The Notion of Effective Management and Leadership - Article Example

Management Effective management comes about with a sense of understanding and intellect related with the job at hand, of the manager. Manager thus has to devise ways and means through which he can utilize his resources that are available to him. His task is cut out right from the very beginning – he has to be on his toes and remain alert as per the organizational undertakings and business processes. His approach must be one of a proactive nature, thereby asking the organization to understand the true meaning of prioritizing work processes, with significance given to the nature of the tasks that lie ahead. The effective manager is indeed an effective leader at the end of the day. This is because a manager who can manage his time, work ethos and the subordinates under him is essentially a leader of sorts as he can maneuver his troops, look around the grey areas and try to fill the gaps, adjust his course of action over a period of time and meet deadlines on a consistent basis. His work is basically commensurate with that of a leader as a leader is quintessentially a person who will display the same traits and characteristics if he is given a chance to work through the different tasks within the rigors of an organization, on an out and out basis (Khurana, 2003). Flexibility is the key within the notion of effective management and leadership domains. This is the reason why one sees so many managers today and fewer leaders. The organizations have delved deep into this phenomenon with the changing times. The management regimes have been benefited endlessly by having a number of these managers. However the top management seldom finds an individual who is geared to meet up with the challenges that a modern day leader would exhibit. His manifestations need to be in line with the present day theories of leadership which have come to the fore (Rockman, 2003). The resource utilization processes, tasks and regimes have facilitated this leadership to instill its influence and control over the different undertakings within the management realms. Modern leadership has focused more on getting things done in a teamwork fashion and concentrated less on the individual efforts of the employees. The individual endeavors have thus taken a backseat as far as the organizational processes are concerned (Hagan, 1998). The collective vision has accounted for more growth and development within the leadership circles and this has ultimately formed up the theory that organizations have adopted in the modern age. It would not be wrong here to suggest that organizations are on the lookout for having similar theories within its folds, as far as leadership is related, in order to exponentially increase its results over a period of time. However this has meant giving more attention to the underlying and more pressing issues that arise within the midst of any organization and which need to be tackled in a head on manner by the people at the helm of affairs, i.e. the top management (Kramer, 2005). The traditional theories of leadership looked at extracting work out of individual efforts on the part of the employees whereas the modern theories have depended a great deal more on the collective endeavors of the employees. What this has meant that the modern day leader has been more focused, pinpointed and articulate as to what he actually wants from his subordinates, allocation of resources and the understanding of different management and business functions. The modern day theories of leadership are better placed than the earlier adopted ones since these look at building upon the core competencies of individuals and not just rely on the work ethos that they demonstrate at the end of the day (Heilbrunn, 1994). The work functions have been arranged in such a manner that the modern day leader has understood what will be required of a particular employee and how he/she would be given the resources in order to get the tasks completed in a smooth and easy way. Having said that the traditional theories looked only at the manner in which work could be done in a free-flowing way, without much hurdles coming to the fore. The modern day theories however have negated this tried, tested and often failed formula of going about with the leadership theories. The modern day leadership has manifested its true self through sheer work ethos, understanding of the manner in which work will be extracted out of individuals in the form of a teamwork structure and lastly focusing on their core competencies rather than concentrating on all people for all possible tasks (Maddock, 1998). When it comes to motivation, the different leadership styles have focused towards this phenomenon in a number of different ways. Motivation is important as it tells the employees that they are being kept a check upon at all times and that their work is being consistently monitored. They are thus proactive in their work ethos and remain vigilant (Wagner, 2006). They endeavor to outperform their compatriots at work as well as display the best of attitudes and work ethics. However encouragement, support and motivation are needed for their respective personalities to get uplift within their morale in the sheer sense of the word. Motivation would look to counter the negativities that employees have within their work domains as well as in addressing the issues and problems which crop up every now and so often. The different leadership styles pinpoint this attribute in quite a number of ways (Atkinson, 1986). The traditional theories of leadership focused on increasing salaries, giving bonuses and highlighting the strengths that these employees have. The modern day theories of leadership however depend on the premise of delegating work, giving tasks and assignments based on one’s strengths, looking after the most basic needs of the employees and so on. The latter model of leadership theories are better placed and quite sound within the midst of things. The organization depends a great deal on the way the work gets done. Now it is up to the employees as to how they perceive the priorities of the organization and thus mold themselves in line with the changing needs and requirements that are happening on a constant basis. Managers have their own respective leadership styles. It is of paramount importance to understand that these leadership styles manifest the kind of changes that an organization will see within its processes, tasks and undertakings. The leadership styles also dictate the manner in which motivation will come about in full circle as far as the employees are concerned. Motivation is imperative to understand since this can be used as an effective tool by the managers themselves (Butkus, 1999). They can make use of the issues that confront the employees and adjust their vision in a very corrective fashion. There is a need to establish the exact manner under which manager will actually motivate their employees. This could be in the form of giving those tasks which are closely suited to their core strengths or giving them bonuses on and off. Also there could be positive changes within the workplace that boost the morale of the employees and thus motivate them in more ways than one. Motivation needs to be felt by the employees in order for them to perform at their optimum levels. They must remain on board as far as the aspect of motivation within their work domains is concerned (Wright, 2001). The modern day theories of leadership are better placed at giving them an idea as far as the motivational discussions are related here. Leadership styles do play a pivotal role at manifesting a proper and clear cut basis of motivation for the employees but seldom leaves a glaring gap between the leaders and their subordinates. From an organizational standpoint, having motivation for the sake of the employees and the same coming from the quarters of the leadership regimes is seen as a very positive sign. This means that the employees are on the same wavelength as the top management within the organization and there is no missing link present anywhere. However this also means that motivation needs to be the consistent element which is given to these employees so that they can give their absolute best on the job and thus do not stray from their set course of action. In the end, it would be proper to state here that the modern theories of leadership have been more successful at creating a positive change within the working domains of the leaders as well as the recipients of these theories in essence – the employees themselves. The traditional theories fell short on a number of different counts, most important of which is the element of understanding the human psyche which is working within the midst of an organization. Similarly, motivation can be deemed as a successful entity if and only if the leaders understand their due roles within the respective settings of an organization. They need to instill a sense of pride and confidence with the work ethos which will eventually bear rich fruit at the end of the day. References Atkinson, J. (1986). Motivation, Thought, and Action. Praeger Publishers Butkus, R. (1999). Motivation, Beliefs, and Organizational Transformation. Quorum Books Hagan, J. (1998). International Decision Making: Leadership Matters. Foreign Policy, Spring Heilbrunn, J. (1994). Can Leadership Be Studied? The Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 18, Spring Khurana, R. (2003). Invisible Management: The Social Construction of Leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 Kramer, R. (2005). The Psychology of Leadership: New Perspectives and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Maddock, R. (1998). Motivation, Emotions, and Leadership: The Silent Side of Management. Quorum Books Rockman, B. (2003). The Challenge of Leadership in a Federal Agency. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 13 Wagner, D. (2006). Making Sense of Motivational Leadership: The Trail from Transformational Leaders to Motivated Followers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 Wright, B. (2001). Public-Sector Work Motivation: A Review of the Current Literature and a Revised Conceptual Model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 11 Word Count: 1,519 Read More