|
Abstract
What I said. It shouldn't be the conclusion that the actual about Assessment. You see this article for information about anyone want to know is Assessment.
Assessment
Leadership and administration have been the focus of study and attention since the dawn of time. Over time leadership and administration have been seen as separate entities, but those times have past. It is this paper's intent to prove that good administration is incumbent upon the success and ability of the leadership that drives it, and by proxy, so too will poor leadership bring poor administration that will lead to poor results, and decreased levels of success. From the great minds in administration theory: Fayol, Taylor, and Weber; homage being paid to Barnard and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker and Porter; to the great minds in leadership development: Jung, McClelland and Burnham, this paper intends to examine them all and bring them together as is required in this cheaper and these times. Much time, effort, and money has been settled into the study of both administration and leadership successes. Mintzberg and Drucker have done some of the best and most informative work at bringing administration and leadership together; now, with the rising costs of overhead and decreasing behalf margins, now is the time to join together the dots, once and for all. Leadership and administration have been the focus of study and attention since the dawn of time. Reference biblical scripture that questions the leadership decisions of King David and the managerial prowess of Moses and his exodus to the "Promised Lands" (Cohen, 2007); Plato helped us to manage the Republic while Machiavelli helped us to formulate our idea of what a Prince should recount (Klosko, 1995); Shakespeare questioned Hamlet's decision production (Augustine & Adelman, 1999) and trumpeted Henry Iv's managerial effectiveness (Corrigan, 1999). John Stuart Mill gave us the "shining city upon a hill", while Hegel taught us the "elements of the philosophy of right" and Marx taught us how to manage a people in his overly popularized (and oft misunderstood) manifestos (Klosko, 1995). Thomas Payne rewrote leadership to the basic levels of common Sense, while Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that in the administration of a people, you must remember that "all men are created equal" and that they contend inevitable degree of"unalienable Rights". Countless others have come to the face over the span of time, all promoting a new or improved way to both manage and lead their people. (And hopefully yours, too, if you're willing to pay for it.) However, through it all, one thing has remained constant; people are not autonomous entities that will reply the same to every situation. people are evolving, thinking, emotionally and socially aware of all that is nearby them; they are motivated through distinct methods and they are driven by differing levels of success (McClelland & Burnham, 1995). Over time, leadership and administration have been seen as separate entities, but no more: it is, therefore, this paper's intent to prove that good administration is incumbent upon the success and ability of the leadership that drives it, and by proxy, so too will poor leadership bring poor administration that will lead to poor results, and decreased levels of success. In today's fast paced environments, administration requires leadership; you cannot have one without the other and still attain the success that you desire. Reference any administration text or publication and you will inevitably come over the obligatory references to the great minds in administration theory: Fayol - the first to identify administration as a "discipline" to be studied (Brunsson, 2008), Taylor's scientific administration of commercial work and workers (Safferstone, 2006), and Weber's bureaucracy; homage must also be paid to Barnard, Kotter, Bennis, and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker, and Porter (Lamond, 2005). These great minds have helped to forge the way for the administration field and helped to better administration teams over the world. The world of "leadership study" carries quite the similar pedigree; ironically, it also carries many of the same names. It is, however, this author's conception that many of the additions to the pool of knowledge on leadership were not made known until the study of science of mind was made more fashionable by the likes of Freud and Jung. Management, it appears, is a tool to better the bottom line and productivity, whereas leadership is one of those studies that is to be improved through the person's ability to be in touch with their personality, traits, motives and effects on the human elements of productivity. There appears be some coincidence in the timing of the juxtaposition of the terms "management" and "leadership" and the correlation to the fact that most literature post 1950 seems to cross pollinate the two phrases. It is quite potential that this, the historical time for post war boom, is where output was at report highs and administration of output was not as key as the administration of people possibly drawn from a public recognition that people were not to be managed, but rather, they were to be valued members of the team, and therefore, to be led - it is speculative, but it appears clear that entering the 1960's, most literature intertwines the "leaders" and the "managers" into the same expert classification. Carl Jung (1923) posits that people carry specific traits and that those traits cannot be altered. However, much time exertion and money has been settled into the study of both administration and leadership traits, tendencies, styles, and successes. Why is this? One belief is that Jung only half analyzes the someone and that more than your traits work on your leadership potential (de Charon, 2003). This affords the occasion for you to learn skills valuable to come to be a better leader, even if that means comprehension who you are and what your tendencies are, in order to counteract them. Jung's work with personality traits has come to be the hallmark to virtually every expert improvement and personal improvement policy on the market. Jung stipulates that every someone has any blend of sixteen distinct personality types. By definition, knowing these personality types helps you to better negotiate your way through the situation in order to attain the maximum output desired (Anastasi, 1998). Running in concert to Jung's ideas are those of Henry Mintzberg. Mintzberg stipulates that much has changed since Fayol's appraisal in 1916; gone are the days when the "picture of a manager was a reflective planner, organizer, leader, and controller" (Pavett & Lau, 1983). Mintzberg breaks the manager's job into ten roles, divided into three areas: interpersonal, informational, and decisional (2004): Interpersonal Roles
Informational Roles
Decisional Roles
Figurehead
Monitor
Entrepreneur
Leader
Disseminator
Disturbance handler
Liaison
Spokesperson
Resource allocator
Negotiator
(Lussier & Achua, 2007). Ironically, in today's interpretation of a leader, one would be hard pressed to find a leader whom is unable to do all of the above, and then some. Mintzberg, in later publications, however, goes much further in his appraisal of managers and their roles in the organization. In a collaborative exertion with Jonathon Gosling, the two settle the five mindsets of a manager (2003). They break the five mindsets into: 1. Managing self: the reflective mindset; where the sufficient manager is able to reflect upon the history (current and aged) to create a better time to come appealing forward. 2. Managing the organization: the analytical mindset; here referencing a tennis match, where the manager must be cognizant of the crowd and their reaction, but also focusing on the ball itself. 3. Managing context: the worldly mindset; thinking globally and finding for the unorthodox solution. 4. Managing relationships: the collaborative mindset; where the manager is able to engage the employees and moves beyond empowerment [which "implies that people who know the work best somehow receive the blessing of their managers to do it (Kibort, 2004)] into commitment. 5. Managing change: the activity mindset; "imagine your assosication as a chariot pulled by wild horses. These horses recount the emotions, aspirations, and motives of all the people in the organization. holding a steady policy requires just as much skill in steering nearby to a new direction" (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003, p. 54-63). Gosling and Mintzberg desist with one very appealing point. They stipulate that, unlike Pavett & Lau (1983) that good managers are able to look beyond the desire to fix problems with uncomplicated reorganizations. In fact, they argue that hierarchy plays a very small role in the actual completion of tasks on the unit level and can only lead to more bureaucracy. Which leads one to ask the question: who is to complete those unit level tasks and solve those problems linked with people? There is no definitive definition of what leadership is, as it appears to turn form and focus for each private study. For the purposes of this paper, however, the definition set forth by Lussier & Achua (2007) seems to fit best: "Leadership is the influencing process of leaders and followers to accomplish organizational objectives through change" (p.6). How do we assess leadership and management? The common misconception is that it is something that should be compared "straight up", or "even Steven". Obviously, there are natural leaders and persons in positions of public authority throughout every facility, and yes, it is incumbent upon the managers and leaders to empower those people to hold the comprehensive mission. Admittedly, some of these people may never come to be managers, but their role in the facility is of the utmost importance. However, as managers are an business specific entity, it is ridiculous to try and assess leadership to administration face of the constraint of the administration role. Recognizing and accepting the constraint of the comparison, it must be acknowledged that in industry, you cannot have good leadership without good management; and in inevitable juxtaposition, poor leadership leads to poor success rates for the management. It seems apparent that our administration staffs should consolidate on growing employees into leaders, to finally come to be managers; but if the managers themselves are not leaders yet, then much difficulties will soon befall upon that company. As Peter Drucker will tell you, it is imperative to build a strong administration team, centered nearby strong leadership. In thinner times, gone are the days of two people for every position. Here are the days when a successful company is able to box good managerial skills into every leader, and good leadership skills into every manager. Failure to do so will result in failure to succeed. "Drucker devotes valuable exertion and space to defining the nature and role of management. This conference also focuses on the nature and value of leadership in the organization. According to Drucker, leadership gives the assosication meaning, defines and nurtures its central values, creates a sense of mission, and builds the systems and processes that lead to successful performance" (Wittmeyer, 2003). References
Anastasi, Thomas (1998). Personality negotiating: friction without casualty. Boston University,
Boston, Ma: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Augustine, Norman & Adelman, Kenneth (1999). Shakespeare in charge: the bard's guide to leading and succeeding on the company stage. New York, Ny: Hyperion
Brunsson, K. (2008). Some Effects of Fayolism. International Studies of administration & Organization, 38(1), 30-47.
Cohen, Norman. (2007). Moses and the journey to leadership: timeless lessons of effective management from the Bible and today's leaders. Woodstock, Vt: Jewish Lights Publishing.
Corrigan, Paul (1999). Shakespeare on management: leadership lessons for today's managers.
Dover, Nh: Kogan Page Limited. de Charon, Linda. (2003). A transformational leadership improvement program: Jungian
psychological types in dynamic flux. assosication improvement Journal, 21(3), 9-18.
Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2003, November). The Five Minds of a Manager. (cover story).
Harvard company Review, 81(11), 54-63
Jung, Carl (1923) science of mind Types. New York, Ny: Harcourt Press
Kibort, Phillip M (2004). administration vs. Leadership. Doctor Executive, 30(6), 32-35.
Klosko, George (1995). History of political theory: an introduction. Volume Ii; contemporary political theory. Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Group / Thomson Learning.
Lamond, David. (2005) On the value of administration history: appealing the past to understand the gift and apprise the future. administration Decision, incorporating the Journal of
Management History, 43, 10.
Lussier, Robert N. & Achua, Christopher F. (2007). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development, 3e. Mason, Oh: Thomson Higher Education.
McClelland D. & Burnham, D. H. (1995) Power is the great motivator. Harvard company
Review, January, 81(1), p117-126.
Mintzberg, H. (2004, August). Leadership and administration development: An afterword. Academy of administration Executive, 18(3), 140-142.
Pavett, C., & Lau, A. (1983, March). Managerial work: The work on of hierarchical level and functional specialty. Academy of administration Journal, 26(1), 170-177
Safferstone, Mark J. (2006). Organizational Leadership: excellent Works and Contemporary Perspectives.
Wittmeyer, C. (2003, August). The practice of Management: timeless Views and Principles. Academy of administration Executive, 17(3), 13-15
I hope you receive new knowledge about Assessment. Where you possibly can offer used in your life. And most significantly, your reaction is passed about Assessment. Read more.. supervision Vs. Leadership - An appraisal of Interdependence.
|
