Team Performance
Essays

The likeability of a manager will determine how effective they are on transactionally-oriented tasks while also being a very accurate predicator of hwo effective they will be in more transformational roles in an organization. The intent of this analysis is to define likeability from a leadership standpoint, illustrating how this aspect of a leader's personality must be authentic, transparent in approach and genuine in how a leader earns and keeps the trust of subordinates, peers and superiors. A likeable person is by definition one that is known for their friendliness or the ability to create an ongoing dialogue that includes a significant level of self-disclosure and ability to communicate with accuracy, clarity and honesty (George, 1995). A likeable leader is one that has the ability to combine friendliness, relevance of communication to others, empathy or the capacity to feel what others are also feeling ands enunciate those emotions, all unified by a very strong level of authenticity, integrity and realness (Gabriel, Griffiths, 2002). All of these factors together define a likeable person, and add in the willingness of a leader to self-sacrifice, create and stay consistent with roles in an organization that capitalize on the unique strengths of an associate, and a strong foundation of transformational leadership begins to emerge. One of the key findings of this study is that to the extent a manager has the ability to create and sustain a high level of trust with subordinates is the extent to which they are able to also sustain transformational leadership in a team. While leaders have varying levels and depths of skills that contribute to their ability to be transformational in the scope of their work, those with demonstrated high levels of emotional intelligence (EI) combined with the four foundational aspects of transformational leadership skills consistently have a higher level of likeability than their more transaction-oriented counterparts (Gabriel, Griffiths, 2002). In evaluating if likeability leads to greater leadership performance, a model of proposed Likeability and Organizational Transformation has been created and is presented in this analysis. The existing body of research indicates that likeability is one of the foundational elements of effective transformational leadership, yet it does not exist in isolation. The accumulated research completed for this study indicates that likeability of a leader is highly correlated to their level of EI. The dimensions of EI have a direct, predictive effect on how likeable and effective a leader will be. Another finding from this analysis is that likeability by itself does not guarantee a leader will be effective; it is only their ability to translate EI-based skills in conjunction with a very strong foundation of transformational skills that they are able to accomplish challenging goals and propel an organization to fulfill its shared vision. This study also concludes that likeability is also not essential for success either, as the many examples from leaders and CEOs renowned for being very difficult to work with who have propelled their organizations to leadership positions in their industries. Larry Ellison of Oracle, known for being exceptionally demanding and for creating a culture of mistrust and intense internal competition is not likeable according to the dimensions of the research completed for this study. He is however exceptionally effective in driving his organization to attain its vision and mission. What this study has found is that when the triad factors of Emotional Intelligence (EI), trust and transformational leadership are combined, leaders increase the propensity of being liked. These three factors combined provide leaders with a solid foundation of being effective in their roles as well. Likeability does not assure results however. Figure 1, Analysis of Key Factors of Likeability, shows how these three factors must be balanced and in proportion to each other in a leader's management style to be effective. Deficiencies in EI for example could lead to a very collegial work environment yet the leader would not know how and when to define tasks and key strategies to accomplish objectives over time. All three must be balanced in order for a catalyst of continued progress to be formed and stabilized within an organization.

Motivation in the Workplace: New Perspectives

What kind of an impression does a person make upon others? Is it intentional? Is it natural? Is it engineered for the benefit of those who might be watching? Why? Those are the salient questions that Erving Goffman's…

The Transition from Associate RN to Bachelorette RN: Leadership

One of the most galvanizing aspects of this course is how it has shown that personal and group leadership are tightly intertwined and over time create a very unique leadership style.

Conflict within an organization is not necessarily bad, and can act as a powerful catalyst to move a company forward to its objectives, overcoming both market limitations and competitors in the process.

At the foundation of any successful organization and its communication practices, systems and procedures is a very solid foundation of authenticity, transparency and trust. These three elements must pervade a corporate culture in order for it to attain a high level of performance and continued growth in turbulent times (Birasnav, Rangnekar, Dalpati, 2011). The highest performing companies have created a culture that celebrates and actively promotes organizational communication. Transformational leaders have been shown to be the catalyst of exceptional organization communications being attained and a culture of trust created and sustained (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, Spangler, 2004). The leader of any organization is the one ultimately responsible for creating this foundation of trust that enables highly effective organizational communications. It is the intent of this analysis to evaluate how this can be achieved. Analysis of a Leader's Impact on Organizational Communications Ultimately it is the leader of any organization who is responsible fro defining the vision of the enterprise, translating that vision into actionable steps that are pragmatic and clear, and then tailoring development programs to each associate. The role of the transformational leader is multifaceted and requires a balancing of people, processes and systems for an enterprise to attain a highly efficient and accurate level of organizational communications (Berson, Avolio, 2004). No significant change can be pushed onto employees or associates however, the longest-lasting changes emanate from how employees view their jobs, bosses, associates and the entire culture of a business (Crawford, 2005). For a leader to change an organization and increase its communication effectiveness, it must change the factors that influence every person in it to communicate more clearly and with greater accuracy and acuity. This is extremely difficult to do well, hence the perennial shortage of leaders in many organizations. Leaders must inspire associates within an enterprise to change internally and value accuracy and acuity of focus in communications before the company can ever change at a more strategic level (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, Spangler, 2004). The best leaders at creating a highly effective organizational communication structure and transformations are those that also are able to bring four critical factors into their businesses. These four factors include individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and idealized influence (Birasnav, Rangnekar, Dalpati, 2011). These factors taken together form the foundation of transformational leadership (Hobman, Jackson, Jimmieson, Martin, 2011).

The most complex team-based processes and tasks many companies routinely struggle with is developing and launching new products. The new product development and introduction (NPDI) process however is the most demanding…

Tim recently changed jobs to work for a company as a project manager. While he was initially excited about the opportunity, he is unsure now and made an appointment to talk with Phil Davies, the Direct of Project Management.Tim expressed his concerns about motivating his team, and cited several examples showing that work was not their top priority.

HRP looks into the requirement of human resources by an organization in order to attain its strategic objectives and goals. Bulla and Scott (1994) has defined HRP as the process for conforming that the human resource requirements of an organization are identified and plans made for fulfilling those needs. HRP is built on the premise that employees of an organization constitutes its greatest strategic resource and it is generally concerned with aligning resources with that of business needs in the long term. HRP deals with human resource needs in quantitative as well as qualitative terms. This implies meeting two very fundamental questions which are ‘the number of people' and ‘attributes required to be present in those people'. Besides it also addresses broader issues impacting the manner in which people are recruited and their respective careers developed with a view to augmenting organizational effectiveness. Hence, it can contribute in a meaningful way in strategic human resource management.