Leadership others. This may have felt necessary for

Leadership styles can vary entirely between different businesses; some
take a fully democratic approach, with power shared between many employees, to
the other end of the scale, a very autocratic workplace where there is one
clear leader and there is little power shared between the other employees.  Numerous theories and models have been
written in relation to leadership in business, many of which are still relevant
in the workplace today. 

The theory I feel is still up to date with the modern business
workplace is the Tannenbaum and Schmidt continuum.  This theory looks at how the power and
control within a business is shared from management downwards.  From left to right it gets less Manager
oriented and more Subordinate oriented, with the Degree of freedom awarded to
subordinates enhanced as the manager uses less authority on their employees (Babou, 2008).  This theory was first published in 1973 as an
extended and more updated version of the model Lewin and Lippitt produced in
1938.  At one end of the scale there is
Manager (task) oriented whereby the manager comes up with the idea before he
tells his subordinates what to do.  This
means the employees have very minimal power in the situation and are essentially
puppets for the manager.  This structure
will however be useful in places where there is little, if any, margin for
error such as in the military or in a trade such as a joinery or a
manufacturing business.  Steve Jobs is
famed for this kind of approach in his early days at Apple as his mindset was
very rigid and he had his ideas which he wanted to implement and struggled to
listen to the contributions of others. 
This may have felt necessary for him at the time, due to the seemingly
impossible deadlines they had to meet so there was limited time to even
communicate ideas and address areas for improvement, however it led to him
receiving a lot of criticism from.  This
leadership style does have benefits as it allows faster decisions however being
fully autocratic is seem as outdated now as more businesses opt for involving
the subordinates in the business decision making process.  On the other end of the scale there is a very
democratic mode of leadership, also known as subordinate oriented, where the
employees have a large degree of freedom with the manager sacrificing control
to be shared within the business.  The
employees have as much power in this style as the manager does in the previously
mentioned mode of leadership with all people involved with the business able to
contribute their own ideas and then as a team they decide on the most suited
option to take.  Apple are a great
example of this with Steve Jobs as Apple would not be anywhere near the
business it is today if it wasn’t for Steve Jobs learning how to adapt his
business style to be democratic and to take other ideas other than his own on
board.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Google are famed for their approach to leadership with the treatment of
their employees being exceptional and them building an environment which is
said to boost creativity for its employees to be able to think more for
themselves and come up with great ideas. 
Google search engine was founded by Sergey Brin and Larry Page whilst
they were pursuing their doctorates at Stanford University  (Gill, 2016).  Following advice of more experienced business
men they hired Eric Schmidt in 2001 having been impressed by his
credentials.  The 3 men (Brin, Page and
Schmidt) then aimed to find experienced members to form smaller democratic
teams which they did and to this day Google remain all for a democratic
leadership style and this is shown in the way they treat their staff.

Relating to Google’s well-rounded approach to leadership is the next
theory in leadership, the Functional/Group approach.  This approach to leadership states that the
skills required within leadership are based on the situation with which you
find yourself in and also it assumes that leadership skills can be learnt and
taught when required.  “Successful
companies seek those out who possess leadership potential and expose them to
experiences designed to develop that potential” (Kotter, 1990).  I feel this is a valid statement as it means
that great leaders do not have to be born and they can be nurtured and
developed so anybody who has the potential can fulfil the qualities needed to
be a leader.  Adair’s action centred
leadership approach.  Linking in to this
ideal is Adair’s Action Centred Leadership approach (1979).  This states that great leaders must meet all
3 of the areas within the diagram and find a perfect balance between task, team
maintenance and individuals.  This model
too states that you can train to become a leader.  The 3 elements John Adair shows in the
diagram each vary.  Task, or task
completion, states how some people will be driven by achievement in
completion.  Team maintenance, or team
work, states that people be encouraged to work as one unit to form a synergy
and all aim towards the same common goal. 
The third element of this leadership model is individuals, or
individualism, in which the leader encourages all staff to ensure they don’t
lose their own identity within the workplace. 
Despite this model being from 1979 I feel it is still very relevant today
as it depicts every aspect of what a leader should be.    

Like leadership styles, management styles can vary greatly from one
business to another, from highly autocratic and the manager who doesn’t ask for
any other opinions all the way to democratic whereby it is heavily focused on
working as a team.  Managers may opt to
be very much in control of proceedings whilst others may be more willing to
take a step back and let their subordinates run their own part within the
business.  In my opinion a great manager
is someone who is able to change the way he manages to suit a given situation.

In 1917, Henri Fayol stated the 5 elements he believes make up
managerial activity.  The five elements
are planning, organising, commanding, co-ordinating and controlling.  Planning involves looking ahead to the future
with key ideas in mind as to how you are going to approach any given
situation.  If you don’t plan you will
never be organised.  Being organised
involves having everything you need to carry out the task, from materials to
labour to time.  Commanding then follows
and this involves talking (or telling) your subordinates what is expected of
them and if well managed they should know exactly what is expected of
them.  Next in Fayol’s model is
Co-ordination in which you must ensure everyone knows what role they are
carrying out, so the team can work like clockwork.  Lastly there is Controlling.  This is loosely stating that you must never
lose control of the workplace and your employees and ensure everything is working
as it should be.  The five elements cover
everything however I feel it is vague and outdated but that is to be expected
as it is over 100 years old.  That is why
in 2007 Hamel came up with his own model as an advancement for this.  This model is entitled Hamel’s Practise of
Management.  It involves 8 more specific
examples which is comparative to Henri Fayol’s but more modern.  The seven points raised in Hamel’s theory and
Fayol’s theory interlink whereby the Planning stage in Fayol’s links with 2 of
the points in Hamel’s (setting and co-ordinating objectives as well as
Accumulating and applying knowledge), the organising stage is likened to
another 2 stages within the practise of management (developing and assigning
talent in addition to gathering and allocating resources).  The command stage of Fayol’s then is
comparable to Hamel’s point which involves the Building and development of
relationships.  Co-ordinating then links
to motivating and aligning effort as well as co-ordinating and controlling activities
and finally the control stage of Fayol’s model links to Hamel’s point involving
balancing and meeting stakeholder demands. 
Although on the surface it may look as though management hasn’t evolved
much between the 2 theories, but I believe it shows massive steps into
modernisation in Hamel’s theory and this is more relevant of a theory in todays
workplace.

Many factors may influence the way the manager runs the business, both
internal and external.  For example, the Type
of business you are running and the nature of the business.  Working in a creative environment may lead to
managers taking more of a back seat in management and letting their
subordinates think for themselves. 
Whereas in a more rigid environment where little room for error is
allowed, a more stern and hard approach to management may take shape.  The external factors (PESTEL) also impact on
how a manager may decide to run things also.

To round off my points about management I believe management does
differ from leadership because anybody can be a manager, but it is a greater
challenge to be a ‘leader’.  I believe
management requires a good amount of adaptation between hard management and
soft management which basically means treating people as just another asset vs
treating them as a valuable cog within the business.      

There are many approaches to the study of teamwork and such many of
these approaches are still valid in today’s workplace.  Teamwork is essential is the business
environment as no one person is bigger than the business.  Working as part of a group shows many skills
which make you more employable and as a result there has been a push for modern
day businesses to take part in activities to make them a more efficient working
team.  There are many different types of
teams and groups, both formal and informal, in todays society.  For example, friendship groups operate on an
informal basis whereas command groups, which are groups directly linked to the
manager.

In my previous job working in the culinary industry for a
well-established chain restaurant we had a great example of building interpersonal
relationships within the company.  Every
3 months we would hold an awards night in which we would all votes for
categories such as ‘best worker’ and ‘funniest moment’ followed by all staff
members having a social event in a pub within our chain.  I believe this really united the group as we
all got to see each other outside of the work place and get to know each other
on a personal level and therefore when it came back to working together we were
more adept to working with each other and as a result the work saw high surges
in the productivity of our pub. 

Belbin roles of teamwork states that to be the best team possible there
should be someone with each of the roles. 
Essentially it states that has a broad degree of personalities is more
likely to be able to work efficiently than a team with more of the same
personalities.  Each role that the
individual has is not strictly the only role they have, and it can alter depending
on the given situation.  There are 9
different team roles involved in this model.  One of the roles, for example, is called a
shaper.  These are the people who never
lose focus or momentum and are constantly striving forward.  This person thrives under pressure but tends
to be aggressive and have a bad humour when trying to get things done (Belbin, n.d.).  Another example of the team roles within this
model is the Monitor evaluator.  This role
involves being somebody who provides a logical eye on proceedings and maintains
a level-headed approach.  They weigh up
the pro’s and con’s up for any given situation before going ahead with the
approach they believe is best for the business. 
They usually operate in a dispassionate way however and this may be perceived
as boring and this also means they may struggle to inspire and motivate others.  I would say that my team role is best described
as a Plant.  A plant is very inventive is
the way they approach things however may have a tendency to be careless and not
follow through with things.  I believe
this people would also be one of the livelier members of the team and may be a spirited
individual.  This theory is still relevant
in todays workplace as regardless of how advanced things go within the business,
the personalities of people will never alter and as a result, theories such as
these will never become outdated.

Another theory in relation to teamwork which I believe is still
relevant and useful in the workplace of today is the Five stage model for team
formation.  This model basically compares
the level of synergy within a team against the amount of team
co-operation.  It maps how each stage
fits within this graph and shows the evolution of team cohesion.  The first stage on the graph is forming.  This involves little team co-operation as
well as no changes to the synergy, this is because the team will not know each other
on a personal level yet.  Then there is
the storming.  This is where each team
member will bring up their own ideas and is the stage before they have come to
an agreement.  Because of this the
synergy is a negative value as a severe lack of team cohesion is present due to
individual ideas.  Next up is the norming
stage.  This stage seen a shift up in the
synergy from the storming stage as people because to work together and sees an
increase in team co-operation as they all begin to communicate more fluidly.  Penultimately, there is the performing stage,
which involves the highest point of team co-operation as it is the point at
which everyone needs to be at their best point and as a result the synergy is
also at a positive point and it is a positive point only bested by the final
stage.  This stage is called the
adjourning stage.  This involves the team
going their separate ways following the completion of a task and because of this
the team co-operation sees a drop.