Over the years, different leadership qualities found in different people who have held influential positions have been used to come up with a refined list of leadership styles. These have proven useful in helping aspiring leaders build up personalized style of leadership which they adopt when in charge of their particular team. Among the various leadership styles that are there today are transitional leadership, transformational leadership and servant leadership. Transactional leadership refers to the style of leadership where the leader first makes the followers fully committed to put in their effort and the reward they get depends on whether the work they put in was successful in meeting the set standards. The transaction is experienced when the followers are rewarded depending on whether their efforts were a success. Transformational leadership is a term used to describe a type of leadership where the leader continually inspires the followers by clearly sharing the vision he has. A leader who uses this style of leadership usually works towards making the followers understand his vision and then together they raise each other and work together as a team. Servant leadership on the other hand is a type of leadership where the leader lowers him to the level of the followers and hence works at meeting their needs. Robert K. Greenleaf, who first brought up the concept of servant leadership, states that a servant leader feels the need to serve the followers in terms of helping them grow, uplift their knowledge and help them become independent. Servant leadership emphasizes on involving the followers in making decisions while expressing care and support to help them develop personally which in turn helps give rise to a lasting relationship (Brayon, 2006).
In leadership, power and authority has often been used by those in charge to amass compliance from the followers. These two terms have more often than not been used together to describe getting the followers to do something by influencing them using the leadership position. However it should be noted that these are two different terms although close in their usages. Power generally stands for the ability that an individual has to influence decisions taken by the targeted group. Authority on the other hand refers to the ability to influence a group’s behavior usually accorded by holding a senior position. These two terms are similar in that they are used to gain influence of a group’s behavior. A leader who has both power and authority is able to gain more influence on the subjects. It should however be noted that these two terms differ. While authority refers to influencing compliance by means of exercising seniority of a leadership position, power on the other hand yields influence by having the individual’s actions inspire compliance and commitment. Power is thus not only exercised by individuals holding senior positions. The amount of influence that a person exercising authority may have is usually limited to the position they hold, power on the other hand has no limits as the influence can go as far as the individuals ability to gain compliance (Bowen, 2003).
In the definition of servant leadership, contrary to the traditional view of leadership, the servant leader considers himself obliged to serve the followers. This usually requires the individual to possess certain qualities/characteristics to be able to gain the necessary influence as a servant leader. Ten characteristics have been identified as the common qualities that should be present for a leader to fit this bracket. One of them is conceptualization. Conceptualization implies that the servant leader is one who holds the ability to look at the “bigger picture”. This means that they hold a passion for seeing a future in the group or have a vision which they hope to attain by gaining corporation from the followers. Conceptualization requires that the servant leader is able to visualize the problem or the group or institution they are in charge of and have plans that go beyond the current issues. Whereas in the traditional view of leadership the target is to achieve goals that are short lived, the servant leader adjusts his way of thinking and is able to plan for wider and long-term based issues. Therefore servant leadership encompasses the ability to strike a balance and incorporate thinking beyond day-to-day issues as well as ensuring efficient running of the current affairs. An example of a leader who has displayed conceptualization is his style of leadership is President Obama. This was mostly evident in his campaign bid to be elected president. He emphasized on change and attaining a new America. He further broke down the change into attaining a new rich economy while still taking in mind solving the economic crisis that had hit the economy.
William Bryon (2006), a priest of the Society of Jesus, published a book that sought to enlighten the mind titled “Power of Principles”. In this book he dedicated a whole chapter to explain how essential love was in running of any institution especially when exercised by the leader. The ten principles that form the basis of the church’s message basically form the concept of leadership that is driven by love. In the recent past this concept has gained popularity with several writers recognizing its existence. This has been recognized as an emerging style of leadership called love leadership. This style emphasized on a leader being driven by principles which in themselves are the values that are taught by religion, as well as a leader exercising the ability to keep the peoples needs before their own. Cochlan (2009) states that love leadership requires that the leader is at peace with everyone even those who may seem to oppose. He also portrays a great deal of respect for every subject and sees well in every person. President Barrack Obama again fits this category of leaders perfectly. Obama’s leadership is always guided and surrounded by beliefs and values. He has also over time displayed a great respect and appreciation for those staged against him. While many people have found a reason to pour scorn on Former president Bush’s style of leadership and his actions, Obama would also have fit very well in supporting these claims considering their differences in ideologies. In his book however, Obama chooses to pour several compliments to Bush and his administration while he later offers an explanation for their differing ideologies. After his election he also called on those who were on the opposition to join in and drop the war of words to work on building America. His approach to ending the crisis in Iraq has also been astonishing. He has been of the view of forging a good relationship between Iraq and Iran as a way of ending the war (Brayon, 2006).
Obama’s style of leadership has been largely charismatic leadership and transformational leadership. For quite sometime now he has been a leader of great enthusiast inspiring people with the charisma he has displayed before and after being elected president, in his bid to accomplish his ideology of “change we can believe in”. This having been the main reason he convinced people to vote him in, the recent challenges have proven to be a stumbling block to his leadership. His high ratings have now reduced following the slow pace of implementation of the promises he made during the campaign period, particularly the health bill and the country’s financial crisis. The way he has dealt with the oil spill at the Mexican gulf has also attracted mixed reactions. The operating environment in has proven to be a radically changing one as well as new challenges to be tackled. I would at this point recommend adjustments in his style of leadership. One would be to incorporate a bit of democratic leadership where I would seek to know the views of the people and then organize forums for seeking to build consensus to ensure everybody is in support of the ideas. Another approach I’d take would be to build more on the transformational leadership. The major reason why the ratings have fallen are attributed to the fact that Obama had explained his vision to the people and sticking to the initial plan has proven difficult owing to the new challenges. A solution would be to back to revising the vision and then explaining to the people how slight adjustments are going to be effected and the implication of these changes. This is inline with continually evaluating the future plans in transformational leadership. The charismatic type of leadership was important in the initial stages like the campaign period where the energy and enthusiasm was the one necessary to move the masses, at this stage it would be necessary to loosen a bit on the charismatic leadership considering the success of this style of leadership is valid only when the leader is present. Obama needs to prove that his ideologies will live past his tenure as president.
In conclusion, it is important to that up to date there has not been established a particular leadership style that best fit all situations. Success of a leadership style depends on the situation that best fit that leadership style. With the unpredicted changes in the operating environment, a leader is supposed to identify a style that fits the need they wish to fulfill.
References
Brayon, J. (2006). Power of Principles. Ethics for the New Corporate Culture. New York: Orbis Books.
Bowen, L. (2003). Power vs. Authority. Retrieved from http://magazine.byu.edu/?act=view&a=1202
Cochlan, G. (2009). Love Leadership: It’s Infectious. Retrieved from http://loveleadership.com/blog/2009/06/love-leadership-it%E2%80%99s infectious/
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]