getty
Mid-year is a good time for leaders to evaluate both their personal and professional progress since January. Your goals may have shifted over the course of the year as priorities and circumstances have evolved. Or perhaps you’re not as close to achieving your New Year’s resolutions as you might have hoped? A mid-year reset is a good opportunity to take stock of what you’ve done so far and where you want to go next……..Continue reading….
By: Sally Percy
Source: Forbes
.
Critics:
Leadership can be an emotion-laden process, with emotions entwined with the social influence process. A leader’s mood affects his/her group. These effects can be described in three levels: Members of groups whose leaders are in a positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a negative mood. Leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the mechanism of emotional contagion.
Public expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For example, expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals cognitively and behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.
In research about client service, it was found that expressions of positive mood by the leader improve the performance of the group, although in other sectors there were other findings. Beyond the leader’s mood, her/his behavior is a source for employee positive and negative emotions at work. The leader’s behavior creates situations and events that lead to emotional response, for example by giving feedback, allocating tasks, and distributing resources.
Since employee behavior and productivity are affected by their emotional states, it is imperative to consider employee emotional responses to organizational leaders. Emotional intelligence—the ability to understand and manage moods and emotions in the self and others—contributes to effective leadership within organizations. The neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme) sees leadership as an impression formed through the communication of information by the leader or by other stakeholders, not through the actions of the leader.
In other words, the reproduction of information or stories form the basis of the perception of leadership by the majority. It is well known by historians that the naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote his own versions of battles he was involved in, so that when he arrived home in England, he would receive a true hero’s welcome. In modern society, various media outlets, including the press and blogs, present their own interpretations of leaders.
These depictions can stem from actual circumstances, but they might also arise from political influences, monetary incentives, or the personal agendas of the author, media, or leader. Consequently, the impression of leaders is often constructed and may not accurately mirror their genuine leadership attributes. This highlights the historical role of concepts like royal lineage, which once stood as a substitute for evaluating or comprehending adept governance abilities.
Leadership emergence is the idea that people born with specific characteristics become leaders, and those without these characteristics do not become leaders. Many personality characteristics are reliably associated with leadership emergence. The list includes, but is not limited to: assertiveness, authenticity, Big Five personality factors, birth order, character strengths, dominance, emotional intelligence, gender identity, intelligence, narcissism, self-efficacy for leadership, self-monitoring, and social motivation.
Other areas of study in relation to how and why leaders emerge include narcissistic traits, absentee leaders, and participation. Today’s sophisticated research methods look at personality characteristics in combination to determine patterns of leadership emergence. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and Nelson Mandela share traits that an average person does not. Research indicates that up to 30% of leader emergence has a genetic basis.
No research has found a “leadership gene”; instead we inherit certain traits that might influence our decision to seek leadership. Anecdotal and empirical evidence support a stable relationship between specific traits and leadership behavior. Using a large international sample researchers found three factors that motivate leaders: affective identity (enjoyment of leading), non-calculative (leading earns reinforcement), and social-normative (sense of obligation).
Those who emerge as leaders tend to be more extroverted, conscientious, emotionally stable, and open to experience, although these tendencies are stronger in laboratory studies of leaderless groups. However, introversion–extroversion appears to be the most influential quality in leadership emergence; specifically, leaders tend to be high in extroversion.
Introversion–extroversion is also the quality that can be judged most easily among those in the Big Five Traits. Agreeableness, the last factor of the Big Five personality traits, does not seem to play any meaningful role in leadership emergence.
Kaiser Permanente names new enterprise strategy, business development leadership
.
.
Leave a Reply