Leadership Managemet Theories Effective Teams
Leadership Styles 1.0 There are various theories to leadership styles. In this section of the report I aim to provide an insight into the theories and then conclude with an evaluation of a selected Managers leadership style. Leadership theories 1. ... McGregor Theory X – The leadership style would be tough an autocratic style where the management dictate to the staff. ... Rensis Likerts ‘Likert’ described four systems used for leadership ranging from autocratic to democratic. ... Tannenbaum & Scmidts Model This shows a range of leadership styles ranging from Autocratic to democratic. ... 2 There have been numerous studies around the people/task orientations these include: The Michigan Studies 1950 - This study looked at variables in leadership styles of a high and low production companies. The high productions companies’ leadership style was ‘employee’ orientated, whereas the low production company’s style was more ‘task’ orientated. Thus suggesting that people were more content with a people focused leadership style. Ohio Studies 1950’s – Identified two leadership structures. ... However the studies did conclude that a company/manager could be a mixture of both theories. Harvard Studies – Identified two types of leadership which a leader could be either or. Task Leadership, where the main focus would be on structuring activities and workloads and Socio-emotional leadership, where the leader would be more concerned supportive relationships for the employees. Contingency Leadership 1. ... 3 Professor John Adair ‘Adair’ introduced the theory that leadership is more appropriate behaviour or being in the right place at the right time. Alike most other theorists Adair showed that concern for tasks and people feature in determining the style of leadership that should be adaptive to the situation. ... Fielder (1976) ‘Fielder’ developed the ‘leadership contingency model’; this consisted of the theory that performance was contingent on the leader adopting the appropriate style to the situation. ... Leadership Evaluation and Conclusion 1. ... Looking more specifically at one line manager I have conducted a survey of the team under Ben Maccallum the Master File supervisor to give an indication of the leadership style adopted. ... This again concluded they all steered towards the democratic theories such as theory Y. ... 0 In this section of the report I aim to give a background and look at some theories of performance appraisals. ... Appraisals not only have links to motivational theories such as Adams Equity theory but also leadership styles such as McGregor’s theory X & Y. ... 2 Appraisals can be used for numerous reasons dependant on the leadership style of an organisation. ‘Mair’ identified three approaches to the appraisal interview; these would be greatly influenced by the leadership styles of the manager. ... The leadership style adapted by a manager will greatly influence any appraisal system used within a department/company. ... EFFECTIVE TEAMS 3. ... 0 In this section of the report I will identify theories on what makes an effective team. ... By firstly analysing the teams strengths and weaknesses and performance on a specific task. Effective Teams/Groups 3.1 Group behaviour and team affectivity can be directly influenced by the management/leadership style of the manager as in the case of the ‘Hawthorn Studies’. ... This provides a perceptive account of the differences between an effective and ineffective group. Effective Groups Ineffective Groups · Informal, Relaxed atmosphere. ... · Group task or objective clearly understood, and commitment to it obtained· Members listen to each other· Conflicts is not avoided, but brought into the open and dealt with constructively· Most decisions are reached by general consensus with a minimum of formal voting· Ideas are expressed freely and openly· Leadership is not always with the chairman, but tends to be shared as appropriate· The group examines its own progress and behaviour · Bored or tense atmosphere· Discussion dominated by one or two people and often irrelevant· No clear common objective· Members tend not to listen to each other· Conflict is often avoided or allowed to develop into open warfare· Simple majorities are seen as sufficient basis for group decisions, which the minority have to accept· Personal feelings are kept hidden and criticism is embarrassing · Leadership is provided by the chairman· The group avoids any discussion about its own behaviour Meredith Belbin 3.