Month: May 2018

Part 1: Assigned Leaders And Emergent Leaders

The assigned leader is an individual occupying a position in an organization, and the emergent leader is the most influential member of the group or the organization (Northouse, 2016). I think it is worth noticing that the emergent leader does not have to be the assigned leader. In another word, the emergent leader might be the assigned leader or might be someone else in the group. Moreover, the assigned leader is decided by the upper leaders, yet the emergent leader is recognized by the other members of the group.

Back to the days when I was playing piano in the orchestra of the university, our teacher was playing the role of assigned leader. She assigned us heavy tasks of practice every day and was extremely grumpy when we were slightly underperforming. Basically, all the members in the orchestra were exhausted and reluctant to play. One day, the teacher was somehow late to show up in the practice room. All the members just sat on their seats or the ground and chatted with each other. Clearly, everyone deliberately avoided talking about practice. Then I walked toward my piano and played the first note. I could feel them stopping talking and staring at me. Without asking me to stop or questioning my action, they just stayed quiet for a while. I looked back at them and tried to tell them that we were practising for ourselves rather than the teacher. They followed me eventually, and the teacher was totally surprised when she walked in. After that day, no matter how hard the practice and how long the time we had practised, no one complained and felt frustrated. I could feel the trust from them when I was sitting in front of my piano. They had told me that I gave them courage and reason to keep playing, and as long as I played they would follow me. Although the teacher was the assigned leader, I understood that I was the emergent leader at that time. Furthermore, it is the emergent leader who can emotionally sustain the whole group and genuinely encourage the members to show their best.

Part 2: Management and Leadership

There is some commonality between management and leadership. First, both leadership and management entail working with people; second, they value goal accomplishment; third, they both involve influence (Northouse, 2016).

On the other hand, management is about providing order and consistency and seeking stability, but leadership is about seeking adaptive and constructive change and producing movement (Northouse, 2016). Northouse (2016) also demonstrated main activities of management and leadership through a figure adapted from Kotter (1990). For instance, management involves planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, and controlling and problem solving; leadership contains establishing direction, motivating and inspiring, and aligning people (Northouse, 2016).

To be more specific, managers could establish agendas, set timetables, and allocate resources for planning and budgeting. They could provide structure, make job placements, and establish rules and procedures to achieve organizing and staffing. In order to control and solve problem, managers could develop incentives, generate creative solutions, and take corrective actions (Northouse, 2016). As for leaders, they could create the vision, clarify big pictures, and set strategies to establish direction for the team; they communicate goals, seek commitment, and build teams and coalitions to aligning people; they are also good at inspiring and energizing, empowering followers, and satisfying unmet needs.

Evidently, both management and leadership are essential for an organization to prosper. I could not identify the most significant approach in my heart. Then I read the sentence “Leaders change the way people think about what is possible” (Northouse, 2016, p. 15). This idea, which could also be illustrated as inspiring, actually serves as the most decisive factor for an organization to win and prosper. Therefore, I believe the approaches to motivating and inspiring are the most essential ones for an organization.

My question: how would you understand the idea of Bennis and Nanus (1985), “Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing” (p. 221)?

References

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

 

Unit 1 Learning Activities

The author has defined leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p. 6). Clearly, there are four components contained in the definition.

The first one is the process. I could not agree more with Northouse defining leadership as a process. Leadership is working at least for a period and requires responses from both leaders and followers. It is not enough for leadership being effective for just a moment or a minute. In addition, I think the process contributes to the outcome pursued by leaders and followers. Although the outcome may turn out to be completely different, the endeavour contained in the process matters the most. And the endeavour actually means the all the reactions caused by leadership. Moreover, I believe the energy flow is implied in the process. The energy flow does not only mean extrinsic communication, also means sharing the intrinsic feeling, need, aspiration, and so on. Leadership allows the energy of each individual to be seen and accepted by the other ones. In another word, the leaders and followers could perceive and exchange their energy smoothly in the process.

The second one is the influence. Besides all the points illustrated by the author in the textbook, I would like to add that this component is mostly talking about a linear, one-way event. Influence emphasizes the effects that the leaders have on the followers.

The third one is the group context. I think the importance of the group context to the leadership is like that of the soil to the flower. The group context is where the leadership takes place.

The last component is the goal attainment. I like the word “mutual” in the textbook. It shows that both leaders and followers in the group are sharing the something in common, which means all of them would working together to achieve the common goal. Having a mutual purpose is the best way to motivate everyone and to encourage them to show their best performance during the process. Also, it is worth mentioning that the goal attainment is resonated with the process.

At last, I would like to share my understanding of power. The author has thoroughly explained the types and effects of the power. As far as I am concerned, there are two more aspects that should be noticed. First, we need to admit the existence of power and accept it. The power implied in the leadership can be intimidating to both leaders and followers. Therefore, facing it is far more important than intentionally ignoring or avoiding it. Second, it is crucial to be aware of the attitude towards the power. To be more specific, the leaders have to wield the power in a right way, and the followers could be influenced willingly. This is the reasonable and logical way to make the best use of the power.

My question: Above all the five components, which one would you value the most?

Reference

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

https://create.twu.ca/ldrs500/unit-1/unit-1-learning-activities/