Leadership

Management and Leadership are two things which are different however people confuse them as the same thing. For example both are used to manage and organise people. A manager is a person who plans, controls, and co-ordinates people. Managers put into practice policies and achieve results. Leaders on the other hand, guide, communicate, motivate and inspire others. They generate ideas. Leadership is just one of the qualities a good manager may have. Managers are more impersonal and there is not much emotional involvement, whereas leaders have empathy. A manager would employ someone that the business is in need of while a leader may carry out speeches that inspire or motivate a group of people, or by recognising their abilities and achievements.

Blake and Mouton “managerial grid” (1964):

Blake and Mouton's managerial grid (1964) discusses different five managerial styles. This grid is based on two things, (concern for people) and (concern for production). The five types of mangers Blake and Mouton identified are:

· Impoverished manager
· Authoritative manager
· Social manger
· Middle of the road manager
· Team manger

The impoverished manager does just enough work to get by (the bare minimum). He is therefore not committed. If managers follow this style, there is a low chance for that particular company to succeed in the future as this will have a negative effect on the staff working under them and they will be de-motivated as they can see that their manager lacks enthusiasm. This would mean that more and more employees will start to leave or not work as hard, causing a lower level of output and therefore less profits. Consequently the impoverished manager has low concern for production and low concern for people.

The authoritative manager gets the job completed no matter what the cost. He has little interest in staff’s feeling and believes in a “do what you are told to do and that is it” approach. He has high concern for production, but low concern for people.

The social manager is the opposite of the authoritative manager, as he feels that a satisfied workforce will work harder and therefore he tries to ensure that all employees are happy. Social managers tend to have longer lasting employees, as the staff who work for them feel well treated and therefore do not really have much reason to leave. A social manager would rather avoid conflict and “be everyone’s friend”. He has little concern for production, but high concern for people.

The middle of the road manager tries to compromise with staff whilst not allowing too much loss in the quality of work. He tries to go “by the book” and follow rules and regulations whilst trying to keep all parties happy. He had medium concern for production and medium concern for people.

The team manager takes good care of production as well as his employees. Employees will be involved as much as possible so they gain a better understanding of what the company is trying to achieve. By being more involved, they are taking on more responsibility which can help satisfy Maslow’s self-esteem needs. If employees have new ideas of how to improve the business further, their ideas will be taken into consideration. Employees are encouraged to show their initiative. They are more likely to feel as part of the business as well as a part of a team. This will encourage the employees to work harder which will consequently lead to greater output and efficiency. The team manager has concern for production and high concern for people. This is obviously the best type of manager, simply because high concern for production and people will benefit both the business and its employees.

When I worked at Waitrose, I had two main managers. A Section Manager (SM) and an Assistant Section Manager (ASM). They seemed to play “good cop, bad cop” as my SM had a leadership style of middle of the road manager. He wanted me to get all the work done, but only after any issues with me had been sorted out if there were any. If the work had not been completed by the time my shift ended he would have no complaints about me leaving. My ASM however, wanted me to get all the work done, no matter what the cost was. He did not care if my shift was over or if I did not have a break, just as long as all the work was completed. If it was not completed by the time my shift was over I would not be allowed to leave exactly on time. He was most certainly an authoritative manager, and if I am being honest I did not like him very much. I found that I tried to work much harder when my SM was around just because I felt like I wanted to because he was being so nice. With my ASM I became very demotivated and did not bother with trying to work as hard as possible.

Article on Martin Luther King by “Time 100”:

An article from the “Time 100” shows the excellent leadership qualities that Martin Luther King possessed. Martin Luther King was a very well known and popular leader. He was also a very talented and motivational speaker. The article claims that Martin Luther king was a prophet who only wanted justice. He was fighting for people to be judged by their character and not their skin colour. The article praises King for committing to his non-violent protests and it is saying that he did more than just free blacks from segregation. The article claims that if it was not for King there is no way America would be able to call itself the “leader” of the “free world” as it currently does.

http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/king.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/martin_luther_king_05.shtml
http://www.famouspeople.co.uk/m/martinlutherking.html

I believe that king is one of the best and most significant leaders the world has ever seen. Having previously studied History in some depth, I know for a fact that Martin Luther King possessed all the natural attributes of a leader. At first he did not want to get involved when Rosa Parks came to him. However after deep thought he realised that America and the World desperately needed guidance and a leader in the fight against segregation. I believe he became that leader. He helped motivate, inspire and guide others. He generated ideas based on non-violent form of protest. Ghandi was his inspiration, and he was also a magnificent leader. King went to visit Ghandi in India and when he came back he said, “Since being in India, I am more convinced than ever before that the method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for justice and human dignity”. Going to India to visit Gandhi, therefore deepened his understanding of non-violent protests. I also believe that King using non-violent protests was the best way to show the world exactly what was going on, and how badly treated Blacks were. The best example of this was in Birmingham, Alabama (1963) when the non-violent protestors were set upon by fire truck hoses and police dogs, without any retaliation whatsoever. These actions changed many opinions all over the world forever. As well as using non-violent protests, King also delivered speeches all over the country to help guide and inspire others. He inspired people of all ethnic backgrounds. His most famous “I have a dream” speech was given in front of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington in 1963. President Lincoln was probably the American President who did the most for Civil Rights in History. King knew how to get across to his audience with his speeches. He not only got people’s attention, but also motivated them to do things for civil rights. This is why he was such a successful leader.

Conclusion:

Being a good leader is important as leaders affect everyone around them through what they say and how they act. Leaders have been and will always be role models. As a leader it is important to do the right things in order to help people. The truly great leaders are not in leadership for personal gain. There have been very good leaders in the past who have used their power to create chaos all over the world. A perfect example of this would be Adolf Hitler. He was a fantastic leader. Economically he helped make Germany a power again after World War one and the Treaty of Versailles. He inspired and motivated others around him. However he used his power to do bad things and hurt people. He wanted everyone to feel like he did (by hating Jews). He caused World War Two. Even though he was a role model, he was a bad one and this is why it is important for people to distinguish between a good leader and a bad, but not necessarily poor leader. Even if a leader is a good leader he should only be listened to if he is doing good things. As well as inspiring others, a leader must be confident and Martin Luther King certainly showed this by never backing down, regardless of the number of death threats he received, and the bombing of his house with his wife and children inside it. The key to becoming an effective leader is not to focus on making other people follow you, but on making yourself the kind of person they want to follow. If there isn't good leadership in a business, the business itself will suffer because employees could feel de-motivated which may lead them to quitting the job and consequently production output would suffer. They lead in order to serve other people. Overall, the better the leadership is in a business, the more successful it will be in the future.