Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In Forsyth, the leadership substitute theory is defined as "a conceptual analysis of the factors that combine to reduce or eliminate the need for a leader." [1] A leader may find that behaviors focusing on nurturing interpersonal relationships, or coordinating tasks and initiating structure, are not required in every situation. A study by Kerr ...
Substitutes for leadership theory is a leadership theory first developed by Steven Kerr and John M. Jermier and published in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance in December 1978. [ 1 ] The theory states that different situational factors can enhance, neutralize, or substitute for leader behaviors [ 2 ] (Den Hartog & Koopman, 2001).
A leadership style is a leader's method of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. [1] Various authors have proposed identifying many different leadership styles as exhibited by leaders in the political , business or other fields.
An authoritarian leadership style is described as being as "leaders' behavior that asserts absolute authority and control over subordinates and [that] demands unquestionable obedience from subordinates." [1] Such a leader has full control of the team, leaving low autonomy within the group.
This leadership style can be seen as the absence of leadership, and is characterized by an attitude avoiding any responsibility. Decision-making is left to the employees themselves, and no rules are fixed. Laissez-faire is the least effective leadership style, when measured by the impact of the leader's opinion on the team.
The term antonym (and the related antonymy) is commonly taken to be synonymous with opposite, but antonym also has other more restricted meanings. Graded (or gradable) antonyms are word pairs whose meanings are opposite and which lie on a continuous spectrum (hot, cold).
Some characteristics of Mintzberg's definition include: highly organic structure [6] little formalization of behavior [6] [7] job specialization not necessarily based on formal training; a tendency to group the specialists in functional units for housekeeping purposes but to deploy them in small, market-based project teams to do their work [6]
Other examples of social institutions in this respect include government and religious organizations, some more in-line with serving society that others. This interpretation of macromanagement is less about managing employees, but rather managing the organization from a broader perspective that is oriented toward the future.