Eisenhower on leadership. In this tote, he defines leadership as the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it. Firstly, the meaning of this quote is explained by highlighting two distinct aspects of this statement, which is that leadership is the art of getting people to ‘want to do’ and getting them to ‘actually do’ what the leader wants done. It is inferred from this statement that Eisenhower notion is that these two processes, although distinct, are not mutually exclusive.
To provide a further explanation, the essay goes on to conceptualize these processes with their associated distinct leadership-styles ND discusses the view point that these two concepts have to work both in combination and complementarily in order for his perspective on leadership to be fully agreed upon. “Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it” (Dwight D. Eisenhower). What does this quote mean? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the quote and why?
Over the years, many researchers, writers and leadership theorists have postulated various theories, ideas and perspectives on leadership, most of which are centered on the exertion of influence by a person on others to make them do meeting or achieve a goal. There is no one universally accepted definition of leadership. However, to name a few, Maxwell (1998) describes leadership as being nothing more (or less) than influence. Yuk (1994) also defied as “the ability of one person to influence a group of persons tow Motivate achievement of common goals” (p. 14).
In the quote by Dwight D above, leadership is viewed as the process of getting people to opposed to getting them just to do, which is a clear difference b process of managing and that of leading (Souses & Posses, statement holds true when the leader is able to properly com Sino in such a way that the followers are able to believe and buy vision by showing them how they can be served by a common g of the leader to inspire his followers and get them to identify wit enacts their willingness to do something because they actually Leaders do this by first of all being credible.
They establish this c their actions – by challenging, inspiring, enabling, modeling and (Souses & Posses, 1987). When a leader is credible, he is be the support and commitment of his followers. They are more will time, intelligence and energy to support the cause championed Souses et al, 2010), because they trust and identify with his visits and are confident in his ability to delver. In essence, for a lead to do things because they actually want to, he must be believable honesty, drive and passion therefore go a long way in building u character.
This quote also highlights the fact that leadership NV a task that the leader himself ‘wants done’. Hence, the leader ha responsibility for the task carried out by the subordinate and gig where appropriate. This is further supported by another quote cited in Put-year Jar. (1991) who says: “… Leadership consists of no accessibility for everything that goes wrong and giving your us for everything that goes well. ” (p. 289). Therefore, the Leader is f for anything that the subordinate does wrong and the suborder made to understand this.
Bearing this in mind, leaders adopt a I to achieve their objectives and get their subordinates to do ha Different leadership styles have been discussed in earlier works Three major leadership-styles identified by psychologists Lenin are the democratic, autocratic and the laissez-fairer styles. Active involvement and group-decision making is encouraged by the d while leaders are more domineering in the autocratic style and ‘ laissez-fairer styles respectively.
Also, in the framework propose Cuba (1957), the bureaucratic and delegating leadership-styles c The former being the style in which policies and procedures are the latter is exactly the same as in the laissez-fairer (passive) lead Coleman (2000) also proposes six leadership-styles, which are, a democratic, affiliated, coercive, coaching and pacesetting. He ex leadership style is made up of some degree of emotional intelligent exhibited through self-management, self-awareness, social aware skill.
Moreover, Authors such as Yuk, (1999), Roll ; Hein Judge ; Piccolo (2004) have distinguished between two lea transactional and transformational leadership. These distinct el were initially introduced by Burns (1978), which was then later modified by Bass in 1985. To buttress the highlighted points and meanings of the quote discussed so far, this essay would be mainly focusing on the transformational and transactional approaches to leadership. Furthermore, how these styles can influence follower motivation would be discussed, as well as the extent to which this quote can be agreed upon.
As explained earlier, this quote views leadership as a process of getting people to do what you want because they ‘want to’ and also as a process of getting people to ‘actually do it’. It may be inferred from Eisenhower statement that his view is that these two processes although separate, are not mutually exclusive. Hence, the transformational and transactional leadership styles can be characterized by each of these processes respectively, both of which can be combined and used to complement each other.
This combination and complementation of these two leadership styles a recesses can therefore be aligned with Eisenhower notion of leadership. Transformational leadership is one in which the leader elevates the interests of his followers by increasing awareness and acceptance of the group’s purpose and mission and by also allowing the followers to look beyond self-interest but the collective interest of the group (Bass, 1985). The leader transforms the value and priorities of subordinates, and motivates them to exceed their performance expectations (Yuk, 1994).
It is seen as a more participative leadership style in which the subordinates are inspired and influenced positively by their leader ND accept, internalize and identify with the leader’s visions Nouns ; Viola 2000). The willingness of subordinates to do what the leader wants done is influenced by their trust and confidence in the leader, coupled with his ability to inspire and motivate the employees to achieve great results by putting in the extra effort (Bass, 1985).
Also, the ability of the leader to understand the differences and individuality of the followers, as well as provide support to foster growth and development also helps to increase their commitment and willingness to do what is required (Bass, 1985). The leader here is charismatic and energetic and is able to instill this enthusiasm into his followers, which get them to actually want to do the job as oppose to just doing as they are told. However, in the transactional style of leadership, the followers simply do as they are told.
The leadership is more like a process of exchange or contractual agreement between the leaders and followers (Kaplan, 2010). The leader meet the immediate needs of his followers as a reward, in exchange for the desired level of performance and negative consequences (punishment) is used to curtail undesired behavior (Jung ; Viola, 2000). Unlike in transformational leadership, the leader seems not be really concerned with changing the followed attitudes, beliefs and values neither do the followers feel the need to develop a greater sense of commitment and trust in the leader.
The focus is mainly on jus getting the job done which is the second aspect of leadership outlined earlier from Eisenhower quote. Leadership styles can impact or influence follower motivation to a significant extent. Transactional leadership is of the notion that people are motivated by reward and punishment and when the conditions oft exchange process are agreed upon, the followers primarily do what is required them by the leadership. However, in transformational leadership, the followed are not only motivated by rewards but also by the processes resulting in these rewards (Kaplan, 2010).
Transformational leadership embodies charismatic leadership where followers can be motivated by inspiration and by increasing their level of emotional involvement. To further expatiate on the influence of leadership styles on motivation, the relationship between transactional and transformational and motivation shall be discussed respectively. As discussed earlier, transactional leadership is an exchange process or contractual agree between leaders and subordinates, in which the subordinates are externally driven to yield results through rewards and punishment.
This external drive can be referred to as extrinsic motivation. Transactional leadership based on contingent reward is positively related to the follower’s motivation (Judge &am Piccolo 2004). By providing contingent reward systems, leaders can motivate their followers to put in their best efforts to yield the desired results. The task signed to the follower may generally be of no interest but the provision of an external reward could motivate the person to complete the task (Kaplan, 2010).
These external rewards may be monetary or be in the form of good Soc etc. This shows that a leader can still get people to do what he wants done even without them actually wanting to do it, as opposed to what Eisenhower suggests. Here leadership is not necessarily the art of getting people to do something you want done because they want to, it is the art of getting people t simply do by providing the appropriate reward agreed upon. Hence the rear or avoidance of punishment is the motivator rather than the leader or the task itself.
In the case of transformational leadership, the focus is more internal and on the process as a whole and not just the outcome (Kaplan, 2010). Internal or intrinsic motivation can be derived from task features such as autonomy, task significance, feedback, task identity, and so on (Houses et al, 2001). The transformational leader tries to meet the immediate and future intrinsic needs of his subordinates, which are closely related to Mascots higher order needs (Moscow 1943).
Hence intrinsic motivation plays a key role in this process and this notion is supported by (Barbour, 2005) who explains that internal or intern motivation encompasses a persons emotions, fun, trust and feeling of self- worth and these are all driven by internal influences which can be appropriate by transformational behavior. The leader tries to transform the followers’ goals beliefs and values to align with his and that of the organization and motivates them by positively building up their sense of self-worth and self-efficacy (Sham et al, 1993).
The ability of the leader to achieve this through his charismatic reason and individualized consideration, helps to increase their willingness t do what the leader wants done and to achieve the desired performance levels outcome. So, drawing from all the points mentioned above, to what extent can Eisenhower quote be agreed upon? By identifying two distinct aspects in his statement, this essay has highlighted Eisenhower notion of leadership as bee the art of getting people to ‘want to do’ and to ‘actually do’ what the leader WA done.
This statement holds true so far as these processes are seen as distinct not mutually exclusive. Hence, the two processes have been characterized b he transformational and transactional leadership-styles respectively. The transformational leadership-style is associated with the process of getting people to want to do due to the leader’s ability to inspire trust and confided in his vision as well as his ability to internally motivate people to put in their best efforts to yield the desired outputs.
On the other hand, the transaction leadership-style is associated with getting the work done regardless of whet or not the subordinates actually want to do it provided there is an extrinsic reward agreed upon or the avoidance of punishment. Therefore, as long as hose two concepts and their associated leadership-styles can be combined and used to complement each other rather than viewed as just separate, HTH quote can be agreed upon.
This means that leadership should not merely be art of getting people just to do what you want done but also it should involve the processes involved in inspiring and motivating them to actually want to do it and vice versa. When a leader is able to motivate his followers internal and externally with the appropriate rewards and charismatic approach to transforming their behavior, the leadership would tend to be more successful ND well aligned to its aims and this balance therefore agrees with Eisenhower perspective of leadership.
