Leading & Managing People Approaches of Business Leader

Question: Discuss about the Leading and Managing People for Approaches of Business Leader. Answer: Introduction The purpose of the essay is to compare and contrast leadership style of two political leaders and one business leader from contemporary organizations. In this essay, the selected leaders are Mark Zuckerberg (Co-Founder of Facebook), Nelson Mandela (President of South Africa) and Mahatma Ghandhi (preeminent leader of India). In order to evaluate leadership approach of these leaders, five factor model of personality will be evaluated in this essay. The five factors that would be evaluated are openness to experience, emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness and dependability (Gilbert, Horsman and Kelloway 2016). In order to identify the strongest leader, each factor of the model will be compared individually. Leadership is a process in which an individual can influence a group of people or the followers. The aim of the leaders is to motivate the followers to follow the direction towards success. An effective leader encourages the followers to participate in decision-making and take feedbacks from the followers in order to achieve broad objectives (Muterera et al. 2015.). There are different types of leadership such as autocratic, democratic, transformational, transactional and laissez-faire. The approach of leadership depends on the type of community or followers. For example, political leaders should have strong command over the followers. On the other hand, organizational leaders should have transformational leadership approach. However, leadership approach of an individual depends on peoples values, faith and cultural background. Discussion Nelson Mandela was the President of South Africa during the period of 1994 to 1999. The aim of Nelson Mandela was to reduce practice of discrimination from the society. Mandelas philosophy was to lead the followers by putting the team in front line. Mandela prefers to lead the followers from front line during the critical time (Pietersen 2015). Following is the evaluation of five-factor model of personality in order to understand leadership style of Nelson Mandela. Emotional stability is the first factor through which leadership quality of an individual can be evaluated. In case of Nelson Mandela, the ability of emotion control was very high. His ability to forgive people was a remarkable quality, which makes him the most efficient leader of that time. When it comes to Extraversion, Mandela was able to establish his viewpoint tactfully, without hurting others viewpoint. Agreeableness was another quality of Mandela through which he used to accept and nurture every follower around him (Sternlight et al. 2015). During Mandelas imprisonment, he used to take care of the wounded or sick prisoners in order to ensure that people are getting the minimum care. Conscientiousness of Mandela shows that his moral value was devoted to the freedom of South Africa. He had initiated the movement for maintaining free and fair election in South Africa. Apart from that, openness was another quality of Mandela through which he had eliminated the practice of discrimi nation of his time (Sewpaul 2015). He had encouraged people to focus on humanity rather than discriminating people. He had allowed people to show up their uniqueness in order to achieve his vision. The overall evaluation of Mandelas leadership shows that his vision was to change the legacy of discrimination. As a leader, Mandela used to encourage his followers to share their feedback. He had the ability to establish his viewpoint without hurting others decisions. This ability makes him an assertive speaker. The quality and traits Mandela had shown, makes him a democratic leader (Arslan and Turhan 2016). His ability to encourage people in decision-making was effective in terms of changing the trend of discrimination. The Evaluation of leadership ability of Mandela shows that he was a democratic leader of his time. Democratic leadership is similar to the participative leadership in which followers has the ability to participate in decision-making. As per the Great man theory, leaders are born, not created. However, after evaluation of Mandelas leadership behavior, it can be said that his leadership was influenced by supernatural circumstances. He has a broad thinking capacity thr ough which he had influenced his followers. His vision was to conduct fair and free election in South Africa. When it comes to leadership ethics, Mandela had provided equal opportunity to people in order to influence the followers. Mahatma Ghandhi (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi) was a preeminent leader of India. The Indian leader born on 2nd October, 1869 and died on 30th January 1948. Ghandhi was one of the prominent members of Indian independence movement. The aim of Mahatma Gandhi was to free India from the dominance of British rule. In his life span, he had conducted ample number of movements including Styagraha and non-violence movement (Radhakrishnan 2015). Vision of Mahatma Ghandhi was to be the change in order to change the world. He believes that in order to change a legacy, it is important to act from the forefront. He believes to lead his followers from the front rather than leading the team from behind. In order o evaluate leadership quality of Mahatma Ghandhi, following is the evaluation of five factor model of personality. Emotional stability is one of the major factor through which leadership on an individual can be evaluated. In case of Mahatma Ghandhi, he had sufficient focus to his vision, despite of influence from the British government. British government had prevented Ghandhi by several movements. However, was stable in his goal and eventually he had lead all the movement successfully. However, some of the movement of Ghandhi was not successful due to some unfavorable circumstances (Joseph 2016). When it comes to the Extraversion, Ghandhi had the ability to establish his vision among his followers. For an example, he has implemented the non-violence movement in South Africa and then in India. Citizens of India adapted his non-violence vision in order to get freedom from the dominance of British rule. As Ghandhi was self-confident about his activities, he wanted to establish his viewpoint rather than entertaining others. It means, Gandhis agreeableness was not sufficient in contrast with other le aders on his era. Conscientiousness of Ghandhi emphasizes that he was morally devoted to the freedom of India and therefore, he always follow his ideology (Singh 2015). He also influenced people to follow his ideology in order to gain successful outcome. Openness of Ghandhi was lesser that the other leaders in his era. He was devoted to one ideology through which he believed that freedom could be earned. The ideology of Ghandhi was to bring freedom without violence. The overall evaluation of Mahatma Ghandhis leadership ability shows that he believed in one particular ideology and therefore, innovation was not present in his leadership. Ghandhi tends to lead his followers from the forefront in order to make greater impact. The leadership evaluation of Ghandhi also shows that his assertiveness was the major reason behind his success (Radhakrishnan 2015). He had the ability to encourage people without hurting others perception. He believed in changing approach depending on the situation. However, his ideology remains same for all of his movements. Therefore, it can be said that Ghandhi was a situational leader. In this kind of leadership, leaders identify the situational need and respond accordingly. Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder of Facebook Inc is a leader of contemporary organization. Mark was born in 1984 and leading the worlds largest social media platform Facebook. Being a contemporary business leader, Mark has many supporters and critics as well. However, this college dropout has efficiently leaded his followers, which makes Facebook the largest and most accepted social media platform for businesses and individuals as well (Menzel 2015). Marks vision is to implement innovative ideas in order to improve accordingly with the changing global trend. He encourages his followers to share innovative ideas in order to empower motivational aspects. Following is the evaluation of five-factor evaluation in order to evaluate leadership style of Mark Zuckerberg. Emotional stability of Mark is one of the most important traits, which helps him to take organizational decisions. In order to make organizational decisions, Mark encourages followers to share their viewpoint. However, Mark takes the final decisions after evaluating everyones viewpoint. Here, Mark shows high extent of emotional stability through which he takes accurate decision (Baker 2016). Extraversion quality of Mark helps him to communicate with the followers in order to know their needs and requirements. Mark use to communicate with his followers before implementing any change. His vision is to share the purpose of the change before implementing it. He believes that communication is the key to organizational success. Bing a transformational leader, agreeableness is the most effective quality of Mark. Mark communicates with the followers in order to take quality feedbacks from the workforce. Mark has an assertive communication style through which he can influence the followers to follow his vision. He agrees with other viewpoint and changes his ideology as per requirement (Gio and Rashad 2015). Mark believes in teamwork and therefore, he seeks innovative ideas from the followers. Conscientiousness trait of Mark helps him to be organized and punctual. He encourages his followers to follow his vision in order to achieve organizational objectives. Openness refers to the ability of adopting innovation (Gilbert, Horsman and Kelloway 2016). Mark believes in constant innovation and openness towards his followers. The evaluation of Marks leadership shows that he is a transformational leader. Transformational leaders tend to communicate with the followers in order to empower overall performance quality. In case of business leadership, transformational is one of the most effective and globally acknowledge leadership process. Mark set objectives for organizations and rely on the workforce until and unless ultimate outcome comes up. Mark believes in continuous development of traits in order to achieve personal objectives (Menzel 2015). The leadership approach of Mark helps him to allow followers to participate in decision-making. However, it has negative impact on business development, as transformational leaders are lenient and therefore, followers may take advantage. After evaluating leadership traits of three leaders such as Mark Zuckerberg (Co-Founder of Facebook), Nelson Mandela (President of South Africa) and Mahatma Ghandhi (preeminent leader of India), it can be said that Mark is a transformational leader, Mandela was a democratic leader and Ghandhi was a situational leader. In order to identify the most effective leadership approach, it is highly important to evaluate the leadership approaches critically (Norbom and Lopez 2016). Here, two leaders are from political background and one leader is organizational leader. Therefore, it would be difficult to identify the most effective leadership approach among these. However, it would be beneficial to evaluate these leadership styles critically by comparing each factor of the five-factor framework of leadership. Following is the critical evaluation of these three leaders through five-factor framework of leadership. Emotional stability: Nelson Mandelas emotional stability was high, as he was able to forgive people and stay focused to his vision. On the other hand, Mahatma Ghandhi had achieved his vision despite influences of British government. He had stay focused to his vision during his tenure in order to bring freedom in India. Apart from that, Mark Zuckerberg can lead the workforce without implementing discriminative practices (Schoeller 2015). Mark encourages the workforce to participate in decision-making. However, he makes the final decision in order to avoid unfavorable situation. The evaluation of this factor shows that all these leaders are emotionally stable and easily influences the followers in order to establish own vision. However, here, leaders from different time have been chosen. Therefore, it is difficult to understand the extent in which these leaders are emotionally stable. In case of Mandela and Ghandhi, both of the leaders are from political background (Gronn 2015). Theref ore, it is highly important to maintain emotional stability in order to influence the followers. On the other hand, Mark Zuckerberg is one of the most effective business leaders. Therefore, he needs to be emotionally stable in order to take the most appropriate feedback from the followers. Extraversion: This ability shows that how an individual can establish his viewpoint without harming others. It shows that to what extent the leader is assertive. Here, Mandela had the ability to establish his vision among the followers in order to achieve overall objectives. On the other hand, Ghandhi had the ability to influence people in order to achieve his vision. He had the ability to follow a fixed ideology through which he had achieved objectives of his movements (Teles 2015). In case of Mark, he believes in building healthy communication with the followers in order to achieve organizational goal. Extraversion capacity shows how an individual can deal with other people and how it influences others. In case of these three leaders, each of them are socialized and therefore. However, Mark is business leader and on the other hand, Ghandhi and Mandela was political leader. Therefore, Mark use to communicate with a limited group of people (Femia, Krsnyi and Slomp 2015). On the other hand, Mandela and Ghandhi were two social image of different era. They had different agenda for changing social trend, which is not limited to a group of people. Therefore, it can be said that Marks extroversion is comparatively low in contrast with Mandela and Ghandhi. Considering the leadership style, situational leaders need to change their approach accordingly with the situation. For example, in case of adverse situation, situational leaders need to take decision without communicating with the followers (Brown 2016). Political leaders like Mahatma Ghandhi had taken many decisions without communicating with his followers. On the other hand, Mandelas ability of communicative with assertive tone set up an example of democratic leadership. Agreeableness: The ability of agreeableness shows the extent in which a leader can accept changes or encourage the followers for implementing change. Mandela has shown a high degree of change acceptance in his life. His communication power helped him to build collaborative environment (Terman and Feiock 2015). On the other hand, Mahatma Ghandhi followed his ideology throughout his life. Therefore, it can be said that agreeableness of Ghandhi was lower than the other selected leaders in this paper. When it comes to Mark, the co-founder of Facebook has shows a revolutionary change in organizational leadership. Mark has the ability of stay around people and helps them from behind. He never forces his team to accept change and instead, he always seek viewpoint of people (Pilster, Bhmelt and Tago 2015). In this manner, Mark always communicates with the workforce before implementing any change within the organization. He accepts decisions of the followers while making the final decision. T herefore, it can be said that in transformational leadership approach, agreeableness of a leader tends to be high. Therefore, it can be said that in demographic and situational leadership, agreeableness of a leader may vary. However, transformational approach helps to change and improve current situation continuously with collaborative approach. In contrary, it can be said that political leaders should consider autocracy as per requirements (Verba 2015). On the other hand, organizational leaders should value followers viewpoint in order to empower performance quality. As the field of leadership is different for the selected leaders, it would be difficult to judge the most effective approach. However, considering the leadership traits, it can be said that agreeableness can be high with transformational approach. Conscientiousness: Conscientiousness defines moral values of a leader. Here, all selected leaders have shows high moral value. When it comes to the leadership style of Ghandhi and Mandela, both of them was has a particular ideology. They always show devotion towards their vision in order to achieve overall goals. On the other hand, Mark has shows low discriminative approach, through which people can get equal opportunity (Frohlich and Oppenheimer 2015). Mandelas aim was to reduce discriminative practice in South Africa. Mark and Mandela both have shows moral values while leading a group of people. On the other hand, Ghandhi shows the value of ideology instead of reducing discriminative practice. Therefore, it can be said that all selected leaders have taken ethical decisions. The overall evaluation of this factor shows that an individual needs to avoid discriminations and give equal opportunity to the followers in order to make positive impact. However, in case of situational leadership, an individual should change approach according to the situational requirements. For example, the leader should take urgent decisions in diverse situation. Ghandhi was a situational leader, who has taken many urgent decisions like withdrawing the non-violence movement (Wei, Lee and Ho Kwong 2016). Therefore, it can be said that in democratic and transformational leadership, leaders can show ethical decision-making ability. Openness: This factor shows how a leader can adopt innovation while decision-making. In this paper, three leaders have been analyzed in order to identify the most effective leadership approach. In case of Mandela, he had shown the ability of communicating with people. In his personal life, he always gives value to others thinking and perceptions, which makes him different from other leaders (Malik, Dhar and Handa 2016). When it comes to Mahatma Ghandhi, he has his own ideology and therefore, he never entertained innovation while decision-making. On the other hand, Mark has shows the highest extent of innovative decision-making. In contemporary business environment, leaders should have the ability to take innovative decisions. On the other hand, in political leadership, leaders may need to take traditional decision-making process. Therefore, it is not possible to judge the effectiveness of leadership approach within these three leaders (Muterera et al. 2015). However, the overall eval uation shows that Mark has adopted innovative decision-making process, which helps him to gain competitive advantages. Considering contemporary business environment, leadership approach of Mark is the most effective. On the other hand, considering political leadership, approach of Mandela was efficient. Conclusion While concluding, it can be said that leaders selected in this people have different approach. Mark Zuckerberg is a transformational leader, Nelson Mandela was a democratic leader and Mahatma Ghandhi was a situational leader. After evaluating the leadership approach of these three leaders factor by factor, it can be said that leadership approach of Mark Zuckerberg is the most effective approach for the contemporary business environment. On the other hand, while considering political leadership, approach of Mandela was effective. Mandela was able to adopt innovation while leading the team. His ability of openness helped him to influence the followers with his vision. Overall, transformational leadership approach of Mark is the most effective approach, which can also be used in political purpose as well. Reference list Arslan, H.K. and Turhan, Y., 2016. Reconciliation-oriented Leadership: Nelson Mandela and South Africa.All Azimuth,5(2), p.29 Baker, M.N., 2016. Organization use of self: a new symbol of leadership.Leader to Leader,2016(81), pp.47-52 Brown, A., 2016. Against the Fhrerprinzip: For Collective Leadership.Daedalus,145(3), pp.109-123 Femia, J., Krsnyi, A. and Slomp, G., 2015.Political leadership in liberal and democratic theory. Andrews UK Limited Frohlich, N. and Oppenheimer, J.A., 2015.Political leadership and collective goods. Princeton University Press Gilbert, S., Horsman, P. and Kelloway, E.K., 2016. The Motivation for Transformational Leadership Scale: An examination of the factor structure and initial tests.Leadership Organization Development Journal,37(2), pp.158-180 Gio, H.Y. and Rashad Yazdanifard, T., 2015. The Unconventional Leadership of Corporate Leaders in the 21st Century.Global Journal of Management And Business Research,15(4) Gronn, P., 2015. The view from inside leadership configurations.Human Relations,68(4), pp.545-560 Joseph, P., 2016. Mahatma Gandhis concept of Educational Leadership.International Journal of Economics Business and Management Studies, pp.60-64 Malik, N., Dhar, R.L. and Handa, S.C., 2016. Authentic leadership and its impact on creativity of nursing staff: A cross sectional questionnaire survey of Indian nurses and their supervisors.International Journal of Nursing Studies,63, pp.28-36 Menzel, D.C., 2015. Leadership in Public Administration: Creative and/or Ethical?.Public Integrity,17(4), pp.315-318 Muterera, J., Hemsworth, D., Baregheh, A. and Garcia-Rivera, B.R., 2015. The LeaderFollower Dyad: The Link Between Leader and Follower Perceptions of Transformational Leadership and Its Impact on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Performance.International Public Management Journal, pp.1-32 Norbom, H.M. and Lopez, P.D., 2016. Leadership and Innovation: Informal Power and Its Relationship to Innovative Culture.Journal of Leadership Studies,10(1), pp.18-31 Pietersen, W., 2015. What Nelson Mandela Taught the World About Leadership.Leader to Leader,2015(76), pp.60-66 Pilster, U., Bhmelt, T. and Tago, A., 2015. Political leadership changes and the withdrawal from military coalition operations, 19462001.International Studies Perspectives,16(4), pp.463-483 Radhakrishnan, S. ed., 2015.Mahatma Gandhi. Jaico Publishing House Schoeller, M.G., 2015. Explaining political leadership: Germany's role in shaping the Fiscal Compact.Global Policy,6(3), pp.256-265 Sewpaul, V., 2015. Politics with soul: Social work and the legacy of Nelson Mandela.International Social Work, p.0020872815594226 Singh, M., 2015. Mahatma Gandhis views on trusteeship and labour management relations and their relevance today.Asian Journal of Multidimensional Research,3(1) Sternlight, J.R., Schneider, A.K., Andrews, P., Goldstone, R.J., Menkel-Meadow, C. and Mnookin, R.H., 2015. Making Peace with Your Enemy: Nelson Mandela and His Contributions to Conflict Resolution.Nevada Law Journal,16, pp.2016-11 Teles, F., 2015. The distinctiveness of democratic political leadership.Political Studies Review,13(1), pp.22-36 Terman, J.N. and Feiock, R.C., 2015. Improving outcomes in fiscal federalism: Local political leadership and administrative capacity.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,25(4), pp.1059-1080 Verba, S., 2015.Small groups and political behavior: A study of leadership. Princeton University Press Wei, F., Lee, J. and Ho Kwong, K., 2016. Impact of active constructive leadership and passive corrective leadership on collective organizational commitment.Leadership Organization Development Journal,37(7)