Research Has Narrowed The Thousands Of Leadership Beh 968445

research Has Narrowed The Thousands Of Leadership Behaviors Into Two

Research has narrowed the thousands of leadership behaviors into two primary dimensions. Please list and discuss these two behaviors. Distinguish between charismatic, transformational, and authentic leadership. Could an individual display all three types of leadership? What are some of the cautions to be aware of when using teams? What tests should be applied to see if a team fits the situation? The team effectiveness model identifies three categories of key components making up effective teams. What are these three categories? Give examples of each category. The assignment is to answer the questions provided above in essay form. This is to be in narrative form.

Paper For Above instruction

Leadership behavior research has significantly contributed to understanding effective leadership by identifying core dimensions that encapsulate the vast array of leadership actions. Among these, two primary dimensions have gained prominence: task-oriented behaviors and person-oriented behaviors. Task-oriented behaviors focus on organizing work, clarifying roles, setting goals, and ensuring that tasks are completed efficiently. These behaviors are imperative in establishing clear expectations, maintaining productivity, and achieving organizational objectives. Conversely, person-oriented behaviors emphasize interpersonal relationships, showing concern for team members, fostering teamwork, and developing trust and cohesion. Such behaviors motivate employees, enhance morale, and contribute to a positive working environment. The balance and interplay of these two dimensions often determine the overall effectiveness of a leader, as they address both the technical and relational aspects of leadership (Robinson & Judge, 2019).

Understanding different leadership styles is equally crucial, especially when considering charismatic, transformational, and authentic leadership. Charismatic leadership primarily relies on the leader's personal charm, conviction, and persuasive communication to inspire followers. These leaders often evoke strong emotional responses and allegiance through their compelling presence and confidence. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, involves inspiring followers to transcend their self-interests for the good of the organization through vision, motivation, and intellectual stimulation. Transformational leaders foster innovation and change by empowering followers and creating a shared vision. Authentic leadership emphasizes genuineness, transparency, and consistency with core values. Authentic leaders build trust through honesty, self-awareness, and ethical behavior. An individual can indeed display all three types of leadership, as these styles are not mutually exclusive but can be manifested in varying contexts and situations depending on personality, organizational needs, and follower dynamics. A leader may be charismatic and transformational in inspiring innovation, while also maintaining authenticity through transparency and ethical conduct (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).

When employing teams within organizations, it is important to recognize potential cautions to ensure effective functioning. One caution pertains to team cohesion, as overly cohesive teams may experience groupthink, suppress dissent, and resist necessary changes. Additionally, teams may face conflicts that are not managed constructively, leading to reduced productivity and morale. Another caution involves relevance and suitability—teams should be aligned with the task's complexity and context. Forming a team without assessing whether the task requires collaboration or independent work can result in inefficiency. To determine if a team fits the situation, certain tests and assessments must be applied. These include evaluating the team's diversity to ensure complementary skills and perspectives, analyzing the task's nature to confirm its compatibility with team-based approaches, and assessing individual and collective motivation levels. Tools such as the Team Diagnostic Survey can provide insights into leadership dynamics, communication effectiveness, and cohesion, helping managers decide whether a team structure is appropriate (Katzenbach & Smith, 2015).

The team effectiveness model identifies three categories of key components that contribute to high-performing teams. These categories are task, social, and contextual elements. Task components encompass the clarity of objectives, role differentiation, and the types of skills required; for example, specific project goals and delineated responsibilities. Social components relate to the interpersonal relationships, trust, communication patterns, and conflict management within the team, such as mutual respect and open dialogue fostering collaboration. Contextual factors involve organizational support, resources, and leadership backing, like providing adequate training, tools, and a conducive environment. These components interact to influence overall team effectiveness, with well-defined tasks, strong social dynamics, and supportive organizational context leading to higher productivity and satisfaction among team members. For example, a software development team working on a complex project benefits from clear deliverables (task), effective communication and trust among developers (social), and support from management providing the necessary technological resources (context) (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).

References

• Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting back to the basics. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.
• Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.
• Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2015). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Robinson, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.