CORPORATE TRAINING SEMINARS - LEADERSHIP & MANAGEMENT TRAINING SERIES

1. Transformational Leadership: Lincoln's Gettysburg Address; A speech to Transform a Nation To Unite & Embrace Change for the Greater Good.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is a prime example of a collective appeal for the nation to adapt to transformational leadership principles. Transformational leadership is a leadership when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. The term was first coined by J.V. Downton in 1973 in Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in a Revolutionary Process.

James MacGregor Burns (1978) first introduced the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership in his treatment of political leadership, but this term is now used in organizational psychology as well. According to Burns, the difference between transformational and transactional leadership is what leaders and followers offer one another. "Transforming leadership... occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. Various names are used for such leadership, some of them derisory: elevating, mobilizing, inspiring, exalting, uplifting, preaching, exhorting, evangelizing. The relationship can be moralistic, of course. But transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both." (p. 20)

Transformational leaders offer a purpose that transcends short-term goals and focuses on higher order intrinsic needs. This results in followers identifying with the needs of the leader. The four dimensions of transformational leadership are idealized influence (or charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration.

2. Transformational Leadership: Leadership Vs. Management

Video 2 in the Transformational Leadership Series I. Comparing the similarities and contrast between leadership and management roles.

The word leadership can refer to:

The ability "to get people to follow voluntarily."
Those entities that perform one or more acts of leading.
The ability to affect human behavior so as to accomplish a mission designated by the leader.

The word leadership can refer to:

The ability "to get people to follow voluntarily."
Those entities that perform one or more acts of leading.
The ability to affect human behavior so as to accomplish a mission designated by the leader.

Leadership is a quality an individual may possess. One can categorize the exercise of leadership as either actual or potential:

actual - giving guidance or direction, for example: a teacher being a leader to a student, as in the phrase "the emperor has provided satisfactory leadership".
potential - the capacity or ability to lead, as in the phrase "she could have exercised effective leadership"; or in the concept "born to lead".
Leadership can have a formal aspect (as in most political or business leadership) or an informal one (as in most friendships). Speaking of "leadership" (the abstract term) rather than of "leading" (the action) usually implies that the entities doing the leading have some "leadership skills" or competencies.

other categorisation from a 1939 study by Kurt Lewin suggest 3 types of leadership:

Authoritarian Leadership (Autocratic)- provides clear expectations for what needs to be done
Participative Leadership (Democratic)- the study found that style is generally the most effective. Democratic leaders offer guidance to the group, but also participate in the group and allow input from other members.
Delegative (Laissez-Fair)- Researchers found that children under this type of leadership were the least productive of all three groups.

The verb manage comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle — especially a horse), which in turn derives from the Latin manus (hand). The French word mesnagement (later ménagement) influenced the development in meaning of the English word management in the 17th and 18th centuries.[1]

Theoretical scope

Mary Parker Follett (1868--1933), who wrote on the topic in the early twentieth century, defined management as "the art of getting things done through people".[2] One can also think of management functionally, as the action of measuring a quantity on a regular basis and of adjusting some initial plan; or as the actions taken to reach one's intended goal. This applies even in situations where planning does not take place. From this perspective, Frenchman Henri Fayol [3] considers management to consist of five functions:

• 1. Planning
  2. Organizing
  3. Leading
  4. Co-ordinating
  5. Controlling

Some people, however, find this definition, while useful, far too narrow. The phrase "management is what managers do" occurs widely, suggesting the difficulty of defining management, the shifting nature of definitions, and the connection of managerial practices with the existence of a managerial cadre or class.

One habit of thought regards management as equivalent to "business administration" and thus excludes management in places outside commerce, as for example in charities and in the public sector. More realistically, however, every organization must manage its work, people, processes, technology, etc. in order to maximize its effectiveness. Nonetheless, many people refer to university departments which teach management as "business schools." Some institutions (such as the Harvard Business School) use that name while others (such as the Yale School of Management) employ the more inclusive term "management."

Speakers of English may also use the term "management" or "the management" as a collective word describing the managers of an organization, for example of a corporation. Historically this use of the term was often contrasted with the term "Labor" referring to those being managed.

3. Transformational Leadership Series: Leadership Vision

Leadership Vision and when it is necessary.

Many definitions of leadership involve an element of Goal management|vision — except in cases of involuntary leadership and often in cases of traditional leadership. A vision provides direction to the influence process. A leader or group of leaders can have one or more visions of the future to aid them to move a group successfully towards this goal. A vision, for effectiveness, should allegedly:

appear as a simple, yet vibrant, image in the mind of the leader
describe a future state, credible and preferable to the present state
act as a bridge between the current state and a future optimum state
appear desirable enough to energize followers
succeed in speaking to followers at an emotional or spiritual level (logical appeals by themselves seldom muster a following)
For leadership to occur, according to this theory, some people "leaders" must communicate the vision to others "followers" in such a way that the followers adopt the vision as their own. Leaders must not just see the vision themselves, they must have the ability to get others to see it also. Numerous techniques aid in this process, including: narratives, metaphors, symbolic actions, leading by example,incentives, and penalty|penalties.

Stacey (1992) has suggested that the emphasis on vision puts an unrealistic burden on the leader. Such emphasis appears to perpetuate the myth that an organization must depend on a single, uncommonly talented individual to decide what to do. Stacey claims that this fosters a culture of dependency and conformity in which followers take no pro-active incentives and do not think independently.

Kanungo's charismatic leadership model describes the role of the vision in three stages that are continuously ongoing, overlapping one another. Assessing the status quo, formulation and articulation of the vision, and implementation of the vision.

4. Transformational Leadership Series: Blake and Mouton Grid

Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid.

The Managerial Grid Model (1964) is a behavioral leadership model developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. This model identifies five different leadership styles based on the concern for people and the concern for production. The optimal leadership style in this model is based on Theory Y.

A graphical representation of the Managerial GridAs shown in the figure, the model is represented as a grid with concern for production as the X-axis and concern for people as the Y-axis; each axis ranges from 1 (Low) to 9 (High).

The impoverished style (1,1)
In this style, managers have low concern for both people and production. Managers use this style to avoid getting into trouble. The main concern for the manager is not to be held responsible for any mistakes, which results in less innovative decisions.

Features 1. Does only enough to preserve job and job seniority. 2. Gives little and enjoys little. 3. Protects himself by not being noticed by others.

Implications 1. Tries to stay in the same post for a long time.

The country club style (1,9)
This style has a high concern for people and a low concern for production. Managers using this style pay much attention to the security and comfort of the employees, in hopes that this would increase performance. The resulting atmosphere is usually friendly, but not necessarily that productive.

The produce or perish style (9,1)
With a high concern for production, and a low concern for people, managers using this style find employee needs unimportant; they provide their employees with money and expect performance back. Managers using this style also pressure their employees through rules and punishments to achieve the company goals. This dictatorial style is based on Theory X of Douglas McGregor, and is commonly applied by companies on the edge of real or perceived failure.This is used in case of crisis management.

The middle-of-the-road style (5,5)
Managers using this style try to balance between company goals and workers' needs. By giving some concern to both people and production, managers who use this style hope to achieve situable performance.

The team style (9,9)
In this style, high concern is paid both to people and production. As suggested by the propositions of Theory Y, managers choosing to use this style encourage teamwork and commitment among employees. This method relies heavily on making employees feel as a constructive part of the company.

5. Transformational Leadership Series: Management Styles

Leadership and Management Styles.

Leadership "styles" (per House and Podsakoff)
In 1994 House and Podsakoff attempted to summarize the behaviors and approaches of "outstanding leaders" that they obtained from some more modern theories and research findings. These leadership behaviors and approaches do not constitute specific styles, but cumulatively they probably[citation needed] characterize the most effective style of today's leaders/managers. The listed leadership "styles" cover:

Vision. Outstanding leaders articulate an ideological vision congruent with the deeply-held values of followers, a vision that describes a better future to which the followers have an alleged moral right.
Passion and self-sacrifice. Leaders display a passion for, and have a strong conviction of, what they regard as the moral correctness of their vision. They engage in outstanding or extraordinary behavior and make extraordinary self-sacrifices in the interest of their vision and mission.
Confidence, determination, and persistence. Outstanding leaders display a high degree of faith in themselves and in the attainment of the vision they articulate. Theoretically, such leaders need to have a very high degree of self-confidence and moral conviction because their mission usually challenges the status quo and, therefore, may offend those who have a stake in preserving the established order.
Image-building. House and Podsakoff regard outstanding leaders as self-conscious about their own image. They recognize the desirability of followers perceiving them as competent, credible, and trustworthy.
Role-modeling. Leader-image-building sets the stage for effective role-modeling because followers identify with the values of role models whom they perceived in positive terms.
External representation. Outstanding leaders act as spokespersons for their respective organizations and symbolically represent those organizations to external constituencies.
Expectations of and confidence in followers. Outstanding leaders communicate expectations of high performance from their followers and strong confidence in their followers' ability to meet such expectations.
Selective motive-arousal. Outstanding leaders selectively arouse those motives of followers that the outstanding leaders see as of special relevance to the successful accomplishment of the vision and mission.
Frame alignment. To persuade followers to accept and implement change, outstanding leaders engage in "frame alignment". This refers to the linkage of individual and leader interpretive orientations such that some set of followers' interests, values, and beliefs, as well as the leader's activities, goals, and ideology, becomes congruent and complementary.
Inspirational communication. Outstanding leaders often, but not always, communicate their message in an inspirational manner using vivid stories, slogans, symbols, and ceremonies.
Even though these ten leadership behaviors and approaches do not really equate to specific styles, evidence has started to accumulate[citation needed] that a leader's style can make a difference. Style becomes the key to the formulation and implementation of strategy[citation needed] and plays an important role in work-group members' activity and in team citizenship. Little doubt exists that the way (style) in which leaders influence work-group members can make a difference in their own and their people's performance[citation needed].

(Adopted from: Robert House and Philip M. Podsakoff, "Leadership Effectiveness: Past Perspectives and Future Directions for Research" in Jerald Greenberg (ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ., 1994, pp[citation needed] .)