Assigned and Emergent Leaders
According to Northouse (2018), the two common forms of leadership are assigned leadership and emergent leadership. Assigned leadership conveys that a formal position or title was given to an individual, regardless of the amount of influence he or she may have (Northouse, 2018: p. 8). In contrast, emergent leadership occurs when followers intentionally choose to be influenced by an individual, generally through an extended period of communication to build trust (Northouse, 2018: p.8).
During my undergrad in a new venture creation class, I worked with a team where we had to propose an app idea, test the market, and prepare it for market. Since I was very passionate about the project, I eventually emerged as the leader over the following weeks through daily communication with my teammates. My passion translated into being more dominant and self-confident (Northouse, 2018: p. 8). I could see the vision for our company and envision our app in the App Store. I was the big-picture person whereas my teammates focused on the details and daily tasks. This resulted in a dynamic team where we played to our each other’s strengths.
As already stated in my last blog post, management is primarily concerned with accomplishing tasks and providing consistency through a means of “planning, organizing, staffing, and controlling” (Northouse, 2018: p. 12). Managers create agendas and budgets, enforce deadlines and protocols, and provide structure and procedures. In contrast, leadership is about influencing and inspiring change by empowering followers to want to commit to a common goal (Northouse, 2018: p. 12).
In contemporary society, I believe that organizations need both management and leadership to be successful. If an organization only has management, it will become bureaucratic and lack creativity and innovation. If an organization wishes to have a competitive edge, it needs to foster creativity to differentiate itself in our global market. Conversely, if an organization only has leadership, the day-to-day processes and tasks may be misdirected, resulting in a loss of productivity, organization, and efficiency (Northouse, 2018: p. 12). Evidently, the interplay between management and leadership becomes the distinguishing feature of a successful, innovative organization in today’s globally competitive climate.
As an emergent leader, how does he or she incorporate and infuse creativity in a traditionally bureaucratic organization?
Christina
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice (Eighth ed.). Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications.
Christina,
It seems this post actually serves, in some way, as a response to my comments on your earlier post; it does sound like you think both managers and leaders play an important role in accomplishing a shared vision or goal.
Your question is an important one for many organizations — how do you foster innovation and creativity, particularly in organizations that are well-established in bureaucracy? In his book, “Change Leadership in Higher Education,” Buller (2015) posits that “All organizations resist change. After all, that’s their job. The whole purpose of any organization is to act in ways that are regular, consistent, and predictable. And regularity, consistency, and predictability are natural enemies of change” (p. 2). Of course, Buller’s book is all about change and he makes the argument that change could maybe more accurately described as growth, because it builds on what has come before it.
Considering this, I wonder if you think there are structures or processes that support innovation and creativity? Do think those elements are a necessary element of even the most creative organizations?
— Leadership Prof