Prof Postleadership Described As The Process Of Soc 572579

Prof Postleadership Has Been Described As The Process Of Social Infl

Prof post: Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in which individuals are enlisted in providing aid and gaining support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.†Do you agree or disagree with the above definition of leadership? Compare and contrast the introduction to this module with your own theory of leadership. Respond to two of your fellow learners with a positive yet critical analysis of their discussion. My post discussion response with 2 references required. Post 1 from Sonia: I agree with this definition of leadership. My idea of leadership is pretty much the same; the innate ability to redirect towards a greater common goal. Our text uses the ability to redirect in the discussion of power. “The ability to influence the behaviors of others and resist unwanted influence in returnâ€. (Colquitt 2013, p419). Power plays enormous part in the role of leadership. In the past, issues I have had at work have stemmed largely from a leader not being able to navigate through conflict. Ultimately it was because they lacked influence over the staff and results were compliance-“reflects a shift in behavior but not in their attitude†or resistance. –“When the target refuses to perform the influence request and puts forth an effort to avoid having to do it.†(Colquitt 2013, p.426) My response to post 1 (no ref to post): Post 2 from maria: I agree with the above description, but I think that definition is missing more information. In my opinion a leadership is also the one that has the power, and ability to lead a group of people to do a task or to accomplish the task. A good leadership can motivate and guide individuals to follow his/her steps or to do good in life. Leadership appears to be, like power, an “essentially contested concept “ (Gallie, 1955 cited in Grint, 2004 pl Taylor, A. "Chrysler's Speed Merchant." Fortune, September 6, 2010, p.82 My response to post 2 (no ref to my post): B) PROF QUESTION From the movie Hoosiers, select two examples of behaviors that indicated that Coach Dale used the Hersey and Blanchard Life Cycle Theory of Leadership? Similarly discuss how he used transformational leadership behaviors. Respond to two of your fellow learners with a positive yet critical analysis of their discussion. My post discussion response with 2 references required: POST 1 from Sonia: The Life Cycle Theory is used in this movie. When Coach Dale comes to team and communicate the team his rules and how they should be practicing, and later as they starting playing and they were losing Coach Dale used two way communications by providing emotional support and encouragement. This was R1 to R2. As the time passed the players starting believing in their abilities, hence Coach Dale provided less task behaviors, at the end the players were playing as a team and they believe in themselves. References: Reardon, N. “Making Leadership Personal.†T+D, March 2011, pp 44-4 Kraz, G. “A Higher Standard fro Managers.†Workforce, June 11, 2007, pp 21-26 My response to post 1 (no ref to post) Post 2 from Maria: The Hersey and Blanchard Life Cycle Theory of Leadership is highlighted in the movie Hoosier. The movie start with a very dysfunctional team, all they can do is shoot. Coach Dale comes in and begins to work on fundamentals. Two of the team quit. You see coach Dale "telling," not just the team, but the town as well. At the end of the first game, the coach says, take the weekend and decide, do you want to be on the team with me as coach? This was the transition from R1 Telling, to R2 Selling. Later the team transitioned from R3 Participating to R4 Delegating. In the movie the coach got himself thrown out of the game and forced Shooter to “bring them home.†This was an instrumental turning point for the team and Shooter. My response to post 2 (no ref to post) Sheet1 PROCESS COSTING WORKSHEET LAYERS ACTUAL UNITS % EUP MATERIALS CONVERSION COSTS TOTAL COST BEGINNING INVENTORY STARTED & COMPLETED ENDING INVENTORY Direct materials Direct labor Factory overhead PROCESS COSTING WORKSHEET LAYERS ACTUAL UNITS % EUP MATERIALS CONVERSION COSTS TOTAL COST BEGINNING INVENTORY STARTED & COMPLETED ENDING INVENTORY Sheet2 Sheet3 ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 Process Manufacturing ï¶ Is the mass production of products in a continuous flow of steps ï¶ Products pass through a series of sequential processes ï¶ Each process is identified a separate production, department, workstation, or work center. ï¶ With the exception of the first process or department, each receives the output from the prior department as a partially processed product. ï¶ Depending on the nature of the process, a company applies direct labor, overhead, and additional direct materials to move the product toward completion. Process Cost System ï‚· Assigns direct materials, direct labor, and overhead to specific processes. ï‚· Costs are allocated by department rather than jobs ï‚· Manufacturing costs are allocated to products based on units of production ï‚· Manufacturing costs are accumulated and transferred by department ï‚· The total costs associated with each process are then divided by the number of units passing through that process to determine the cost per equivalent units for that process ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 To understand how costs are allocated, first we must decide how the costs are accumulated. One method is First in, First out method. Beverage Production Costs flow from the original materials through departments Until they arrive at finished goods. The First-In, First –Out Method Assumes that the product moves in order throughout the production process. STEPS: 1.

Determine the units to be assigned costs Three categories of units to be assigned costs for an accounting period i. Units in beginning work in process ii. Units started and completed during the period iii. Units in ending work in process inventory 2. Calculate equivalent units of production Materials Mixing Department Packing Department ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 a. Process manufactures often have some partially processed materials remaining in the production at the end of a period. b. Equivalent units of production – number of units that could have been completed within a given accounting period Example 1: A company processes their production in two departments. The beginning inventory was 500 units 70% completed, 1,100 units were transferred out to the next department and it had an ending inventory of 400 units 25% completed. Compute equivalent units for materials and conversion costs. Actual units Percentage EUP Beg inventory 500 units 30% (% of work to be done this month) 150 units (150 X 30%) Started and Competed 600 units 100% (all work done this month) 600 units (600 x 100%) Ending inventory 400 units 25% (work done this month) 100 units (400 X 25%) TOTALS 1, units Started and completed units computed as: Transferred out 1,100 Beginning inventory - 500 must be completed first Started and completed 600 850 units are the equivalent units of production for the period. ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 Example 2: A company processes their production in two departments. The beginning inventory was 1,000 units 40% completed, transferred out to the next department 2,500 units and had an ending inventory of 900 units 60% completed. Compute equivalent units for materials and conversion costs. Actual units Percentage EUP Beg inventory 1,000 60% 600 Started and Competed 1,% 1,500 Ending inventory 900 60% 540 TOTALS 3, Started and completed units computed as: Transferred out 2,500 Beginning inventory -1,000 must be completed first Started and completed 1,500 Example 3: A company processes their production in two departments. The beginning inventory was 4,000 units 50% completed, transferred into the department 5,000 units and had an ending inventory of 2,000 units 40% completed. Compute equivalent units for materials and conversion costs. Actual units Percentage EUP Beg inventory 4,000 50% 2,000 Started and Competed 3,000 100% 3,000 Ending inventory 2,000 40% 800 TOTALS 9,000 5,800 ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 Started and completed units ï‚· We calculated the differently since information given to us was Units transferred into the department and not units transferred out. ï‚· Units transferred into the department were 5,000 of which 2,000 remain at the end of the month in inventory. ï‚· Therefore of the 5,000 units, 3,000 must have been completed and transferred out. Transferred in 5,000 Ending inventory 2,000 Started and completed 3,000 The next step is to allocate costs: 3. Determine the cost per equivalent unit a. Material cost b. Conversion costs = direct labor + factory overhead We begin with the EUP already established in the first half of the chart.

Material costs and conversion costs are applied to these units. Materials are applied to ACTUAL UNITS Conversion costs are applied to EQUIVALENT UNITS ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 Example 4: Using the information in Example 1 calculate the costs for the period. Materials transferred in $50,000. Direct labor $6,690 and factory overhead $3,000. Cost of beginning work in process $28,150. Actual Units % EUP Materials Conversion Costs Total Costs Beg inventory 500 30% 150 $28,150 $1,710 $29,86 0 Started & Completed % 600 $30,000 $6,840 $36,84 0 Ending Inventory 400 25% 100 $20,000 $1,140 $21,14 0 TOTALS 850 $6,690 Materials: $50,000 in materials were transferred into the process. The material was applied to units new to the process. These are the units: started and completed and ending inventory. Actual units are units that are placed into production at the beginning of the period. Actual units = Started & Completed + Ending Inventory = 600 + 400 = 1,000 To get the per unit costs: Total materials costs . Units started & completed + Units in ending inventory ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 $50,,000 =$50 per actual unit of production ï‚· No materials are allocated to beginning inventory since it is assumed at all material is added at the beginning when the units are placed in production not during the production process. Material costs applied to started and completed using actual units $50 X 600 units = $30,000 Material costs applied to ending inventory using actual units $50 X 400 = $20,000 $28,150 is the prior month’s ending inventory balance. It tells us how much has been spent on the units in beginning inventory before this period begun. Conversion Costs: ï‚· Are the total of direct labor plus factory overhead ï‚· Conversion costs are applied to Equivalent units of production Conversion Costs Direct labor $6,690 Factory overhead 3,000 Total conversion costs $9,690 Total equivalent units of production ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 EUP Beginning inventory 150 Started and completed 600 Ending inventory 100 Total EUP 850 Conversion cost per EUP Conversion cost = $9,690 EUP 850 $11.40 per EUP Beginning inventory $1,710 Started and completed 6,840 Ending inventory 1,140 Total conversion costs $6,690 ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 Example 5: Using the information in Example 2 calculate the costs for the period. Materials transferred in $30,600. Direct labor $19,800 and factory overhead $9,240. Cost of beginning work in process $35,000. Actual Units % EUP Materials Conversion Costs Total Costs Beg inv $35,000 $8500 $43,500 Started & Completed $19,125 $12,750 $31,875 End Inv $11,475 $7,650 $19,125 TOTALS 3640 Materials: $30,600 in materials were transferred into the process. The material was applied to units new to the process. These are the units: started and completed and ending inventory. To get the per unit costs: Total materials costs . Units started & completed + Units in ending inventory $30,,500 + 900 $12.75 per actual unit of production ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 ï‚· No materials are allocated to beginning inventory Material costs applied to started and completed using actual units $12.75 X 1,500 units = $19,125 Material costs applied to ending inventory using actual units $12.75 X 900 = $11,475 Conversion Costs: Are the total of direct labor plus factory overhead Conversion costs are applied to Equivalent units of production Direct labor $19,800 Factory overhead $9,240 Total conversion costs $29,040 Total equivalent units of production Beginning inventory 1,000 EUP Started and completed 1,500 Ending inventory 900 Total EUP 3,400 Conversion cost per EUP Conversion cost = $29,040 EUP 3,400 $8.50 per EUP ACG 2071 Process Cost Systems Created by: M. Mari Fall 2009-1 Cost of Production Report Normally prepared for each processing department at periodic intervals Guy Steel Cost of Production Report – Dept 1 July 31, 2003 Equivalent Units Units Whole Units Direct materials Conversion Units charged to production: Inventory in process July1 500 Received from materials 1000 Total units accounted for by the dept 1500 Units to be assigned cost Inventory July Started and completed in July 1000 100% 1000 900 1,500 Units in process July 31 550 55% 302.5 302.5 Total costs of operations: Beginning inventory: $28,150 + costs incurred in July: $59,690 = total costs $87,840 that will be allocated based on the equivalent units for materials and conversion costs, according to the process cost system.

Paper For Above instruction

Leadership, as a foundational element of organizational success, can be understood through numerous theoretical lenses. The provided definition describes leadership as the “process of social influence in which individuals are enlisted in providing aid and gaining support of others in the accomplishment of a common task.” This perspective emphasizes influence, social interaction, and shared objectives, aligning closely with established leadership theories but also inviting critical analysis and personal interpretation.

In dissecting this definition, I agree with its core premise that leadership fundamentally involves influencing others toward collective goals. This aligns with the classic trait and behavioral theories, which posit that effective leadership stems from certain inherent qualities and actions that facilitate influence (Northouse, 2018). The influence component underscores that leadership is not merely about authority or positional power, but about fostering voluntary commitment and motivating followers through social and emotional channels (Yukl, 2013). The emphasis on “social influence” captures the dynamic and interpersonal nature of leadership, emphasizing that leadership is enacted within relationships rather than exercised solely through hierarchy.

Contrasting this with my personal leadership perspective, I adopt a more transformational view. I believe leadership is a process of inspiring and empowering followers to transcend self-interest for the good of the organization or community. Transformational leadership, characterized by idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, reflects a higher-order influence that fosters intrinsic motivation (Bass & Avolio, 1994). While the provided definition underscores social influence in a general sense, my view expands this influence into a catalyst for change and innovation, emphasizing moral uplift and long-term development rather than immediate compliance.

Furthermore, I see leadership as a moral and ethical act, rooted in integrity and authentic relationships. This aligns with authentic leadership theories, which advocate for transparency, ethical conduct, and genuine engagement (Walumbwa et al., 2008). In this regard, leadership transcends influence—it involves a sense of moral obligation and the fostering of trust, which are crucial for sustained organizational flourishing.

Comparatively, the introduction to this module typically highlights leadership as a complex, multifaceted construct, emphasizing qualities such as vision, strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and adaptability (Northouse, 2018). It recognizes leadership as both a process and a set of behaviors that can be developed and refined over time. The emphasis on social influence aligns with trust-based and relational theories, yet also broadens into contemporary understandings that view leadership as shared, emergent, and context-dependent.

In conclusion, while I agree with the core idea that leadership involves social influence aimed at achieving common goals, I emphasize the transformational and ethical dimensions that extend beyond influence alone. Effective leadership, in my view, is about inspiring authenticity, fostering trust, and guiding change, aligning with recent advancements in leadership thought that advocate for a moral and relational approach (Northouse, 2018; Walumbwa et al., 2008).

References

• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89–126.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.