Theoretical Reflections Essay Research Paper Theoretical Reflections — страница 4
- Просмотров 214
- Скачиваний 5
- Размер файла 19 Кб
affecting the leader and the situation. Not only does the leader need to be in touch with the followers, the followers need to be in touch with the leader and each group affects the other both in positive and negative ways. Some of the things on which the leaders success depends are the expectations, the personalities. the competence and the motivation of the followers as well as the structure, setting, and resources the situation provides. These things are beyond the leaders initial control yet are important considerations. Along with the interaction between those three properties (leader, follower, and situational characteristics), things to keep in mind is how the leader original obtained the position, how the position has been kept by the leader and what factors have had what effect on the situation. Hollander stress the importance of having legitimacy of position not through hierarchy but by competency. He also stress the importance of being able to recognize change happening within the situation. Whether planed or not, change will take place to some extent and a good leader should be able to recognize the change, how it will/ could effect the situation, and what therefore should be done. Hollanders theory comes under the heading of Interactional theories (those which recognize the importance of the situation and the follower), however he claims a large difference is in his realization of the effect the follower has on the leader and vice versa whereas most other Interactionl (or the RoriginalS theory) concentrates on the leaders role in working with the follower and how that work reflects on their leadership, though the follower does not take an RactiveS part in affecting the leader and situation – something Hollander does recognize. HollanderUs approach also reflects that of the Contingency model (that leaders and situations should be matched because certain situations call for certain leadership styles and leaders cannot change their style easily so they need to RfitU in correct positions based on assessment of the situation and the leader) though he differs from Fiedler and Chemers in that he suggests more ability of the leader to form or change the situation. He also defines and explains certain tactics of leadership which he finds to be important (such as being somewhat flexible in rules/ definitions in order to allow followers the chance to explore the situation and develop as people) which can be fulfilled to a greater or lesser degree by all people whereas Fiedler and Chemers expect a realization of ones personal strong points and the application of them.