Leadership it Is so Difficult

Leadership

It is so difficult to measure the effectiveness of leaders for a couple of reasons. The performance of the organization is tied to a number of other variables, which vary in intensity and in their relationship to the leadership function. Another reason is that the role of the leader is often ill-defined. The criteria used to measure the effectiveness of leaders varies by situation, but is rooted in organizational objectives. In particular, performance against a set of objectives or benchmarks based on prior performance can be used to gain insight into a leader's effectiveness. For CEOs, broad corporate-level objectives such as net income, market share and share price can form the basis for measurement; at lower levels functional targets such as unit productivity, sales figures or turnover can be used. There is to me no difference between leadership and management. Managers must lead their units in order for the unit to achieve objectives. All units and employees have objectives to which they are working, in other words to which they must be lead. The traditional understanding of the divide between leadership and management can be better characterized as the difference between transactional leadership and transformational leadership.

2. The most important of Yukl's ten leadership functions for my leader is to create alignment on objectives and strategies. I work as a Squad Leader in the Army, where I lead a company of ten men. While I perform many of the key leadership functions for my team, my superiors are responsible for the task of ensuring that my company's activities are aligned with a broader strategy. My current leader performs exceptionally well in this regard. My company's work has contributed strongly to the success of recent missions, and provides critical support for other companies. The tight integration between the activities of different companies is a key component of success. The impact of this leadership has been positive for me. It helps make my job easier in terms of keeping up morale and dedication, because everybody understands the value of our work to the overall objectives. In addition, this leadership has proven a good example to me of how to think about overall strategy. This will help in my own career development as it gives me a strong benchmark for leadership performance at higher levels.

3. Group participants can in many situations be empowered to contribute to decision-making, however this should be contingent on the situation. In situations such as those I encounter as a Squad Leader, the overall strategy is not always immediately evident. In this situation, the followers should be expected to maintain a high level of dedication to task regardless of whether or not they understand the full ramifications of their actions. In civilian life, where perhaps the stakes are lower, a company can succeed by empowering employees because the ability to make a contribution can increase their dedication to the task and to overall objectives. This is more reasonable because the objectives are often transparent throughout the organization. In addition, the organizational culture is one of employment at will, where there is no implicit dedication to the organization. Engagement from the employees is dependent on their feeling of empowerment. When the objectives of a task cannot be revealed, then it is necessary that the followers do not engage in participative leadership lest they move the outcome of the task away from what is desired. Empowerment is not necessary in the military because of the nature of commitment that is implicit in the organizational culture, so participative leadership is not as necessary.