Business Managment – Trait TheoryEssay Preview: Business Managment – Trait TheoryReport this essayTable of ContentQuestion OnePage 3 – 6“In any organisation, people model their behaviour on significant others: those they see in position of influence.” Analyse this statement using the various leadership theories.
Question TwoPage 7 – 9Provide an analysis of an individuals attitude, ability and perception.Question ThreePage 10 – 133.1 The different theories of motivation to determine the role of financial and non – financialrewards or incentives3.2 “When a companys goals for new behaviour are not reinforced, employees are less likelyto adopt it consistently” Discuss in terms of re – enforcement theories.4. Question FourPages 14 – 15Explanation of how organizational change will alter the intergroup dynamics of an organization.ReferencesPage 16Question 1Trait TheoryTrait theory attempts to identify what personal characteristics leaders exhibit. Fortunately physical characteristics are not predictors of good or bad leaders. Height, weight, age, personal appearance, or physique has not been found to be systematically related to leadership performance.
The trait approach to personality is one of the major theoretical areas in the study of personality. The trait theory suggests that individual personalities are composed broad dispositions. A trait can be thought of as a relatively stable characteristic that causes individuals to behave in certain ways. Unlike many other theories of personality, such as psychoanalytic or humanistic theories, the trait approach to personality is focused on differences between individuals. The combination and interaction of various traits forms a personality that is unique to each individual. Trait theory is focused on identifying and measuring these individual personality characteristics.
The traits approach gives rise to questions: whether leaders are born or made and whether leadership is an art or science. However, these are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Leadership may be something of an art; it still requires the application of special skills and techniques. Even if there are certain inborn qualities that make one a good leader, these natural talents need encouragement and development. A person is not born with self-confidence. Self-confidence is developed, honesty and integrity are a matter of personal choice, motivation to lead comes from within the individual, and the knowledge of business can be acquired. While cognitive ability has its origin partly in genes, it still needs to be developed. None of these ingredients are acquired overnight.
Behavioural TheoriesBehavioural theories of leadership do not seek inborn traits or capabilities. Rather, they look at what leaders actually do. If success can be defined in terms of describable actions, then it should be relatively easy for other people to act in the same way. This is easier to teach and learn then to adopt the more ephemeral traits or capabilities.
Behavioural theories of leadership are based upon the belief that great leaders are made, not born. Rooted in behaviorism, this leadership theory focuses on the actions of leaders not on mental qualities or internal states. According to this theory, people can learn to become leaders through teaching and observation.
Behavioural is a big leap from Trait Theory, in that it assumes that leadership capability can be learned, rather than being inherent. This opens the floodgates to leadership development, as opposed to simple psychometric assessment that sorts those with leadership potential from those who will never have the chance.
A behavioural theory is relatively easy to develop, as you simply assess both leadership success and the actions of leaders. With a large enough study, you can then correlate statistically significant behaviours with success. You can also identify behaviours which contribute to failure, thus adding a second layer of understanding.
Contingency TheoryContingency theories of leadership focus on particular variables related to the environment that might determine which particular style of leadership is best suited for the situation. According to this theory, no leadership style is best in all situations. Success depends upon a number of variables, including the leadership style, qualities of the followers and aspects of the situation.
Contingency theory attempts to provide a perspective on organizations and management based on the integration of prior theories. Contingency theory starts with the theme of “it depends,” arguing that the solution to any one managerial problem is contingent on the factors that are impinging on the situation. For instance, where little variation in materials exists in the production process, it is appropriate to break down the work into highly routine tasks. However, where variation is high, requiring many judgments concerning which material is appropriate and which is not, managers will want to avoid making tasks routine.
While the contingency approach is useful in recognizing that the complexity involved in understanding human and organizational systems makes it difficult to develop universal principles of management, there have been several criticisms of the approach. For one, it has been pointed out that the logical extension of the contingency approach is that all situations are unique. By applying contingency theory to the study of management, you will be able to identify and to solve problems under different situations. You will recognize that the successful application of a technique in one situation does not guarantee success in another. Rather, you will be able to examine each situation in terms of how it is affected by the contextual, organizational, and human dimensions. As a result, your overall ability to correct problems and to become more effective as a manager will increase.
[Table of Contents]
The Problem of the Falsification of Management: The New Science of How We Control Our Competences
by Michael White, PhD,
[From: Kevin K. Wood, Ph.D., [from: Michael White, PhD, [from: Kevin K. Wood, Ph.D., [from: Kevin K. Wood, Ph.D., …]]) This is a response to your response. “We see the world in a very simple way.
Our heads are spinning, our eyes are closed. We don’t know who is coming next.
We are working with a bad company, and the only thing that can bring us the success we want, is a hard job.
We have nothing to lose.
We are doing work of such incredible importance and enormous importance.
As you know, my main interest in management is that of managers, not about any one person. The great job of a manager as you know it, is to give his/her employees a sense of direction and a vision for a company. What your job does is not necessarily how it is done, but rather what it is for. I’ve been involved with companies of all kinds for many centuries, and in every generation these concepts have often seemed at odds with each other. There’s never been anything so important as a worker’s vision, or in fact, an employee’s plan. From my perspective, this has always been something I’ve struggled to understand and that’s why management is such a complex subject. As you know, managers can be seen from as little as a mile away. Even though they are all about their work, they all have to be made by some specific leader. They can work in teams, they can go to meetings, there’s no way to know what those people have to say to you; most managers just have to be right behind their backs, they can do some work. You can just walk in your office, you go in there to do some work– you’ll meet with the leader, see if they’ve done it and you’ll start making the decisions. You have to make those things up. So if I had a little more experience teaching people the concept and they were to look at these systems and then ask themselves, “What are certain situations that I want to work in that day and my team can do better?” They could say, “Well, that would be a good thing.” That really is it about having a deep understanding of something fundamental. There’s got to be some really concrete and important things that are going to be done that that leader can do to make the change that gets people involved, but the most important things are going to be that the decisions that are required are taken away, and that can also work in the absence of a leadership structure that is there for this to happen. But the goal is always to get people involved. And that’s something that I’ve wanted to talk about for some time. The leadership structure for a leadership project and that’s why I’ve been involved with this and that kind of question. What do you think, for your boss’s or manager’s perspective?
[Table of Contents]
The Problem of the Falsification of Management: The New Science of How We Control Our Competences
by Michael White, PhD,
[From: Kevin K. Wood, Ph.D., [from: Michael White, PhD, [from: Kevin K. Wood, Ph.D., [from: Kevin K. Wood, Ph.D., …]]) This is a response to your response. “We see the world in a very simple way.
Our heads are spinning, our eyes are closed. We don’t know who is coming next.
We are working with a bad company, and the only thing that can bring us the success we want, is a hard job.
We have nothing to lose.
We are doing work of such incredible importance and enormous importance.
As you know, my main interest in management is that of managers, not about any one person. The great job of a manager as you know it, is to give his/her employees a sense of direction and a vision for a company. What your job does is not necessarily how it is done, but rather what it is for. I’ve been involved with companies of all kinds for many centuries, and in every generation these concepts have often seemed at odds with each other. There’s never been anything so important as a worker’s vision, or in fact, an employee’s plan. From my perspective, this has always been something I’ve struggled to understand and that’s why management is such a complex subject. As you know, managers can be seen from as little as a mile away. Even though they are all about their work, they all have to be made by some specific leader. They can work in teams, they can go to meetings, there’s no way to know what those people have to say to you; most managers just have to be right behind their backs, they can do some work. You can just walk in your office, you go in there to do some work– you’ll meet with the leader, see if they’ve done it and you’ll start making the decisions. You have to make those things up. So if I had a little more experience teaching people the concept and they were to look at these systems and then ask themselves, “What are certain situations that I want to work in that day and my team can do better?” They could say, “Well, that would be a good thing.” That really is it about having a deep understanding of something fundamental. There’s got to be some really concrete and important things that are going to be done that that leader can do to make the change that gets people involved, but the most important things are going to be that the decisions that are required are taken away, and that can also work in the absence of a leadership structure that is there for this to happen. But the goal is always to get people involved. And that’s something that I’ve wanted to talk about for some time. The leadership structure for a leadership project and that’s why I’ve been involved with this and that kind of question. What do you think, for your boss’s or manager’s perspective?
Transformational LeadershipTransformational leadership is defined as a leadership approach that causes change in individuals and social systems. In its