“Edmonson and Mulder (1924) were two of the first investigators to study class size and achievement” (Williams, Quinn, & Jensen, 1985, p. 307). This is good information to know because this topic has not even been researched for one hundred years and still, may not have a definite answer. In this study, small classes did better than large classes on quizzes, but on final exams they achieved about the same. This research study had very mixed results, but it was written in 1985, so there is more evidence today in
Nietzsche states that concepts, however, are “never the objective grasp of some essence” (Raffoul, 2010, p. 83) and it is not some inherited transcendental knowledge. Concepts were invented by man to make sense of his subjective world. Language and concepts have no anchor in the objective world. It does not come from the ‘real’ world, but from the anthropomorphic world of humans. There’s no objective validity in concepts and are therefore fictitious or false (2010, p. 83).
Unlike the Fielder model, the Path-Goal model considers leaders to have some flexibility in moderating their leadership styles in response to changing situations (University of Leicester 2011). Nevertheless, despite the identification of behaviours and contingency moderators that can improve leadership in a given situation, practicing that behavior ultimately depends upon the abilities and social skills of the leader. In terms of the Fielder contingency model (University of Leicester 2011), since it was not possible to have the MD retrospectively and remotely provide an LPC score at this time, it is assumed that, if he were he able to, the MD would have scored high on the LAC as not only was his style more relationship-oriented than task-oriented, but at this stage of his career, he was undoubtedly confident in his abilities . Given his personality, his leader member relationship was also likely to be generally advantageous as he had put a lot of effort into building trusting relationships across the bank. However, since the organizational goals were new and the management was new, the task structure would have been ambiguous and therefore disadvantageous.
Once everything is defined, one must now weigh their options, and evaluate the outcome of the actions. Finally, one must choose the option that permits the greatest balance of good overall, so to choose any other action would be considered immoral. That being said, a utilitarian does not always have to choose the option that benefits the most people, since the goal is to bring about the least amount of misery; besides, the benefit of helping the majority may bring a greater cost of well-being to the minority. Additionally, utilitarianism is associated with consequentialism, as they both concur that the results of one 's actions signify whether it was morally right or wrong. In doing so, they must consider the effects to as far as they go into the future.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP It is important to appreciate that leadership roles are different from management functions. In Stephen Covey’s (1999) book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, he quoted Peter Drucker as saying: ‘Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership is about determining whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.’ This suggests that management is about tasks, whereas leadership is about perception, judgement, skill and philosophy. We could infer from this that it is much more difficult to be an effective leader than an effective manager. Managers came from the ‘’headship’’ (power from position) category.
(Chen & Tjosvold, 2007; Tjosvold, 1998). Agreeableness also positively predicts transformational leadership skills. Leaders with high levels of agreeableness were more likely to be considered transformational rather than transactional. However, the same study showed no predictive power of leadership effectiveness as evaluated by the leader's direct supervisor. Therefore, with further research organizations may be able to determine an individual's potential for performance based on their personality
If the answer is the latter, you may be like me. A person who is good a leading but doesn’t consider themselves a leader. An almost leader as you would say. As bad as it may sound, being an almost leader is better that not being able to lead at all. Sure it can be more frustrating, but it means we are halfway
The strongest score in the “Skills-Based Leadership Theory” has been registered in the “Individual Atrribute” section due to the strong character that the CEO has, whereas lower scores were registered in the competencies and leadership outcomes since this administration lacks the career experience that normally is involved in such positions.When it comes to information sharing, tolerance in mistakes, conflict on different levels and constructive tensions, the management/leadership of the organisation uses different approaches and yard sticks depending on the individual/ entity being involved. Therefore, its business ethics are exercised in a biased way. One of the major benefits of a skill-based theory of leadership is that it acknowledges that anyone can become a leader. Individuals need only work hard to develop the skills of a good leader to be effective. This is being seen as a threat to some members of the administration.
For that reason, a leader cannot be effective in every situation. This is to mean that they will be effective in certain situations, but not in others. The models in the situational theory are Schmidt’s and Tannenbaum leadership continuums, which range from autocratic to persuasive to consultative to democratic (Taylor, 2009). Autocratic leadership is used in emergency situations, persuasive leadership is used when the leader wants to plan and implement something and requires the team to participate, consultative and democratic are used when there is time and resources to collaboratively develop and implement a policy. The assertion in situational theory is that, one, all the three factors (situation, leader and followers) are equally significant, and two, different situations require the use of different leadership
A person who is a good leader may have many different qualities. First, if you’re a leader you must accept that not everyone will agree with your stance on issues, and you may not even get credit for all your accomplishments as a leader. A good leader is someone who leads by example, not force. Set a good example for those following you. Instead of forcing them to do things the way you think it should be done, show them that you are doing the right thing and that they are capable of making moral decisions too.