Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Leadership theories autocratic
Learning vs traditional organization
The importance of autocratic leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Leadership theories autocratic
Learning Organizations
We live in a digitized society; organization requires leaders to leverage employee inputs, open-communication, change initiatives, and creativity as their most valuable asset. Learning organizations embraced these qualities in contrast to traditional organizations. A learning organization encourages team collaboration, and the group believes that doing what is right for the business and its people would increase satisfaction in the workplace. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the relationships and differences between two dominant organizations; learning organizations, and traditional organizations. This paper will illustrate that the two organizations have several common areas that leaders can use to apply highly
…show more content…
It is important for an organization to develop into a learning organization to survive and to prosper in a competitive and ever-changing business environment (Yuraporn & Laubie, 2004). Traditional organizations tend to prevent rapid change. Traditional structure characteristics are bureaucratic, hierarchical power, with low rates of change initiatives. Traditional body structure shows that centralization, formalization, and stratification correlate with lower rates of change (Johnson, …show more content…
Transformational leadership approaches aligned with learning organization characteristics of supporting, recognizing, correcting and setting expectations for the team. The team accomplishment of tasks is achieved through participation, motivating, training, sharing of ideas through personal attention and collaborations (Kareem, 2016). Learning organizations implement transactional leadership styles of rewarding, interventions and specific tasks. Like learning organization, transactional leaders reward their staff in exchange for effort; the leaders acknowledge excellent production with awards; and communicates the rewards given for different performances (Kareem, 2016). Transactional leadership and autocratic leadership methods are executed in traditional organizations. Like traditional organizational leadership, transactional leadership organizes their businesses into parts; they guide their followers toward established goals. The leader is closed minded and arbitrary (Lopez & Ensari, 2014). The traditional organization also used autocratic leadership style (Kareem, 2016). The leaders control subordinates and are supremely confident and comfortable in their decision-making responsibility business operations and strategic plans without input from
Borkowski (2015) distinguished between transactional leadership and transformational leadership by explaining that: transactional leadership is directed toward task accomplishment and the maintenance of good relations between the leader and subordinates throw consideration of performance and reward. And, Transformational leadership, contrasting transactional leadership, is directed toward the influence and management of institutional change and innovation through revitalization and
In today’s ever changing world people must adapt to change. If an organization wants to be successful or remain successful they must embrace change. This book helps us identify why people succeed and or fail at large scale change. A lot of companies have a problem with integrating change, The Heart of Change, outlines ways a company can integrate change. The text book Ivanceich’s Organizational Behavior and Kotter and Cohen’s The Heart of Change outlines how change can be a good thing within an organization. The Heart of Change introduces its readers to eight steps the authors feel are important in introducing a large scale organizational change. Today’s organizations have to deal with leadership change, change in the economy,
According to our text book there are two main classifications of leadership approaches, transformational leadership and transactional leadership (Yoder-Wise, 2011). Transformational leadership is centered on motivation and building relationships with staff through a shared vision and mission (Frandsen, 2013). Transactional leadership approach involves one superior with minimum or no input from the employees (Yoder-Wise, 2011).
Giltinane (2013) identifies three leadership styles. The first is transactional leadership in which a leader is controlling and functions in a reward and punishment environment. In transactional leadership style, leaders give little room for employees to express ingenuity. Decisions are passed laterally from top down and the form of leadership is to stress obedience rather than loyalty. Transactional leadership is closely related to autocratic style (Giltinane, 2013).
These disiplies are important in establishing a learning organization because in a growing environment, it is important to provide “creative thought process” feel. Concepts, ideas, and solutions should be discussed and available to everyone. Learning organizations set us free. Employees are allowed to express their ideas and challenges which contribute to a more efficient work environment. A learning work environment that incorporates these 5 disciplines can create the desired results where people and the organization will be equally
Based on Burns (1978) there are two types of basic leadership styles, transformational and transactional. Transactional leaders are in contact with an individual for an exchange that will occur between them while transformational leaders motivate and connect with their followers
Organizational structure can be defined as the “formal arrangement of jobs within an organization” (Robbins & Coulter, 2009, p. 185). Having a defined and unified structure helps employees work more efficiently. Jacques Kemp, former CEO of ING Insurance Asia/Pacific, realized this need early on in his role. The company had been performing well and recently acquired another insurance company to become “one of the largest life insurance companies in Asia-Pacific” (Schotter, 2006, p. 4). However, Kemp’s proactive personality led him to seek out ways to achieve more efficient coordination between the regional office and business units (Robbins & Coulter, 2009). Kemp noticed that “most business unit managers did not even know the current corporate standards” and he began searching for a way to manage the managers (Schotter, 2006, p. 5). ING Insurance Asia/Pacific’s organizational structure was mechanistic and fairly well structured, but for a company that had recently been involved in a major acquisition and was divided across 12 geographically dispersed markets there was a great need to tweak this structure to unify the company (Schotter, 2006). If I had been in Kemp’s position as CEO, I would have made modifications to the organizational chain of command, formalized business processes, and used technology to stimulate collaboration amongst the region to help this company overcome organizational design challenges.
Organizations are resistant to change for reasons such as : due to pursuit of stability , avoidance of uncertainity , reluctance to deviate from programmed activities, inability to innovate, for economies of stability etc, Yet this resistance is advantageous to certain firms that are loosely structured, organic, and oriented towards product market innovation, expert power based, etc.Any emerging organizational tendency (like decentralization, technocratization etc),whatever its direction will tend to have momentum associated with it.
Change is a fundamental element of individuals, groups and all sorts of organizations. As it is the case for individuals, groups and societies, where change is a continuous process, composed of an indefinite amount of smaller sub-changes that vary in effect and length, and is affected by all sorts of aspects and events, many of which cyclic are anticipated ones. It is also the case for organizations, where change occurs repeatedly during the life cycle of organizations. Yet change in organizations is not as anticipated nor as predictable, with unexpected internal and external variables and political forces that can further complicate the management of change (Andriopoulos, C. and P. Dawson, 2009), which is by itself, the focus of many scholars in their pursuit to shed light on and facilitate the change process (Kotter 1996; Levin 1947; et al).
Mechanistic and bureaucratic organizations are known to have a well-structured hierarchy to achieve the most efficient and effective operation, the specialization of task, and repetition of procedures. Mechanistic organizations are rather easier and simpler to organize and maintain. However, it has it difficulties to cope with change and will most probably struggle to encourage organizational learning. The purpose of this essay is to discuss and study the difficulties that mechanistic and bureaucratic organizations might face to encourage organizational learning. Organizations will be analysed and discussed through mechanistic and learning perspectives.
Initially, transactional and transformational leadership are different in terms of implementation and its outcomes. However, transformational leadership was developed from transactional leadership (Downton, 1973). Bass (1985) defined transactional leadership as an exchange activity that leaders execute to motivate subordinates in order to achieve their tasks by giving out reward or punishment correspond with their performance. Additionally, active and passive management by exception are taken into account when it comes to misconception and faults. Bass (1985) stated that transformational leadership emphasizes the value of subordinates, encourages them to perform extra effort, and assures their comprehension on organization’s goals and objectives. Besides, idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulatio...
The beginnings of the traditional and learning organizations start with the characteristics of the organizations. Within these organizations, there are some main characteristics of each one that sets them apart.
This method implies that leaders and follower have combine motives that can be beneficial to both parties. When theses task are assigned, there is a designed reward or punishment for the followers. This method of leadership can also be associated with managing in a sense. Transactional leadership in a sense is like management in that it does not look to inspire or promote change, it is in fact more about ensuring a particular process, and procedure meets the desired results.
The learning organization concept is the new more modern version that is used in today’s organizations. The two concepts are very comparable traditional organization is learning the ways of the morally organization and learning organization meaning clarifying what already exist and adding to it to improve the quality of product and services (Ortenblad, 2001). An example of an analysis between traditional organization and the New organizational are the following (Ortenblad, 2001, p. 130): old traditional learning includes entities of learning which are individuals and the organization as a whole. The existence of knowledge includes outside individuals. The new organizational learning includes the entities of learning that consist of human behavior and the existence of knowledge is something that cannot be stored but is already known (Ortenblad, 2001, p.
As the workers transition from focusing on their part of their job and begin to see how their part connects to the overall system, not only have the leaders taught the workers systems thinking, the leaders also have transformed their company into a learning organization (Chan, 2015; Lee & Green, 2015). This essay is to highlight how systems thinking, learning organization, and personal mastery function together within an organization. The first part of the paper provides an in-depth comparison of systems thinking and learning organization. The last part of the paper explores the importance of personal mastery to a team and an organization.