Leadership vs management

A more recent deflation ofleadershipfrom Gardner (1990, p. 38) holds that ” leadership is the accomplishment of group purpose, which is furthered not only by effective leaders but also by innovators, entrepreneurs, and thinkers; by the availability of resources; by questions of value and social cohesion. ” By this definition, then, leadership can be thought of as an even broader phenomenon. Gardner begins to challenge the idea that leadership exists within a single designated person and a situation.

Instead, he positions leadership as moving toward and achieving a group AOL, not necessarily because of the work of one skilled individual (I. E. The leader) but because of the work of multiple members of the group. Not only does leadership require someone who helps set the direction and move the group forward while serving as a resource, but it involves the contributions of other great thinkers and doers, access to the right resources, and the social composition of the group. There are four key theories of leadership that have recently replaced the traditional hierarchical-based leadership seen within the INS.

These four key domains of dervish are relational, personal, contextual and technical all of which can be applied to thenursinghome setting. Relational leadership promotes organizational and individual change, encourages engagement andcommunicationbetween staff and patients and focuses on the dynamics of working relationships and patient experiences (Bolder and Gosling, 2006). The personal leadership theory includes the promotion of reflective learning, personal resilience and self-awareness as a leader (Baden, 2006).

Contextual leadership utilizes policy and strategy within the latherer field to promote development by understanding the positions and strengths of various stakeholders and/or employees (Brazier, 2005). Technical leadership Involves the improvement of methodologies. Approaches and philosophies within the workingenvironment. This theory adopts the position of the leader changing things for the better while a manager maintains existing systems in good working order (Auckland, 2014).

Leadership of whole systems David Willower Visiting Professor and Deputy Director, Centre forHealthEnterprise, Sacs Business School, City university Rob Warwick Centre for Health Enterprise, Sacs Business School, City University Colon Carnal Visiting Professor and Director, Sacs ExecutiveEducation, Sacs Business School, City University Dean Fathers Visiting Professor and Director, Centre for Health Enterprise, Sacs Business School, City university This paper was commissioned by The Kings Fund to inform its review of leadership in the INS.

The views expressed are those of the authors and not of The King’s Fund. Most important characteristics. As expected, when dealing with uncertainty and complexity it takes on even greater importance with special emphasis on values such s integrity, authenticity, honesty, and not being afraid to face the difficult realities. Here the bestseller texts take on renewed significance (Collins 2001; Covey 1989) especially when taken alongside more specialist texts such as (Pearce 2003) on leadership authenticity and (Grimly 2010) on facing difficult conversations.

For practical guidance on the importance of frequent and relevant communications to aid the process of leading people through chaotic change see (Kara and Hellё 2009) whostressthe importance of paying attention to how people form identities within he system – a slightly different way of expressing the familiar themes. ” An organization which is self-learning is more resilient to uncertainty, and is clearer about where it is going and how thosegoalscan be achieved, including the dual challenge of improving quality and efficiency in tandem.

Perhaps one of the surprising emergent ideas is that some concepts that had increasingly become redundant for want of political correctness are reemerging. The concept of power needs to be rehabilitated, because there is no doubt that social movements and networks function through power bases, even though these may not reflect the invitational command and control power base which in complex systems needs to be applied in homeopathic doses. A second of these important departures is that toxicity and variation (in small doses) become crucial to success within complex systems, even though the goal of simple systems is to drive these out. (Willower et al 2012) Within the context of Mason’s hierarchy of needs, transactional leadership works at the basic levels of need satisfaction, where transactional leaders focus on the lower levels of the hierarchy. Transactional leaders use an exchange model, with rewards being given for good work or positive outcomes. Conversely, people with this leadership style also can punish poor work or negative outcomes, until the problem is corrected. One way that transactional leadership focuses on lower level needs is by stressing specific task performance.

Transactional leaders are effective in getting specific tasks completed by managing each portion individually. Transactional leaders are concerned with processes rather than forward-thinking ideas. These types of leaders focus on contingent reward (also known as contingent positive reinforcement) or contingent finalization (also known as contingent negative reinforcement). Contingent rewards (such as praise) are given when the set goals are accomplished on-time, ahead of time, or to keep subordinates working at a good pace at different times throughout completion.

Contingent punishments (such as suspensions) are given when performance quality or quantity falls below production standards or goals and tasks are not met at all. Often, contingent punishments are handed down on a management-by-exception basis, in which the exception is passive routes. Active management-by-exception means that the leader continually looks at each subordinates performance and makes changes to the subordinates ark to make corrections throughout the process. Passive management-by-exception leaders wait for issues to come up before fixing the problems.

With transactional leadership being applied to the lower-level needs and being more managerial in style, it is a foundation for transformational leadership which applies to higher-level needs. Forum Meat (2011) informs us that cognitive resource theory was developed by Fred Fiddler, Vehicle and Joe Garcia as a re-conceptualization of the Fiddler Contingency Model of leadership (1987). This theory recognizes that stress can be a constituent that prevents an intelligent leader from being efficient.

Therefore this theory argues that there is no ideal leader. Leaders are said to be either task orientated or those who priorities human relationships; but leaders are required to deal with various situations and different stress levels. Cognitive resource theory states that, an intelligent leader can work efficiently under low stress situation. This is because the stress mar a persons ability to think effectively. As an intellectual person will seek for coherent answers but, not all problems have coherent answers and that is why he may not be capable.

In a high-stress situation, a person with lower intellectual level but more work experience will be able to lead better. Similarly, the theory indicates that a leader with higher intelligence will perform better than a more experienced leader in low- stress situations. This is because an experienced leader will rely more on past events and experiences than being able to think out of the box. Their experience, in a way, leader will be able to use his intellect to seek solutions.

An intelligent leader gives intellectual effort in preparation, rationalizing, decision- making and in making a plan of action to solve a task. Also, they need to be an efficient communicator to instruct and guide. An intelligent leader seeks support from his team and depending on the level of stress and his relationship with his team members, decides how efficiently he will be able to deal with a situation. If he is not in good terms with his team members then his leadership attributes maybe blocked out.

When in stress, intelligence does not help and that’s when a forceful commanding ability is required. Hence, a leader must be directional. Without the support from his team members, a leader cannot act efficiently and that represents dependency. Following experimentation with regard to this theory, results showed that more- intelligent leaders spoke more when in high stress than less intelligent leaders. Intelligent leaders felt the blow of the deadline pressures and also people in their teams contributed less to imaginative ideas because of the leaders Jabbering disposition.

Intelligent leaders could end up being upset and could also overreact to small things, negatively-affecting other team members too. Stress can be conveyed from one person to the other if a stressed-out person is unable to handle it. The theory also states that simple Jobs or tasks do not require intelligence or experience. Therefore, such Jobs require minimum leadership. If a Job is simple and it does not require directions and guidance then no matter how good the leader is, his or hers support will not be needed by his team. Forum Meat 2011) Classical management theory Emphasis on structure Prescriptive about ‘what is good for the firm’ Practical manager (except Weber, sociologist) Hen Payola (1841 – 1925), France F W Taylor – (1856 – 1915), USA- The Scientific Management School Max Weber (1864 – 1924), Germany Human Relations Theories Where Classical theorists were concerned with structure and mechanics of organizations, the theorists of human relations were, understandably, concerned tit the human factors. The focus of human relations theory is onmotivation, group motivation and leadership.

At the centre of these focal point are suppositions about relationship between employer and employee. Best summarized by Shine (1965) or Elton Mayo were that they wereacademic, social scientists, their emphasis was on factors in achieving an organization’s effectualness and that they were descriptive and attempted to be prophetic of behavior in organizations Neo-Human Relations Theory This group were social psychologists who developed more complex theories: Moscow McGregor (theory X and theory Y) Liker Arises Moscow is often-quoted still today, having developed a seminal theory of the needs of human beings.

Herbage’s and McGregor neo-human relations theories both focus on motivation and leadership, but their theories are, as we shall see, very different. In this group we find a particular focus on human motivation including: satisfaction incentive intrinsic Described ‘new patterns of management’ based on the behaviors of managers Four main patterns: 1 . Exploitative – authoritative where power and direction come from the top downwards’, where threats and punishment are employed, where communication is or and teamwork non-existent. Productivity is typically mediocre ‘Rational economic man’ 2.

Benevolent – authoritative is similar to the above but allows some upward opportunities for consultation and some delegation. Rewards may be available as well as threats. Productivity is typically fair to good but at cost of considerable absenteeism and turnover Weaker version of ‘rational – economic man’ 3. Consultative where goals are set or orders issued after discussion with subordinates, where communication is upwards and downwards and where teamwork is encouraged, at least partially. Some involvement of employees as a titivation ‘social man’ 4.

Participative – group is reckoned by many to be the ideal system. Under this system, the keynote is participation, leading to commitment to the organization’s goals in a fully co-operative way. Communication is both upwards, downwards and lateral. Motivation is obtained by a variety of means. Productivity is excellent and absenteeism and turnover are low Studied the needs of people and the needs of organization. He felt that classical models of organization promoted ‘immaturity’ (see below). He felt that it was important to understand the needs of people and integrate them with needs of organization.

The ‘systems approach’ attempted to synthesis the classical approaches (organizations without people) with the later human relations approaches that focused on the psychological and social aspects, emphasized human needs – almost ‘people without organizations’. Systems theory focuses on complexity and reciprocally of relationships. A system is composed of regularly interacting or interdependent groups of activities that form the emergent whole. Part of systems theory, system dynamics is a method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems.

The basis of the method is the recognition that the structure of any system the many circular, interlocking, sometimes time-delayed relationships mongo its components is often Just as important in determining its behavior as the individual components themselves. Early systems theorists aimed at finding a general systems theory that could explain all systems in all fields ofscience. The term goes back to Verifiability’s work ‘General Systems Theory’. Sociologists like Nikolas Lehmann also worked towards a general systems theory.

As of today, whilst no systems theory can live up to this claim, there are general system principles which are found in all systems. For example, every system is an interaction of elements manifesting as a whole. Miller and Rice likened the commercial and industrial organization to biological organisms. Systems theories takes much more of an holistic view of organizations, focusing on the total work organization and the inter- relationships between structures and human behaviors producing a wide range of variables within organizations.

They help us understand the interactions between individuals, groups, organizations, communities, larger social systems, & their environments and help us enhance our understanding of how human behavior operates in a context. A system is a part, and it is a whole, at the same time. An example of this in the Modern INS is care pathways for patients which will often require a range of health disciplines to work together and will often also include professionals from social services or the local authority as well. System Theory Key Terms: Boundary – an imaginary line around system of focus. Regulates flow of energy (e. . Information, resources) into & out of the system. Focal system – the system on which you are concentrating at any given time (egg: a manufacturing plant or afamily). Parents) , sometimes referred to as ‘sibling subsystem’ & ‘parental subsystem’). Supermarkets – is external to focal system; it is its environment. May include place of employment, school, neighborhood, church, social service system. Open system – Relatively open systems have a freer exchange of information and resources within the system and also allow relatively free passage of energy from and to the outside of the system.

Closed system – is more self-contained & isolated from their environment. The business organization is an Open System: there is continual interaction with the broader external environment of which it forms a part, The systems approach considers the organization within its total environment and emphasizes the importance of ‘multiple channels of interaction’. Thus the systems approach views organizations as a whole and involves the study of the organization in terms of the relationship between technical and social variables with the systems.

Thus changes in one part, technical or social, will affect other parts and therefore the whole system. It was Trust and others at the Atavistic Institute of Human relations who focused in on socio-technical systems arising from their study of the effects of changingtechnologyin the coal-mining industries in the sass. The following Timeline gives an interesting perspective to the development of Systems Theory: 1950 General Systems Theory (founded by Ludwig von Bertelsmann) 1960 cybernetics (W. Ross Shabby, Norte Wiener) Mathematical theory of the communication and control of systems through regulatory feedback.

Closely related: ” control theory” 1970 catastrophe theory (Rene Tom, E. C. Eczema) Branch ofmathematicsthat deals with bifurcations in dynamical systems, classifies phenomena characterized by sudden shifts in behavior arising from small changes in circumstances. 1980 chaos theory (David Rule, Edward Lorenz, Mitchell Figment, Steve Small, James A. Yorker) Mathematical theory of nonlinear dynamical systems that describes bifurcations, strange attractors, and chaotic motions. 1990 complex adaptive systems (CASE) Noon H. Holland, Murray Gel-Mann, Harold Minority, W.

Brian Arthur,). The ” new” science of complexity which describes emergence, adaptation and self-organization, all of which are basic system principles, was established mainly by researchers of the Santa Fee Institute (SF). It is based on agents and computer simulations and includes multi-agent systems (MASS) which have become an important tool to study social and complex systems. CASE are still an active field of research. Thomas (2006) argues that a systemic approach is useful when dealing with problems in health NAS social care.

Atavistic Institute of Human Relations organization is an ‘open system’ with environment organizations are complex systems of people, task, technology technological environmental factors are Just as important as social/psychological Contingency Theories From the late sass, a new approach to organization theory was developed which became known contingency theory. This theory argues that there is no ‘one best way’ to structure an organization. An organization will face a range of choices when determining how it should be structured, how it should be organized, how it should be managed.

Successful organizations adopt structures that are an appropriate of the organization and how it works. These theories take a comprehensive view of people in organizations they recommend a diagnosis of people/ task/ technology/ environment – then suggest the development of appropriate solutions 1 . Pugh (I-J) 2. Burns and Stalker (I-J) 3. Lawrence / Lowers (USA) Contingency theorists have found that three contingencies are particularly important in influencing an organization’s structure. These are: its size the technology it uses TTS operating environment.