A511.2.4.RB: Leadership Analysis

      As identified by Gary Yukl, there are many different viewpoints and research surveys that focus on leadership behavior that influence employee’s performance and overall organizational efficiency. However to this day, I cannot recall a study that fits all situations. What I have discovered is too often these studies concentrate these studies on the person in charge and not on the human factor and the ever changing environment (external and internal). For the environment in which I currently work, I am of the belief that the Change-Oriented Behavior style of leadership is what I think is most appropriate. Change, both internal and external, plays a huge role in the federal government and it has an effect on employees on all levels. As quoted by the philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli in 1532, "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." Author Gary Yukl emphasizes how this style of leadership is incorporated in both charismatic and transformational leadership styles thus enhancing the ability of leaders to understand the environment while finding innovative ways to adapt and implement changes to an organization.

       Those who serve in a leadership position for any federal government must understand that change are inevitable when it comes to organizational goals and they must be resourceful when coming up with innovative ways to reach those goals. This is very important because the federal government is in constant change. There are many variables that influence the federal objective, to include politics, foreign affairs, budget constraints and so on. For the federal government, a person not only must be able to accept constant change, they also need to adapt to get buy in for to subordinates and to adapt to the organization 's way of operating at any given time. As far as if these leaders are effective in producing results, it is hard to determine how success should be defined. The federal government does not operate on a profit based principle as the corporate environment does. From a personal perspective, I worry that a more hard line style of leadership is needed; one that holds everyone more accountable. Yukl stated that these leaders encourage people to view problems or opportunities in a different way. Leaders that fi this category also needs to be a spin doctor; having the ability to find the positive perspective, no matter what the issue is.

       With all of this information being presented, I must be very clear in stating that this style of leadership is not perfect in any way. The problem with this style of leadership is it can confuse subordinates; in which employees become frustrated and disillusioned by inconsistencies. This style of leadership also stresses that a leader be entrenched in the objectives of the organization; thus they need to understand the implications of changes before implementing. To address the question of whether or not the various leadership style presented by Yukl are used by me. I would have to say yes. I think leaders who strive for success must be flexible in their leadership approach. I believe I have already added them to my personal repertoire of leadership behaviors. Then question is when to use them. However, understanding that change oriented style may be best for the environment in which I work, I do have a style I will always consider my safe mode for success. From a personal perspective, I think the one leadership style that has the most potential for success is transformational leadership. With this style a lot of focus is based on the leader that sets a good example and clearly communicates organizational goals to subordinates. This style of leadership inspires subordinates to focus on what is best for the organization. So far, it has not failed me.

•A511.1.5.RB - Leadership Analysis

Understanding the concepts of leadership and management are processes that are often made very complex.  I don’t understand why we as a society must define both in such multifaceted and often complicated ways.  In my personal opinion, both terms can be defined in a one word definition; leadership inspires, while management directs.   However, as simple as this may be, many so called experts will disagree with me while some would hesitantly agree with me. 

In 2011, renown leadership expert Henry Mintzberg participated in a special issue of the journal, Strategy & Leadership, where he made two profound statements (to me anyway) that I think speaks volumes to the field of leadership.  (1) The problem with the concept of leadership is that it implies everyone else is a follower.  To me, this speaks to the basic instinct of all living things; survival.  Not everyone or every living creature is willing to be a follower; many seek to be the “alpha”, which is defined in many circles as the individual in the community with the highest rank of authority.  I feel this applies also to the business community as it relates to organizational and individual success.  Many leaders have left companies because they themselves wanted to be that person in charge, thus not followers.  In the same sense many managers have left companies because they did not believe in the leadership vision in which they worked (more to come on this later).  (2) The notion that one can be a leader and not a manager, originally postulated by Harvard Business School professor Abraham Zaleznik, is wrong. An executive cannot lead without managing.  If they’re not correlated in some way, the organization may become dysfunctional and inefficient. I agree whole-hearted with Mintzberg’s statement that for a person to truly comprehend the understanding leadership and management, individuals needs to occupy both roles within their career path. I believe this point is supported by the video of Simon Sinek's, “WHY…of leadership”.  How can a leader become successful if they do not know how to inspire employees or even connect them?  As Mr. Simon Sinek stated, Dr. Martin Luther King did speak of a dream that the audience shared, not a plan on how to overcome.  However, if he himself had never been deprived of such human rights, how would he know this (not by reading a book).  It has been said that to truly appreciate winning, one must experience defeat; to appreciate freedom, it must be taken from you; and I believe to truly embrace leadership and management, one must experience the good and bad of both roles. 

    

As far as Herb Kelleher and the question of why does Southwest Airlines exist, I think the slogan “Freedom to Fly" makes sense only when it is understood.  By in itself the slogan may seem somewhat blah.  On the other hand, when it is explained by leadership, it carries a different meaning which encompassed with a sense of motivation and even inspiration. I myself did not understand it, until I conducted further research on the slogan “Freedom to Fly".  I believe the same goes for the speech by Dr. King.  It is one thing to read a message, but when explained by a great leader, it can take on a totally different meaning.  This leads me back to that statement I made earlier on how leaders and managers have left companies because for various reasons.  The bottom line is in most situations people don’t leave companies and jobs; they leave because of poor leadership and management.  Mr. Kelleher and Dr. King proved this to be true.  Even when Southwest and its employees went through tough times, employees stood by the company and even though people knew the civil rights movement would not be easy, they stood by the words of Dr. King.