Organizational paradoxes present in the university setting can often stand in the way of a strong organizational identity. For example, paradoxes often present in the higher education system include students complaining that their major is too narrow or too focused, too much theory based or too practical. However, an organization can improve its effectiveness if it understands and embraces these organizational paradoxes. One example comes from a study conducted by Cameron (1985, 1986) that looked at what factors account the improvement of organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities. The findings were that institutions that improve effectiveness have an infusion of new leaders as well as maintain continuity and stability among top administrators.
McCrimmon (2005) Articles. Thought leadership: a radical departure from traditional, positional leadership According to McCrimmon, leadership should be concentrated on thought leadership which involves championing new ideas rather than managing people or helping a team achieve its goals. Its main focus is coming up with ideas that can be directed upwards, but thought leadership is applied once the managers accept the ideas. Thought leadership is based on constant innovation and continuous improvement for organizations to prosper. Thought leadership concentrates on empowering employees in managing themselves and offering new ideas to the top management.
Managers refer to creative problem solving in order to improve productivity or organisational efficiency. As a personal trait, it is debated whether creative thinking can be learned. However, as a cognitive process, methods can be learned to change the thinking process. Thormann (2007) defines creative thinking as finding ideas, developing alternatives and making decisions by going beyond the routines and the usual. In her opinion, creative thinking can be learned by training creativity and learning about creative methods.
As a result of situational differences in every research, social and cultural contexts would vary. On top of that, the provision of some contextual description of the research would lower the risks of the readers misinterpreting the study and consequently, the results. Thus, contextualization is the key to revealing the various context in which a particular research lies in. This is important in the development of the psychology of leadership research and theory building because the setting of the research could be different, and hence possibly resulting in different sets of results altogether. For instance, the trait perspective in leadership research could either be done in a lab setting or in a workplace setting, both of which would have observed different implications on the results.
From the arguments above I believe that both Psychologists have various similarities whilst then ranging with some contrasts too. The similarities and contrasts give us a more narrow view of how these theorists have contributed to management and how yet a theory can be so similar yet differ in various different ways. They are both similar in the manner that both theories are have factors and are both content theories of management however, then differ with each having their unique theory to how employees are motivated along with each theory having different steps involved with that too. My research has also leaded me to also see some intriguing and yet fair criticism of both theories which led to me questioning the theories and wonder which occupations they would be useful in and the ones that wouldn’t be. This then made the research of both theorists more interesting by far as I got to gain a greater understanding of more modern theories which are in use
While such tests can be quite utilized by professionals, they can be controversial... 3 Concepts 3: Management This theory is taken from Leadership and communication Block 6 module 1:2 entitled Difference between management and leadership Management and leadership are two different words but are interwoven because for a manager to be effective he should have leadership skill and for a leader to be effective it is necessary to have good management skills Leader’s sets vision, communicate goals and objective to his followers, provide knowledge for task and handle conflicts between workers while management organize and coordinate resources according to company resources Leaders create problems and solve it while management act according to organization resources and policy Managers are usually appointed by organization and were given task to manage Managers will work towards solving tough organizational problem by giving direction to people the way the given task will be accomplish They are usually in total
Various researchers such as Frink and Ferris, 1999 found that there is an eloquent correlation between conscientiousness and job performance. The reason being almost all jobs requires conscientiousness at a certain level. Planning, organizing and acting upon it is the major task for any job. However, lower conscientiousness does not signify bad performance, but advances to the reason of irrational behavior towards their work. Furthermore, conscientiousness can also be a liability for certain jobs such as artistic, investigative and social jobs that require innovation and creativeness rather than realistic and
They refer to Fielder’s contingency theory, path-goal theory, Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership theory, and Vroom and Yetton’s normative decision model. Each theory is distinctive and different from each other. In the case of McDonald’s, it practices each theory to a certain degree. Fieldler’s contingency theory states that in order to maximize work group performance, leaders must be matched to the right leadership situation (Williams, 2007). Different managers have different styles that do not change and are better suited for different tasks.
Today there are reactions that have emerged about this theory e.g. his example of employees was not illustrative of all specialists, yet further studies have had a tendency to help his discoveries. Moreover a few faultfinders have proclaimed that it is regular for individuals to assume praise for satisfaction, however at fault dissatisfaction on external variables. Each individual is simply that an individual and theories of motivation can't realistically apply to every single employee; then again, they are valuable for distinguishing the principle routes in which individuals are motivated. Herzberg and his discoveries have been to a great degree persuasive in advancements connected with the field of job outline and routines for administration to give job satisfaction and
LMX proposes that supervisors contribute work opportunities, information and support in exchange for commitment, effort and proactive behaviours from subordinates (Wilson, Sin & Conlon, 2010). A key element of LMX is the notion that supervisors form different relationships with specific subordinates (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975). These relationships vary in quality; the quality of the relationships is proposed to influence attitudes and behaviours at work (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). There is less research investigating poor quality LMX relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), however it is theorised that such relationships are relatively impersonal and consist of economic exchanges (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). In contrast, high quality LMX are characterised by mutual trust, respect and liking (Liden, Wayne & Stilwell,