growth whereas transformation leaders focus on improving the ability of employees to be innovative and creative, authentic leaders facilitate the development of their follower through role modeling. The quality of authenticity is desirable in all people regardless of their position or aspirations for leadership roles. Although, authenticity is an important character in leaders, it does not mean that each authentic individual will naturally emerge as a leader (Gardner et al.,
McLaurin, J., & Amri Al ,B. M. (2008). Developing an understanding of charismatic and transformational leadership. Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict. Proceedings. Cullowhee. 13(2), 15-19.
Have you ever had a leader that inspired you to develop your own leadership traits? “A leader is someone who demonstrates what’s possible” (Mark Yarnell, 2015). There are numerous leadership styles. Each of the numerous leadership styles can be beneficial if utilized in an appropriate means. I have chosen three leaders and their unique leadership styles to discuss in this paper. The unique styles that will be discussed are situational leadership, transformational leadership, and laissez-faire leadership. I will also discuss each leader’s approaches, their fundamental leadership principles, and how each leader used their style within their profession.
Greenleaf “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.” Servant leaders put the needs of the employee first, they do not focus on themselves. A priority is put on meeting the needs of employees rather than one’s self. An example of such leadership in a hypothetical environment would be if a leader helped all team members first instead of himself. A servant leader would be a good listener, must be able to set a vison for employees and trust them. Although servant leadership is unorthodox as it’s difficult to use in an operation and apply in everyday situations. As Greenleaf (1977) stated “it is meant to be neither a scholarly treatise nor a how-to-do-it manual” (p.49). Servant leadership is very different from current views in organizations where often times they put the organizations profits before the individual. One can only hope this theory and model becomes more widely
This theory shapes followers into future leaders by providing them a freedom to control their behavior, elevates followers’ concerns from physical to psychological needs, and inspires subordinates to consider a group rather than self-interests and communicates designed outcomes to let subordinates perceive changes as wealth while. Transforming leadership has an elevating effect on both sides, leader and the led, because it improves the level of conduct and human interaction.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
“The important word there is inspire. The key difference between managers and leaders is that managers tell people what to do, while leaders inspire them to do it. Inspiration comes from three things: clarity of one’s vision, courage of their conviction and the ability to effectively communicate both of those things”
Leadership is defined as the effective act of persuading followers to pursue shared or at least joint purposes that represents the values and motivations of leaders, followers and the organization as a whole. The root of leadership is the sheer concern for the needs and goals of followers. McMillan and Gilley and (2009) argued that addressing the real needs of followers is one of many requirements to display moral leadership. Moral leaders do not abuse the use of others to achieve their personal goals, but work toward the continuing profit and development of their followers. True moral leaders having sincere concern about the true well-being of their followers would be seen as both influential and inspiring by others. However, moral leadership by itself might not end in enhanced power unless addressing the real needs of followers takes the form of transformational leadership behaviors. Moreover, since moral leadership presumes a considerate approach to the real needs of others, the extent to which a leader’s perception and others’ perceptions match would affect the impact of moral leadership on power. Self-other agreement, regarding transformational and transactional leadership, should therefore be worth exploring. This reflection on leadership types and roles looks at the influence of moral leadership on leader’s power, how self-other agreement regarding transformational leadership affects that relationship as well as how demographic factors such as gender, race and religion can play a role in the influence one can pertain as a moral and just leader. Moral leadership in today’s world is important in our political, business, and military affairs as the effectiveness of leadership of is detrimental in the outcome of any company or ...
Charismatic Power – The ability to influence followers based on the leaders personality. Politicians often use this kind of power to get follower’s to support them.
Has perception of charismatic leadership changed the playing field for the types of leaders that organizations are in search of? Many feel that the weight of the leader’s charisma as the focus of leadership needs to be re-examined. As a result, the charismatic leader may be viewed probably as one of the most contentious leadership styles because of the focus on the leader’s personal characteristics, often defining them as narcissists. Given the large number of narcissists at the helm or corporations today, the challenge facing organizations is to ensure that such leaders do not self-destruct or lead the company to disaster (Maccoby, 2000).