Overview of Leadership Personality Theories

Overview of Leadership Personality Theories CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION â€Å"The study of leadership rivals in age the emergence of civilization, which shaped its leaders as much as it was shaped by them. From its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders—what they did and why they did it† (Bass, 1990). According to Keith Davis (1967), â€Å"Leadership is the ability to persuade others to seek defined objectives enthusiastically. It is the human factor which binds a group together and motivates it towards goals†. Barnard in 1938, defined leadership as, â€Å"The ability of a superior to influence the behavior of subordinates and persuade them to follow a particular course of action†. Leadership has a range of definitions but at its simplest it is concerned with the ability to influence others to accomplish goals. The concept of leadership, and the study of the phenomenon, has its roots in the beginning of civilization. Various work-related variables such as work environment, worker motivations, leaders, managers, leadership style, have been the subject of study for almost two centuries. (Gregory Stone, Kathleen Patterson, 2005). The organizational focus of the leader emerged over this period, from organizations operating with an authoritarian style to ones that operate with a more comfortable work environment. Today, organizations are in a transit stage of empowering, encouraging and supporting personnel in their personal and professional growth throughout their careers. The focus of leaders has changed over time, which has influenced and shaped the development and progression of leadership theory (Gregory Stone, Kathleen Patterson, 2005). Researchers have examined leadership skills from a variety of perspectives. Early analyses of leadership from the 1900s to the 1950s focused on identifying the differences between the characteristics of a leader viz. a viz. a follower. Study findings suggested that no single trait or combination of traits fully explained the abilities of a leader. Later studies, examined the influence of the situation on leaders skills and behaviors. Subsequent leadership studies attempted to distinguish effective from non-effective leaders. These studies attempted to determine which leadership behaviors were exemplified by effective leaders. Leadership studies of the 1970s and 1980s once again focused on the individual characteristics of leaders which influence their effectiveness and the success of their organizations. The investigations led to the conclusion that leaders and leadership are critical but complex components of organizations. Leadership is necessary for a variety of reasons. On a supervisory level, leadership is required to complement organizational systems (Katz Kahn, 1978) and to enhance subordinate motivation, effectiveness and satisfaction (Bass, 1990). At the strategic level, leadership is necessary to ensure the coordinated functioning of the organization as it interacts with a dynamic external environment (Katz Kahn, 1978). Thus leadership is required to direct and guide organizational and human resources toward the strategic objectives of the organization and ensure that organizational functions are aligned with the external environment (Zaccaro, 2001). Research on leadership has been divided into 8 major schools (John Antonakis, Anna T. Cianciolo, Robert J. Sternberg, 2004): Trait School of Leadership (1900s) Behavioral School of Leadership (1910s) Contingency School of Leadership (1960s) Contextual School of Leadership (1960s) Skeptics (1970s) Relational (1970s) New Leadership (1970s) Information Processing (1980s) The trait movement gave way to the behavioral styles of leadership in the 1950s. This line of research focused on the behaviors that leaders enacted and how they treated followers. The well-known University of Michigan (Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, Floor, 1951) and Ohio State (Stogdill Coons, 1957) studies identified two dimensions of leadership generally referred to as consideration (i.e., employee-oriented leadership) and initiating structure (i.e., production-oriented leadership). Leader behaviors are often discussed in terms of whether the behavior is oriented toward (a) task processes, (b) relational dynamics, or (c) change. One consistent theme in the literature is that behaviors can be fit into four categories: task-oriented behaviors, relational-oriented behaviors, change-oriented behaviors, and what we refer to as passive leadership. Initiating structure represents task-oriented behaviors. It describes behaviors such as defining task roles and role relationships among group members, coordinating group members’ actions, determining standards of task performance, and ensuring group members perform up to those standards. They describe leaders as being clear about expectations and standards for performance, and using these standards to shape follower commitment, motivation, and behavior. Moreover, initiating structure discusses dealing with deviations from those standards via the use of structure and routines. Relative to initiating structure, consideration leader behaviors describe more relational-oriented behaviors. In particular, leaders high on consideration show concern and respect for individual group members, are friendly and approachable, are open to input from others, and treat all group members as equals (Bass, 1990). A common theme among relational-oriented behaviors is that the leader acts in ways that build follower respect and encourage followers to focus on the welfare of the group. It should be noted that certain aspects of transformational leader behaviors (e.g., individualized consideration) also consist of a relational orientation, which is a point that will be revisited later in the manuscript. Leader behaviors oriented toward facilitating and driving change in groups and organizations represent a third category of leader behaviors that is conceptually distinct from task and relational-oriented behaviors. According to Yukl et al. (2002), change-oriented leader behaviors encompass actions such as developing and communicating a vision for change, encouraging innovative thinking, and risk-taking The present study deals with two dimensions of Leader Behavior, Initiating Structure and Consideration Structure. â€Å"Initiating Structure reflects to the extent to which an individual is likely to define and structure his role and those of his subordinates toward goal attainment† (Fleishman Peters, 1962). It refers to the leader’s behavior in endeavoring to establish well-defined patterns of organization, channels of communication, and methods of procedure. Initiating structure refers to getting the job done. The individual who exhibits behavior highly oriented toward initiating structure is one who sees or recognizes the job to be done and more to accomplish it. This individual is task-oriented. He strives to fulfill the purposes of the organization, often at the expense of others concerned. Initiating structure reflects behavior which: Emphasizes the quality of work. Clarifies everyone’s responsibilities. Is continually planning to get everything done. Offers new approaches to problems. Is first in getting things started. Encourages the meeting of deadlines. â€Å"Consideration Structure reflects the extent to which an individual is likely to have job relationships characterized by mutual trust, respect for subordinates’ ideas, and consideration of their feelings† (Fleishman Peters, 1962). It refers to behavior indicative of friendship, mutual trust, respect and warmth in the relationship between leader and members of his staff. Consideration reflects concern for individuals in a group and their feelings. The individual exhibiting behavior highly oriented to consideration, tries to maintain close understanding between members of a group. This person is more concerned with group cohesiveness than with accomplishing specific purposes. Consideration is reflected by a person when he: Finds time to listen to others. Does little things to make it pleasant to work with him. Shows interest in others as persons. Compliments others for their work. Has an open ear. Has others share in making decisions. A combination of both initiation structure and consideration structure is the most productive type of leader behavior. A study conducted by Bruce M. Fisher and Jack E. Edwards, on ‘Consideration and Initiating Structure and their relationships with Leader Effectiveness† suggested that situations play a major role in determining the best suitable leader behavior. Leaders play a very important role in the formation and functioning of teams. Henderson and Walkinshaw (2002), defined the effectiveness of a team as, â€Å"The accomplishment of a desired result, especially as viewed after the fact† and the measure of effectiveness as â€Å"The extent to which a team meets the demands which are placed upon†. Work teams in organizations have three features. First, they are real groups – intact social systems, complete with boundaries, interdependence among members, and differentiated member roes (Alderfer, 1977). Second they have one or more group tasks to perform, producing some outcome for which members bear collective responsibility and whose acceptability potentially can be assessed. Finally such teams operate in organizational context. This means that the group, as a collective, manages its relations with other individuals or groups in the larger social system in which it operates. To perform well, a team must surmount three hurdles. It must: (1) exert sufficient effort to get the task accomplished at an acceptable level of performance; (2) bring adequate knowledge and skill to bear on the work; and (3) employ task performance strategies that are appropriate to the work and to the setting in which it is being performed (Hackman and Morris, 1975). Teams are formed for the express purpose of accomplishing critically important goals. Its formation does not automatically lead to performance. In fact, without significant and ongoing nurturing by the leadership of an organization, teams can actually make things worse. It is helpful to understand the building blocks required for a team’s success. Robbins and Judge (2012) describe a three dimensional model that articulates its foundation. Dimension 1 relates to the importance of Context. Organizations need to support the construction and sustainability of a team, and the team itself requires an environment of comfort for its members; psychological safety is essential so members can feel free to speak up and engage without ridicule. Performance feedback and motivational systems must also be in place. Dimension 2 suggests Composition is vital. In addition to knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of its membership, the leader needs to focus on the peoples components as well Dimension 3 reveals Process is important. Teams must have clear purpose and specific goals. It is hard to motivate without all members having a clear idea of the direction the unit is heading. In addition, mechanisms and agreements must be in place to deal with conflicts that arise and/or the members who are not â€Å"getting it done† Since teams are a dominant feature in organizations, its effectiveness is paramount to the success of the business. To that end, leaders must understand the dimensions that make a team successful and then work diligently to make it happen. In addition, when teams derail, mechanisms must be in place to bring it back to life; it is the responsibility of the leaders’ to make it happen.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Essay -- Race Ethnicity Health

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Large disparities exist between minorities and the rest of Americans in major areas of health. Even though the overall health of the nation is improving, minorities suffer from certain diseases up to five times more than the rest of the nation. President Clinton has committed the nation to eliminating the disparities in six areas of health by the Year 2010, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be jumping in on this huge battle. The six areas are: Infant Mortality, Cancer Screening and Management, Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, HIV Infection and AIDS, and Child and Adult Immunizations. Infant mortality is considered a worldwide indicator of a nation’s health status. The United States still ranks 24th in infant mortality compared with other industrialized nations, even though infant mortality has declined steadily over the past several decades. Compared with the national average in 1996 of 7.2 deaths per 1,000 live births, the largest disparity is among blacks with a death rate of 14.2 per 1,000 in 1996 which is almost 2Â ½ times that of white infants (6 deaths per 1,000 in 1996). American Indians as a whole have an infant death rate of 9 deaths per 1,000 in 1995, but some Indian communities have an infant mortality rate almost twice that of the national rate. The same applies to the Hispanic community, whose rate of 7.6 deaths per 1,000 births in 1995 doesn’t reflect the Puerto Rican community, whose rate was 8.9 deaths per 1,000 births in 1995. The disparities may be attributed to the amount of prenatal care that pregnant women of different ethnicities receive. In 1996, 81.8% of all women in the nation received prenatal care in the first trimester--the m... ...east 90% coverage for all childhood vaccines in all populations. Increase pneumococcal and flu immunizations among adults 65 and older by 60%. Let’s all hope it can be done because in order for our nation to thrive, our nation needs to be healthy and there is no excuse for the disparities minorities face when it comes to their health. Works Cited United States. US Department of Health and Human Services. The Initiative to Eliminate Racial and Ethnic Disparitites in Health. 26 May 1998. Online. Internet. 21 February 1999. Available <http://raceandhealth.hhs.gov/home.htm>. "Eliminating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health." Public Health Reports. July/August 1998: 372 EBSCOhost. Available <http://www.epnet.com/ehost/login.html>. (11 February 1999) Unknown Authors. "Health and Medicine." Encyclopedia of Multiculturalism. Volume 3. p 821

Ford Fiesta Movement

In April 2009, The Ford Motor Company launched a new marketing campaign called the Ford Fiesta Movement. The campaign had an unusual approach, never previously used before by Ford since being incorporated in June 1903: Ford used amateurs to create ads for Ford Fiesta, their new B category car and relied on (an artificially designed) Word of Mouth Marketing that used online social media to build awareness. Their thinking was unusual in two ways: Today, it’s a familiar case to everyone to use blogs and social media to engage buyers, but in 2009 letting consumers take over your brand was unheard of.Plus, Ford decided to create a campaign for a product that was not on sale and would not be sold for another 12 months from the start of the campaign (‘atypical timeline’ –Exhibit E). Two months into the campaign the marketing team responsible for the effort had to evaluate the campaign’s performance and possible next steps. There are two key questions: How d o you evaluate a marketing campaign’s performance for a specific product, when in reality you haven’t sold anything? What should Ford do after the campaign to leverage the newly build brand awareness and convert interest into sales?Measuring Campaign Efficiency – Will we make enough profit at the end? 1) Calculate expectation: There are very few hints in the case study that allows the reader understand how would Ford measure success: Ford targeted 9% market-share from the total amount of new passengers in the B category, a segment that consisted of 437,000 passengers – that works out to an expected 39,330 cars sold At the start of the campaign Ford expected a 100. 000 test drives within the 12 months Calculating with Ford’s expectation of market share, it sounds like Ford expected to sell 39.330 cars out of the 100. 000 expected test drives, which tells us that every test drive, in Ford’s mind has a 39% conversion rate. This is one benchmark we can use to assess the prospects of the campaign At the time of evaluation Ford accounted for 6,000 test drives for the 2 months, unless there is a fundamental change in the number of cars available for test drives, the trajectory is that this will allow Ford to assume a total of 30,000 test drives ONLY for the next 10 months of the campaign, and a sum of 36,000 test drives for the total year.Calculating with the assumed 39% test-drive success rate Ford seems well behind on its plans to reach a 9% market share. (36,000 x 0. 39= 14,040 vs. 39,330) Why is this problem? 2) Will this trajectory make enough profit? What sort of profit does a car manufacturer make on a new car? Unfortunately, no profit margin % figures were given in the case study, but if one looks at industry averages on the internet (Exhibit A), the average manufacturer makes about 4.13% net profit margin on every car.I am going to use this percentage and the given selling prices in the case: both the low-end and hig h-end selling prices in order to calculate potential revenue and profit generated against the year to date and year to go spend to assess whether the test drive figures for Ford Fiesta are an indication of an acceptable Return on Investment or could they be dangerously low? The calculation above shows worth case and best case scenarios.The calculated figures above show that Ford needs to be very careful: If the test drives remain this low, and the majority of buyers chose a low-end, lower spec, low priced car, the campaign with industry average net profit margins would probably not be on break-even. This tells us that It would probably be worth importing more test cars from Europe – see cost reasoning below – as soon as possible or/and transform some cars that are now currently used by the advocators into test driving cars, e. g. Ford could make a policy that the bottom 20% advocators would have to hand over their cars for better use.These two steps (importing more car s and converting advocators cars) seemingly would be vital to deliver business success. 3) Measuring Campaign Efficiency – Other Performance Indicators – The Reach and CMP Based on the case study Ford is happy about their early results when it comes to their website visits, video-views, tweets and blog mentions, these all perform above expectations they say. But how can we make sure that the spending of $3,000,000 is justified for the amount of impressions Ford experienced in the first 2 months?Calculating the total Reach is relatively easy, we could in theory add up all the impressions from all internet sources mentioned in the case study to get an arbitrary number for total impressions reached with this spending – see below chart. Ford exposed a total of 5,049,256 people to their Fiesta Movement. This means that the target audience watched and paid attention to what Agents got up to, leaving comments and replying to videos, and linking the Agent content on the ir own web-sites. But was this the most effective spend of the $ 3 million?To compare this, we need to calculate the CPM and compare this to different media spend at the time of the campaign – 2009. The CPM: using the cost of the campaign and dividing that by the number of impressions, expressed in thousand is: 3,000,000/ (5,049,256/1000) = 600. This number is atrociously high when compared to TV ($10), Magazine ($7), Cable TV ($6) CPMs in 2009 (Exhibit B) – I hope I calculated this correctly. So the question is: Would TV/Radio/Cable TV be able to generate the same number of test-drives and conversion? We do not have data for this, unfortunately.What Ford was looking at at the time was that the campaign was on track when it comes to building a buzz around the new product and the total cost of the campaign was going to be small when compared to the overall cost of a nation-wide TV campaign. Below I compared the expected web-visits, video-posts, calculated indexes and al so calculated total impressions for areas like Video’s posted online, photos posted online and tweets. Mid-term corrections The measure of success of a marketing campaign in the car industry is the number of test drives that can turn into sales.As mentioned above, these were WELL BELOW expectations in the case of Ford Fiesta because of the limited cars available. This was not just an opportunity for Ford; it was a must to increase the number of cars available for test drive. It would have been a crucial business decision to import more cars suitable to drive in the U. S. to expand the number of cars available to try for the Public. The cost of a test car is around $20. 000 ($2 million divided by the 100 cars employed from the case)– this includes import duties and running costs. Let’s say a car can bare an average 5 drives a day, with 10 months remainingfrom the campaign that would be (365/12*10 x 5) 1. 520 test drives per car and we expect 39% of those turning into sales = 593 potential car sales – that is a potential $5,931,250 Revenue and $244,961 profit (calculating with 4,13% average industry margin). This means each and every car added to the test-drive pool has a huge potential to generate incremental revenue and sales for Ford. On top of this, cars should have been taken from the bottom 20% of bloggers based on their performance and put into the test drive pool. Converting Interest into SalesThere are a number of ways one can convert interest into sales. Without testing these Ford would not know which ones deserve more resources than others, so I am going to list these ideas, but will not elaborate as no test results are available: Using the collected e-mails to send out newsletters with special videos, personal messages and even promotional offers (one year insurance for free if you buy now†¦) Following up promotional e-mail messages with a Telemarketing effort inviting people who opened e-mails for test drives Embeddi ng promotional offers to all YouTube videosAsking newest Ford Fiesta buyers after the launch to become brand ambassadors and post their positive experiences on their personal social media circles (Facebook, twitter, YouTube).I think not using fresh, new buyers for a product for future testimonials is a lost opportunity Promoting the opportunity of test-drives in all social media channels and in Point of Sales more aggressively for a set period of time (Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook) – (assuming the issue with lack of cars for test drives has been corrected) Partnering with selected car dealers agreeing that they would fill their full car park with Ford Fiesta’s for a two week period and no other cars would be placed on their premises (based on the successful Heineken pub case)Sending direct mail packages to selected previous Ford users if such list is available, whose cars are about to reach a certain age (5-7 years) with a message that it is time to change. The list needs to be well selected, assuming that we target people who are in need of a B category car Campaign in high-schools or around the teen-age target audience (teenage car show? ) building messaging on Ford’s highest safety perception in 2009 & 2010 listed in the case study Closing Remarks Although the case is set two months into the Fiesta Movement, as the team evaluates just the first set of metrics and seemingly they are behind target on their most crucial metric: number of test drives, we already know that Ford decided to continue the Fiesta Movement and thus created a unique campaign that left everybody much (!) wiser about marketing in the digital space and proved everyone that social media has tremendous potential for business organizations.Ford Fiesta became the company’s best performer, far exceeding the company’s expectations, helped turn around not just Ford’s business performance but stock performance as well (Exhibit D). This is probably becau se the campaign worked with a perfect idea of identifying and using capable individuals who are able to generate a steady-stream of content to raise interest level AND who are positively motivated to share their experiences when a Ford Fiesta is in their daily lives. This combination created tremendous market receptivity.We now also know that the effects of the campaign are beyond any imaginations or forecasts*:†¢Ford sold 10,000 cars in the first week of sales for the fraction of the cost of a national TV campaign†¢The campaign generated over 30,000 original content, 40,2 million Twitter and Facebook impressions and 229 million consumer engagements†¢Produced over 50,000 requests for more information from people who never used a Ford before†¢The campaign also generated high profile media coverage in outlets like The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, USA Today and CNET. According to Ford’s research, 60% of the public is now aware of the Fiesta brand even though the vehicle has not yet debuted, a metric that would have cost $50 million in traditional media spend to achieve. (*Enhanced Online News, 2010 July: Action Marketing Group Awarded Golden Effie for Ford Fiesta Influencer Campaign)

The Search Of Happiness By Jeff Haden - 1463 Words

In the search of happiness, meaning makes an impact. When we experience happiness, we are placing meaning to that specific event. The association we make and link our happiness too has to have meaning. The reason person A enjoys long walks at the park and associates them with happiness is because it brings back happy childhood memories. Person B may not associate long walks at the park with happiness, but Sunday meals with the family with happiness. The reason different people have different meanings of happiness is because we can create and bring our own meaning to happiness. To know what brings meaning to your life is a crucial part of finding happiness. When someone can establish what brings meaning to their lives; they can stat to embrace those relationships more. Jeff Haden writer of the article, â€Å"Want to Be happier? Science Says Do These 11 Things Every Single Day,† says â€Å"staying in touch with friends and family is one of the top five regrets of the dying† (Jeff Haden, â€Å"Want to Be Happier Science Says Do These 11 Things Every Single Day†). The relationship we form with the people we love creates a happy experience; those who do not invest the time to spend to cultivate their relationships run the risk of missing out on happiness. In the search of meaningfulness, we have to let go of the meaning we put on the things we acquire like: money, clothes, house, cars. If we neglect our meaningful relationships in order to obtain riches and wealth, it will be at the expense of