Various leadership styles have been formulated by scholars over the years after hectic research in field personnel. There are m?ny reasons why ?n effective leader is successful at some stages ?nd not so successful in others. This has been the case with m?ny leaders of various levels. From 1 to 5, nothing guar?ntees a success, but as a measure of learning ?nd being more professional towards their approach, it assures more effectiveness.
A recent research focused on the concept of level 5 leadership style ?nd concluded that it is most likely to produce results th?n ?ny former styles. Level 5 leadership was particularly designed to cope up with issues that ?ny other leaders were either unable to address or m?nage or couldn’t m?nage it at all. What makes these leaders so efficient? The ?nswer lies in their training program ?nd practical scenario based training.
This is a vast area comprising of various scenarios that were previously unaddressed. One may say that Level 5 works at micro level encompassing all possible situations ?nd scenarios that ?ny m?nager might face. Such a dynamic formulation needs a very efficient ?nd dynamic leader to fulfill. Such a leader is bold enough to take bold measures regardless of whether they are liked by comp?ny administration or not. His boldness is for a reason, because he trusts his abilities more th?n ?nything.
This courage is needed at this level, because in most cases there comes a time, when a m?nager has to take a make or break step for the benefit of a comp?ny as well as for employees. Having such ?n approach, he is at times disliked ?nd criticized by authorities ?nd employees alike, but his approach does not ch?nge, because he is prepared in this way. He is mentally tough ?nd responsible.
If we look at various corporations around the world, we will see the same approach endorsed by their m?nagers that was considered as a make or break situation. These policies either do wonders or fail miserably. But a level 5 leader is more confident while approaching a risky measure, because he does his work at a micro level ensuring of everything going the way he w?nts it to. He is not reluct?nt while taking a risk as previous level m?nagers (McDuffie, 2010).
Those org?nizations that possess the ability to reward individuals in m?ny ways simply because they c?n vary both the kinds of rewards they give ?nd the reasons for which they give them, org?nizations c?n draw from ?n almost infinite number of approaches to reward individuals. It may happen because people don’t have a tendency to just come automatically to their work ?nd then all of a sudden they start to work so hard for ?n org?nization in exch?nge for nothing. They need to be severely motivated in order to carry on a job with their comp?ny, because they need motivation in ?ny form to continue to work on daily basis, as per Leap (2009).
Thus , they learn new aspects of their work ?nd become more ready to accept ch?nge. The broadly established clarification for the fact t why people are motivated to work, perform, learn ?nd ch?nge is rooted in what psychologists call expect?ncy theory. As per Michael Lehm?nn (2006), the ?nticipation theory presents a scenario that people are more often th?n not logical decision makers ?nd have ?n ability to think about their actions ?nd act in ways that please their needs ?nd help them reach their goals. The same theory also states that research data confirmed that people generally attempt to tackle with their daily problems as per their observations.
A Brave Approach
As per Lehm?nn, the vision of this theory is rather in on the lenient side, because here, people are considered as usually practical, future-oriented ?nd motivated to perform in ways that they believe will lead to esteemed rewards. However, it does not suggest that people will always resist ch?nge. On the contrary, it merely presents the notion that they will seek it, if it leads to their receiving valued rewards. As m?ny org?nizations get the behaviors from employees that they hope for, ?nd some of them who are willing to perform well ?nd ch?nge effectively need to create systems that reward both perform?nce ?nd ch?nge.
This seems rather easy, but in reality it’s not as simple as it seems. It is also not what most org?nizations do. More often th?n not, they compensate stability more th?n the ch?nge itself; prefer seniority over the employee perform?nce ?nd the job size over their skill development. Similarly, when an org?nization w?nts people to ch?nge, they c?nnot reward stability despite the fact that this is exactly what they do. Most of the times, they set ?n ?nnual parameter to ?nalyze the employee perform?nce ?nd deploy technical job report systems that are unwilling to ch?nge with no exception in this regard.
A Leader Gets What He W?nts
When it comes to the employee motivation factor, it is really difficult to imagine ?nything rasher then to prioritize employees on the basis of seniority rather th?n perform?nce as a measuring tool. Despite this, the selection of compensation to which m?ny org?nizations bind to seniority is nothing short of m?ny. It shows that some of the compensations are comparably small ?nd minor, while others are quite valuable ?nd import?nt. Despite the fact that we have not seen ?ny studies of how common seniority-based compensations are in the modern business world as compared to only ten years ago, a wild guess still suggests that there are plenty of them who are less popular today, but still very common.
Most of them adjust quite well in a world, where org?nizations try to build devotion ?nd persons spend their entire careers with the same org?nization. On the other h?nd, they do adjust rather poorly in org?nizations that need to ch?nge. As a side note, compensations must only be based on the based perform?nce ?nd the size of job in h?nd that must be focused on more promotion ?nd in future striving to get ?n even bigger job. They do little to inspire most individuals to learn new skills that support ch?nge, but they don’t lead to promotions. The expectation is that an adv?ntage pay will show the way for a number of years ?nd to a compensate level that replicates the exact perform?nce.
Michael (2010), had the above mentioned scenario in mind, when he published his work in 2006, after watching closely the culture ?nd the strives ?nd testing they received to force this issue, but for this he had to conduct m?ny studies along with surveys ?nd interviews to conclude the fact that modern business competition has risen to such a level that marketers have to closely inspect of their org?nizational functionality. In order to achieve this, they have to achieve that, they must first initiate some org?nizational aspects in such a m?nner that their workforce should concentrate entirely on the job in h?nd. There must not remain a shadow of doubt about the success of their comp?ny in the market place ?nd they must concentrate their energies in the right direction. All this c?nnot be achieved over night ?nd it takes a lot of effort to ignite the fire of motivation in employee’s hearts (Michael, 2010).
This will only be extracted, when the comp?ny m?nagement decides to make a great relationship with the workforce. They must make them feel so comfortable, as if they are dealing not just with workers, but their own family members. Just like we all work for the benefits of our very own families, similarly they must motivate employees to such ?n extent that they are able to h?ndle virtually ?ny challenge that lies in the way of their org?nization. This c?n be achieved, as nothing in the world is impossible. But in order to achieve this, they will have to give additional benefits ?nd rewards coupled with bonuses to their employees at regular intervals. Also what we discussed above was a factor that unfortunately is under use of m?ny org?nizations even today, This is the seniority factor, where they encourage their employees on the basis of seniority rather th?n perform?nce.
No matter how much hard work a junior employee does, he will not get the same compensation as a senior employee only because he is senior ?nd not because he did not produce the required perform?nce that the org?nization dem?nds from him. This is a very discouraging factor that only demoralizes employees, because when a junior employee realizes the fact that whatever he does for the comp?ny, eventually it will go down the drain ?nd his efforts for the comp?ny will still not be recognized the way he w?nted to (Michael, 2010).
The m?nagement must realizy the fact that employee were only be motivated, when a strategy, which was based on ?n appropriate compensation that included bonuses as well as medical, convey?nce ?nd other facilities were provided. The fact that it was a case of “the more you add, the more you get,” me?ning that as much as you invest on your employees, the more whole hearted perform?nce was given by them resulting what ?ny org?nization is looking for success. This is why, merit becomes even more import?nt factor in such ?n environment, where a perform?nce based criteria is regulated.
The merit pay makes sure that all the employees get their right share of revenue ?nd no one gets away with more compensation th?n what he has done, though this will hardly have a major fin?ncial impact on ?n individual. What we have discussed in the report is the fact that modern org?nizational environment has a desperate need to ch?nge the same old decade long seniority on the compensation based methods.