In and what they can become and how

In
this essay a leader is going to be portrayed in many styles and defined in
different situation. Leaders who have led and are leading presently are going
to be mentioned and their importance for the society or the importance of the
group or company they have led or lead now. In the present period of time
leaders are pointed out as to outrage the leadership theories therefore the
importance and theatrical meaning behind the theories will be mentioned and
explained. The essay will revolve around the models of leadership and the
difference between them; comparison of the individual plans of leading. In the present world that is competitive amongst
each individual, the skills of a leadership are an essential part of
development for both personal and professional reasons. In the management
aspect leadership is the important part of it as it helps the individual or the
overall business to make the most of the effectiveness of the organisation and
to achieve the set goals.

 Leadership portrays in many styles as depending
on the individual leading. An ethical leader is the most preferable leadership
style that anyone would prefer to see in their leader. A leader with an ethical
perspective will perform ethically during decisive decisions. Freeman and
Stewart in 2006 had referred an ethical leader to be a ‘caring person’ as it
was said that the leader speaks about the ”identity of its community and what
they are and what they can become and how the individuals live and what could
be done to live a better life”.   An ethical leader is also when the thought of
thinking of others happiness is put first instead of its own. In other words
the leaders who sacrifice their own happiness and doing for a cause or for
others are seen as heroes in others eyes. The leaders who are example of
ethical leaders are ‘Gandhi and Cesar Chavez’. As an individual or the leaders
have to will to drain out their ego or self interest to a side as they do not
characterise as an ethical leader.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Mahatma
Gandhi was a good example of an ethical leader. This was because he was one of
the individual’s who was a ‘firm believer in people and their equality’.
Therefore the incident of discrimination in Africa and the differences in
religions between Hindus and Muslims in India that occurred he was not able to
put up with it. The thrust of India getting the independence had become a fear
for the Muslim community because they had a fear that their rights will be
taken from them in the independent India as they were in a minority. In
accordance the Muslims had demanded a separate independent state for themselves
to be made. This caused tension and riots and eventually erupted all over the
country. This was when Gandhi had visited India and he made efforts to restrain
the violence but despite he still couldn’t stop Pakistan manumitting out of the
Indian state. Even the petition could not stop the violence and Gandhi could
not stand it. Therefore he went on a fast to stop the violence. The fast was
said to progress until his heath unless the violence stops. This erased the
differences between the two religions and they both assured Gandhi that the
violence will stop shortly after independence.

In
accordance to the leadership styles Gandhi did not fall in a particular style
but reflected on most of the styles. This was because he portrayed himself in
different qualities in different situations. But the leadership style that
portrayed him was the ‘Transformational leadership style’. This was because he
had dealt with the masses and he empowered and motivated them. But he was also
a ‘servant leader’ as the way he lived in his life. He worked all his life for
the people and the work was committed with full dedication and selflessly.

Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership style is interpreted from the
‘transformational theory’. The theory is said to be when the leader leads in a
way where it transforms and motivates its followers through the action of
awareness. The leader basically has a purpose to make the awareness of the
importance to the outcomes of the task conducted, as well as including them to
sacrifice their own self interest for the sake of others in accordance to Bass
(1985, 1996). This theory portrays the actions of Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma
Gandhi transformed and motivated its followers when he wanted peace and could
not tolerate violence neither conflict. Therefore to transform them he
motivated them through the support and his thought in the support of him
fasting to bring peace. This showed its followers and the community that he
cared more about the peace for others and risked his own life.

On
the other hand leaders like Donald trump do not refer as an ethical leader
because of his characteristics, as mentioned before an ethical leader is
thought to think about others and let go of your ego. When trump was newly
elected as the president he had claimed that nothing can stop him from becoming
the president of the United States and even the CEO of his company at the same
time. The verbal evidence of this claim which he stated in the New York Times
was his exact words where he said “In theory I could run my business perfectly and then run the country
perfectly”. This clearly shows that he has an ego and this clearly defames in
the characteristics of an ethical leader. Not an ethical leader in the case of Donald trump but he does categorise as a leader for
its country because he leads the country according to his own style. The
leadership style that outfit’s Donald Trump is ‘charismatic’. He is classed as
a charismatic leader because as a leader he forces his personality and action
on others as that is considered important in his eyes rather than
collaborating. Just like other charismatic leaders which are individuals such
as Martin Luther King, Adolf Hitler and GE’s Jack Welch.

Vladimir
Putin’s characteristics fit in the charismatic leadership style as well the transformational.
Compare to the other leader he makes a very good example that he is perceived as
an individual who is charismatic. At the same time he is considered as one of
the most ‘driven, intelligent leaders of leaders of Russia.

Jung
and Sosik (2006) had said that the charismatic leaders are acquired to ”self
monitor, engage in the impression of the management, they should have a
motivation to obtain the social power and a motivation to obtain self
actualisation”.

Donald
Trump and Vladimir Putin both are similar to each other they both are leaders
from US and they both fall in the charismatic leadership style. But as leaders
they both have something in common which is their ‘ego’.  This characteristic as a leader neglects them
in the ethical perspective of the leadership. 

Looking
at all the leaders from the past to the present majority of them are male
dominated. There was gender role stereotypes which led to such circumstances as
Denmark (1977) had speculated. Research on the sex role stereotype in the late
1960s and the early 1970s had evaluated that ”men were seen more competitive
and women were seen as warm or expressive”. During them years there were
differences between the genders and they were seen as both opposite to each
other. As said by Powell and Butterfield, 1989 that back in them days men were
the ones to be expected as masculine and the women as feminine but those who
came in between were claimed as those individuals who were in the need of help
and considered as ‘maladjusted’. The stereotype between men and women was
caused because females are labelled to be more emotional in most situations and
less competitive than males because they are thought to be more focused on
their goal and will not get emotional during weak situation. But now in the 20th
century women and men are most likely to be seen equal. In the working world
there are female managers and not just males. Not only in the working environment
even in the politics there are females not only males. Looking at the present
time there is a female minister ‘Theresa May’, British Prime Minister. This
shows that the tradition has changed from the late 1960s and early 1970s
compare to now.

Power
and influence take a big part in leadership. Power and influence make a
difference on a leader whether it’s good or bad. Power in leadership can bring
out the wrong side of an individual like ‘ego’ which is a good example in few
leaders. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin both are a perfect example of power in
leadership. They both have an ego which contributes through their power in
which they got as a leader. On the other side there is influence in leadership.
This is where a leader is to look up on like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi.
These leaders as such are an influence on others the way we should act and
react during difficult situations.  

Ethical
egoism is part of a leadership style. There are many individual leaders with
ego. Those who have an ego are those who think about themselves and not much
about others. An individual with ethical egoism has to create themselves good
for themselves in front of the others, for instance a leader in front of its
team or followers. It was mentioned by Avolio and Locke (2002) that a job is
taken by a leader when they selfishly enjoy it. Transactional leadership theory
is linked to the ethical egoism as the individual has self interest.

Utilitarianism
is the opposite of the ethical egoism. This is because utilitarianism is when a
person (leader) behaves in a certain matter which concludes in creating
happiness and good for good amount of people. This is
when the leader funds and makes such decisions on certain situations that will
end with good results for large sum of people. This is a perfect example of
Mahatma Gandhi, as he behaved accordingly to the situation which led to
happiness of everyone.

Utilitarianism
is similar to altruism. They are similar to each other because altruism is when
the individual conducts itself in a way that interests others. The actions
conducted by such individual leaders are taken honestly if their core purpose
is to promote the best interests of others. Example of this is Mother Teresa.
Mother Teresa is altruism because of the way she interested others in the way
she presented herself. She helped someone from drowning; this brings happiness
for the person that was drowning and for the others. This shows others that
Mother Teresa is a person where happiness is relied on.

Overall
leadership is formed in different forms and through different individuals. An individual
leading is something to be considered as a huge fact. This is because to lead
an individual has to change its life and adjust to others. A leader has to make
sure that its style of leading is effective enough that the followers are motivated
by them and their leading is affecting in some way. There are many leaders that
are left as motivation for others behind and there are few leaders which will
be recalled on their downside. Leadership comes with history of tradition and
power and influence.

 

 

 

 

Comments are closed.