Activity 1
Leadership, though an important concept in modern day organizations, lacks a single acceptable definition. That is because people associate it with motivation, traits, management etc. Leadership as an idea is seen as a good quality to be aspired for. However, it can justify deficient practice also. As Spicke (2011) points out, public and private organizations differ in their approach and the concept cannot be transplanted directly to public services (p. 45).
According to Goethal and Sorenson (2007), leadership has the following elements. Power in the hands of a leader who can command or direct is significant. If the follower has to obey orders, he should be motivated to do so. There is a relationship between the leader and follower in that the follower looks up to the leader and that the leader trusts that the follower will obey him (p. 17). There is a context to leadership which is for a particular period of time in an organizational setting. There are values involved since the commanding position vests solely in the leader.
Northouse (2016) gives the traits of good leaders. Intelligence for instance, is needed for the leader to make correct and timely decisions. Determination is needed so that the leader does not vacillate about taking tough decisions. He should be aware about the consequences of any of his decisions (p. 22-25). Sociability is also required; without it, people will neither follow leader’s orders nor communicate their problems to him.
Donahue (1999) is of the opinion that creativity, initiative, boldness and intuition rank very low in public firms rather than in private ones (p. 22-25). Public firms would like that there are no breaks to any aspect i.e. there should be continuity. The unknown is unpalatable to a public firm. Hence, one should always be able to predict the next move. Accountability is needed so that one can blame a specific person when things go wrong. One should not tilt toward any particular side i.e. impartiality should be maintained.
Activity 2
The Participative or Democratic leadership style would be suitable for all such activities that are related to the job, but this requires a team effort. Where the inputs and the activity of a group are important, it is necessary that ideas be tossed over to the group so that they can collectively come to a decision. The leader would not only make the employees feel involved in this manner but he can also shift some of his burden onto them.
The delegative or Laissez-faire leadership style is to be found in every situation where a specific employee is entrusted a particular job. With the exception of important decisions where the employee cannot take a singular decision, the superior delegates duty to the subordinate. In this case, the subordinate is responsible for his actions. The superior can always fall back on the junior if things go wrong as there is one person who is accountable for his actions.
In the real world, there would be no particular leadership style that a superior would use. Depending on the situation, the style can be changed so that different facets of leadership come to the fore highlighting the skill of the leader.
References
Donahue, J.D. (1999). Making Washington Work, Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. (2002). The President’ Management Agenda, FY 2002. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf
Goethals, G. R & Sorenson, G. J. (Eds.). (2007). The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th Edition. Bookshelf Online. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781483317540/
Spicke P. (2011). “Leadership”: a perniciously vague concept, 25 (1), 34-47. Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0951-3558. Retrieved from DOI 10.1108/09513551211200276 www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3558.htm
