What is Organizational Leadership? Difference between Leadership and Management, Types of Leadership Styles.


What is Organizational Leadership?

Organizational leadership is a management approach where leaders help set strategic goals for the organization and lead individuals within the group to successfully assign responsibilities to those goals.


According to a 2016 survey conducted by the leadership development platform Elucidat, 77% of organizations have a leadership gap. Deloitte’s 2016 Human Capital Trends report found that 56% of companies surveyed were not ready to meet their leadership needs. And a 2017 report from Brandon Hall Group found that 83% of organizations say it is essential to develop leaders at all levels.


Organizations of all types and sizes focus on leadership in their organizations - not just at the top - but the degree of organizational leadership is growing in popularity.


The Difference between Leadership vs. Management?

The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) defines leadership as:

The process by which an individual determines direction, influences a group, and directs the group toward a specific goal or mission.

Further, SHRM explains leadership is not a position, but instead, a behavior. This is often what distinguishes managers from leaders. A manager might be at the top of an organizational chart; leaders are found all across, up, and down that same chart. Managers oversee people and processes, whereas leaders might inspire and coach colleagues at the same or other levels as them.

A leader can be a manager, but not all managers are leaders. A 2016 Gallup poll discovered only 18% of managers “demonstrate a high level of talent for managing others.” That same poll estimated that the lack of leadership costs U.S. companies more than $550 billion per year.


Is there a difference between leadership and organizational leadership? Kind of. Organizational leadership refers to the overreaching field in which a person (leader) manages and manages a group of people (organization) strategically to achieve a common goal. Organizational leaders focus on the organization and its individuals. They are business savvy, innovative, and they are visionary communicators who are associated with traits such as "soft" skills and attitudes, sensitive intelligence and ethics.


Types of Leadership Styles

Depending on who you asked or which list you referenced, you can discover anywhere from six to 13 types of leaders. Here are just a few:


Transactional Leader

As the name implies, the leadership of a transaction involves rewards and penalties for completing (or not completing) a task. A sales position - a tiered commission structure - may come to mind when thinking about a transactional leadership environment. The award-based system can be inspiring and many employees can achieve success in a set-up environment with clear expectations. But this inflexible style is not unique to everyone, especially employees who want to contribute ideas to their organization.


Transformative Leader

Transformation leaders are known for inventing stimuli within their team and for empowering and motivating employees in general. In this environment, leaders trust their employees and give them a lot of autonomy. However, not all corporate environments embrace this kind of leadership.


Servant Leadership

Servant leaders put others first. They are called upon to lead their organization because they sincerely want to help employees or any organization reach their goals. In employee leadership, it is even more important for the leader to develop employees so that they do not focus on promoting them. In these environments morale is often high but ending oneself is not something that easily comes to all leaders.


Democratic Leadership

Democratic leadership is also called participatory leadership because these leaders are involved in everyone's voice. Parties led by democratic leaders often discuss ideas and contribute equally to decisions and actions. Democratic leaders often value their party members; However, one of the cons of this style is that achieving sensuality can sometimes be inefficient.


Autocratic Leadership

This style is the opposite of democratic leadership. Autocratic leaders decide in favor of their party. As writers, these leaders tell their employees what to do and how to do it; They have little to no input to ask. Strict than other styles, autocratic leadership has the advantage of quick decision-making and command of clear commands. But more creative employees may feel unnecessary in this environment.


Bureaucratic Leadership

This leadership style can be defined as "by the book". The power of these types of positions comes more with traditional work titles than with personal features. For example, a bureaucratic leader usually comes to their position because of seniority. Companies that have this type of leadership style usually have a clear management process. The sustainability of such a constitutional system is one of the positive aspects of bureaucratic leadership; However, this style also leaves little flexibility or creativity.


Charismatic Leadership

Charismatic leaders are visionary, and they are known for inspiring methods of encouraging a team to reach a partnership goal. Charismatic leaders are also often transformative leaders. These leaders have big personalities and a contagious spirit, and that’s a plus for many organizations. Because a charismatic leader often becomes the face of the organization, turnover not only affects internal morale, but it can also affect the image of the public.


Laissez-Faire Leadership

The Laissez-Faire leadership style is considered "hands-off". This type of leader will give their teams what they want for their success but will then trust their staff to finish the job. Although they put most of the day in the hands of their staff, they still take full responsibility for their team. Many employees succeed in this unique environment, but it may not be the best leadership style for workers who are not self-employed. Loyalty-fire leaders also run the risk of being too passive.

Post a Comment