Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Traditionally, leadership development has focused on developing the leadership abilities and attitudes of individuals. [citation needed] Different personal trait and characteristics can help or hinder a person's leadership effectiveness [1] and require formalized programs for developing leadership competencies.
Other examples include modern technology deployments of small/medium-sized IT teams into client plant sites. Leadership of these teams requires hands-on experience and a lead-by-example attitude to empower team members to make well thought-out and concise decisions independent of executive management and/or home-base decision-makers.
A study conducted by Hulpia et al. focused on the impact of the distribution of leadership and leadership support among teachers and how that affected job satisfaction and commitment. The study found that there was a strong relationship between organizational commitment and the cohesion of the leadership team and the amount of leadership support.
The second element, Attitude Toward Others, is about developing the right attitude toward colleagues in order to maintain the leader's relationships throughout the group's journey to its shared vision or goal. The right attitude is to believe that other people are as important as oneself and see leadership as an act of service (Scouller, 2011).
There are three processes of attitude change as defined by Harvard psychologist Herbert Kelman in a 1958 paper published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution. [1] The purpose of defining these processes was to help determine the effects of social influence: for example, to separate public conformity (behavior) from private acceptance (personal belief).
In the leadership literature, there is a lack of consensus over how to define and refer to cross-cultural leadership. In the GLOBE study, researchers don't specifically define cross-cultural leadership; rather they outline it in two components; organizational leadership and culture.
Over the years, many reviewers of trait leadership theory have commented that this approach to leadership is "too simplistic", [41] and "futile". [42] Additionally, scholars have noted that trait leadership theory usually only focuses on how leader effectiveness is perceived by followers [23] rather than a leader's actual effectiveness. [8]
Implicit leadership theory (ILT) is a cognitive theory of leadership developed by Robert Lord and colleagues. [1] It is based on the idea that individuals create cognitive representations of the world, and use these preconceived notions to interpret their surroundings and control their behaviors . [ 2 ]