Provide analysis as to how this particular type of leadership would be applied within a business setting. Is there any one better style to choose from depending upon the type of organization or job position? Give examples.

The presumptuous assertion that workplace leaders are responsible for an organization’s success illustrates a fallacy within the philosophy of organizational theory, one that often overshadows what one’s onus to an effective leader and an effective follower could and should be.

Effective leadership, and an organization’s success is predicated by a positively oriented followership model, where followership transcends inspiration that is imparted by a positive leadership strategy. Adding credence to the aforenoted postulations, successful organizations will often realize that the two most influential persons in an organization exist at both the tail’s end and the organization’s head — with the head being guided by a transformational leader. [1][2]

An organization’s long-term financial sustainability lies in its ability to execute strategic action and the attainment of related setforth milestones. Leadership and followership are two paradigms that are closely intertwined, with each having a causal effect on another. For any organization to succeed and for any leader to lead, an inherent willingness to follow must be present. Therefore, cultivating effective followership is the first phase in developing a functional organization.

However, such could not be plausible without adhering to the underlying precepts of transformational leadership. A leaders ability to align followers in a manner that cedes to the organization’s strategic vision is the quintessence of effective leadership. Thus, it is is safe to postulate the effect that transformational leadership is best suited for organizations that necessitate a cohesive effort for organizational change. Positive transformational leadership is a paradigm where a member of the executive committee recognizes the need for organizational change and thereby levies any necessary followership to pursue said commitments. To levy such followership, a transformational leader should realize the incentives that motivate followership and leverage such to further the organization’s goals.

Thereby, per the afornoted theory: Transformational leadership is best suited for business models that necessitate change. Therein, the necessity behind change oftentimes is provoked by various macro and micro trends, such as: the cyclical nature social/economic markets, shareholder/board coercion, competition, and the adherence to developing shareholder equity (incluidng the cyclical nature of financial reports, and its influence on executive decision making.) Therefore, every business will eventually heed change, as failure to do so would result in net negative results, such as marketplace repositioning and the eventuality of insolvency. In essence, organizations that fail to realize change will fail.

The onus of an Executive-Committee memnber is to ensure that their organization is efficient and therein the workman are meeting set forth goals, wherein both manager and employee is expected to create results. Therefore, when considering the role of a leader, one must first consider several key paradigms within the workman ranks. Transformational leadership involves a leader superseding their own immediate self-interests in accordance to influencing the organization’s ranks within the workman hierarchy. This is achieved by realizing both shareholder’s goals and the stakeholders woes. Succesfull application of the aformentioned in turn should coalesce succusivly as collective identity.

Collective identity occurs when group effort is leveraged to achieve organizational goals. Collective identity, or the shared sense of oneself within group and therein one’s affinity to what belonging is, can only be achieved after a leader realizes their followership’s motivation. Without a positive follower role orientational and transformational leadership an effective leaders could not exist — thereby creating an implausible expectation for business to attain goals.

A successful organization will likely be predicated by a positively oriented followership between the workforce (everything sub middle-management) and executive leadership (‘Chief’ Officers and the corporate president). The driving factor in an organization’s success is sown within a hodgepodge of wjat os defined as a leaders gratis, or willingness for free will, and the mutual need between leaders and followers to having the onus of attaining organizational goals. For, if an organization fails to meet goals, then both leadership and followership face unemployment. In recognizing the quasi assured-destruction between workman and leader, a transformative leader would appreciate each employee and their needs — recognizing such as a prerequisite for employee motivation. Therefore employee interactions on-part should be an all-encompassing strategic-motion to achieve organizational goals with effeciancy.

The LMX, or Leader-Member-Exchange (LMX), studies the occurrences within a manager/subordinate relationship and the impact on outcomes between the leader and member within the exchange. The theory is conceived on the premise that leaders develop ‘differential relationships’ amongst followers through inspiration that is bound by organization goals. And by being beholden to idealistic and interpersonal relationships, a leader could achieve ‘high LMX score’ within the organization. However, such relationship differentiations influences are contingent upon the following premise: group cohesivenes is indeed contingent on leader-followership LMX differentiation. Leaders with high LMX relationships reinforce their follower’s core beliefs by being assessable, and moreso affable in the eye of the workman. This is accomplished by providing a platform for the rank and file within followership hiearcy to “voice” opinions, exercise autonomy, freethought, and critical thinking. This, in turn, affords the leader dictum when issuing workplace ordinances. Organizational leaders with a high LMX differentia are likely to realize organizational goals, whereas those with a low LMX relationship will likely struggle in executing strategy and realizing organizational goals.

A high LMX differential is characterized by an organization’s increased performance and satisfaction between workman and corporate governance. The high LMX relationship’s structure is characterized by a collaborative relationship where both leaders and subordinates recognize a symbiotic amongst group members, where each member’s output is a collective action towards the leadership’s vision.

Drawing on the premise of Social Construction of Leadership, followership’s perception of reality is in competition for the group’s onus and responsibility. It is defined by the individuals perception: one charecterized by a multitude of realities — all of which are perceivably congruent to truth and legitimacy [3]. Therefore, as predicted by several indictments within the study of organizational theory: workplace effectiveness and leadership coalesces behind an established group hierarchy and the interpersonal relationships formed therein. According to the Social Construction of Leadership, a successful leader would recognize the importance of every single social interaction with his subordinate.

To ensure workplace effectiveness, a transformative leader would first establish positive interpersonal relationships by establishing a synergy-based vision, that resonates with the organization’s mission statement, code of ethics, and the leader’s strategic vision. A leader could expect higher workplace job satisfaction by inducing positive incentives via interpersonal interaction — Such as exuberating the feeling of self-fulfillment in for-profit charitable work environments. This, in turn, manifests a capable and efficient workforce willing to produce quality output. In an ideal scenario, a transformative leader would be proficient in convincing followership of achieving ad Meliora et ad meliora semper, or always towards greater things.

An organization does not bear an exclusively bona fide relationship with just leadership; but rather it is a shared relationship between leader and followers, where each relational input has its mutually exclusive output. An effective leader would leverage a high LMX-followership model to affect strategic organizational goals and leadership’s vision. Therefore, in a transversal sense, followers are the true leaders of the organization, and an effective, transformative leader would recognize such caveats within the relationship’s inerrancies to achieve strategic goals. In essence, an organization’s solvency, especially when an occurrence of change is necessitated, it is highly dependent on executive leadership delving a positive LMX relationship with followership.

(Further Observations)

In essence, established norms and hierarchies do indeed exist, but perhaps, the situational outcomes are heavily predicated on LMX relationships. For instance, failure to adhere to Follower Orientation and positive Social Exchange Theory would result in a poor LMX relationship with a leader’s followers. As such, failure would require a lower hierarchy of authority, less employee-autonomy, and higher supervision oversight — all of which are indeed caveats to effective, transformative leadership. Therefore, effective, transformative leadership postulates the idea that decisions within an organization are made in a relatively democratic fashion — which in part is appropriated by a collaborative workflow model. And to achieve organizational goals in a democratic manner, a pragmatic, transformative leader would, at least in theory, consider followership-idealism as a passage towards achieving their vision and the organization’s goals.

References:

[1] How CEO’s Manage Time

https://hbr.org/2018/07/how-ceos-manage-time

[2] Why We Make Every Employee CEO For A Day

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/01/16/why-we-make-every-employee-ceo-for-a-day-and-why-you-may-want-to-do-the-same/?sh=78bebfcf6ef3

[3] The Social Construction of Leadership: A Sailing Guide

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247741887_The_Social_Construction_of_Leadership_A_Sailing_Guide

Question:

In a 3 page, double spaced, (Times New Roman 12 pt), 1 inch margins paper, please discuss one leadership style found in CHAPTERS 11 or 12 and critique its positive and negative aspects. Provide analysis as to how this particular type of leadership would be applied within a business setting. Is there any one better style to choose from depending upon the type of organization or job position? Give examples.

For this writing assignment, students will have two weeks to complete the paper. The writing assignment opens the beginning of week 10 and will be due at the end of Week 11, which, in this case, would be Tuesday, November 16th. Please proofread your work as this assignment has a lot of points. I would get started on this Week 10 as there is no additional assignment in Week 10. There is, however, an additional assignment in Week 11, so plan accordingly.

Students should include content from the textbook and 3 outside references in their discussion. Cite your sources and add a reference page.

The leadership styles to choose from include:

- Authentic leadership
- Ethical leadership
- Servant leadership
- Situational leadership
- Transactional leadership
- Transformational leadership

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store