Schriesheim, Tepper and Tetrault (1994) regarded this model of leadership might be as problematic. However, Fiedler’s theory suggests that the leaders can concentrate on task oriented or relationship oriented style (Palestini, 2009). Mintzberg (1973, cited by Carmichael, Collins, Emsell, & Haydon, 2011, p.22) suggests that leaders need to have their own internal leadership; a transformational theory relationship of effective leaders are being debated increasingly (Storey, 2011), which help the organisation implement design leadership. This theory deliberately guide the leaders to consecrate on educating themselves and continuing to grow and develop in order to meet the challenges of the changing world under design centred leadership. In general, a number of organisations consider that the knowledge in an organisation is using the metaphor of a funnel.
Leadership has the power of changing the behavior of employees. A successful leader will aim to achieve better performance through his subordinates. Thirdly, it involves Interpersonal relations between the leader and its employees: The main requirement of leadership is the presence of employees. Thinking of leadership without followers or subordinates would make no sense. To make leadership more meaningful, the leader should engage himself with the employees on a constant basis through communication skills, listening skills, motivational skills, social skills etc.
Leadership has roots that can be traced to the beginning of civilization and has evolved over time (Stone & Patterson, 2005). Research concerning leadership existed before the study of business and organizations because it assists in the understanding of the conduct of people (Christensen, Makay, & Whetton, 2014). Historically, traditional empirical research gives credit to formal leaders for developing creative strategies that impact organizations (Christensen et al., 2014). In studies prior to the 1900s autocratic (individuals who made decisions without consultation) and charismatic individuals such as politicians, religious personnel, and military personnel were seen as leaders (Boneau & Thompson,
This approach assumes that people do things for reward and for no other reason. Therefore, it focuses on designing tasks and reward structures. While this may not be the most appealing leadership strategy in terms of building relationships and developing a
However, now the need for emotional intelligence has increased greatly and EI is considered a great corporate challenge of the 21st Century. A great number of researchers and top level management have recently come to acknowledge the significance of emotional intelligence (EI) in the success of an organization. A number of research studies have established relationship between Emotional Intelligence and effective leadership, team success and employee performance. Instead, management is waking up to the fact that their success is directly related to their ability to work productively with employee emotions. They are realizing that emotions directly influence competitive advantage in today’s marketplace.
Summary In ancient work a number of characteristics of current management thinking can already be found. It did not carry across the ages, but had to be re-invented in the start of the 20th century. The concept of a leader as a person, who uses other means than their position power, is a relative new concept and has only been studied since about 100 years. Leadership is defined as the conscious changing of behavior of others in order to obtain pre-defined targets. Management is changing behavior of people by means of systems or processes; it is indirect leadership.
The mixed model of emotional intelligence postulated by Goleman (1995) is also known as emotional intelligence theory of performance because the model consists of sets of competences and skills that drive organisational performance and leadership performance. These sets of skills or competences which are the constructs or clusters of the model are self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management. 1. Self-awareness: This construct encompasses self-confidence, self-assessment, self-deprecating sense of humour and thirst for constructive criticism. It is the ability to read and understand one’s emotion in view of its strength, weakness, values and goals as well as recognising their impacts on others.
The capabilities of employees matters for the organization’s growth. With these capabilities one more attribute has been added which got the hype after Denial Goleman’s work ‘Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ’ in year 1994 to 1997 in this time period this concept popularized and broadened its area of impact. Goleman was not the person who actually coined this term was Wayne Payne. He used this term in his doctoral thesis entitled ‘A study of emotion: Developing emotional intelligence; self-integration; relating to fear, pain and desire.’ Further it was carry forward by Peter Salovey and John Mayer in 1990 with their landmark article Emotional Intelligence in the renounced Journal. The most formal definition of Emotional Intelligence refers to the ability to identify and express emotions, understand emotions assimilate emotions in thought and regulate positive and negative emotions in one and others.
Daniel Coleman was the first to introduce Emotional Intelligence to the masses with his book Emotional intelligence in 1995. He argued that the traditional qualities associated with leadership; such as, intelligence, toughness, determination and vision were not the only traits that created an effective leader. With these attributes, you also needed, what he coined as “emotional intelligence.” Emotional intelligence consists of 5 traits; Self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills. This new concept was not introduced into the business realm until 1998 and has continued to ignite opposing arguments. However, Coleman’s article continues to be a staple for the subject, outlining the components of emotional intelligence
Today, leadership is considered to be more art than science. Equally observable is that those who engage in leadership invoke a variety of leadership styles and traits that can vary greatly, and yet can be equally successful in a variety of situations. No one could deny the tremendous leadership skills of Martin Luther King, but at the same time, for example, do not highlight the skills and success of General Schwarzkopf in crushing the army of enemies. As is generally known, the personal motives affect the leadership preferences. For example, some people choose adventurous and strict leadership style, while the others prefer peaceful and continuous.