Groups and Organization - Group Leadership

Groups and Organization SOCI 1306 Group Leadership Larger groupings frequently need some form of leadership. Leadership in small, core groupings is typically unstructured. Ultimately, the majority of families and friend groups do not hold elections to determine who will lead them. Not that de facto leaders don't arise; it's just that official leadership is uncommon. Leadership in secondary groupings is typically more obvious. They frequently include a chain of command along with an overview of duties and responsibilities. Certain subsets of society, such as the military, have extremely welldefined hierarchies and lines of command, which are sometimes crucial to survival. Ultimately, how could soldiers perform in a conflict if several persons were giving commands and they didn't know who to believe? Formal leaders are present in other secondary organisations as well, including as the workplace and the school, but their roles and approaches might differ greatly. A leader's primary objective, whether instrumental or expressive, is referred to as their leadership function. An instrumental leader is one that prioritises goals and is primarily focused on completing assigned work. An army general or the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, for example, seems like useful leaders. Conversely, leaders that are expressive are more focused on fostering emotional well-being and strength as well as making sure that others feel supported. Religious and social leaders are frequently viewed as expressive leaders, including imams, priests, rabbis, administrators of youth homes, and coordinators of social service initiatives. There are situations when people think that women should play expressive roles and males should play instrumental ones. Both men and women who behave in an other-gender manner may face opposition and be viewed as abnormal. However, according to Boatwright and Forrest (2000), leaders that combine expressive and instrumental leadership are preferred by both sexes. Three types of leadership are identified by sociologists: Democratic leaders promote group involvement in all decision-making. Before deciding on a plan of action and advancing, they put a lot of effort into fostering unanimity. This kind of leader is especially prevalent in clubs where members elect which projects or activities to undertake. Democratic leaders are sometimes well-liked, but because reaching a consensus takes time, there is sometimes a risk that decisions may move slowly. Another concern is that instead of working towards a solution, group members may choose sides and become firmly rooted in rival groups. A laissez-faire (French for "leave it alone") leader, on the other hand, is detached and lets the group members handle things on their own. A teacher of art who unlocks the art closet, places supplies on the shelves, and instructs pupils to assist themselves to create art may be an example of this type of leader. This approach runs the danger of causing the group to break up and not make any progress, even though it can work effectively with mature, highly driven individuals who have clear expectations and goals. Finally, members of the group seldom or never provide input to authoritarian leaders when they give commands and assign duties. These leaders frequently have a strong emphasis on achieving objectives and are crucial leaders. Entrepreneurs such as Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of Facebook, frequently fit this description. It should come as no surprise that autocrats run the danger of offending employees. However, this kind of leadership may be necessary when choices must be made rapidly or based on a high degree of knowledge. Any of these leadership philosophies can work well under certain conditions. Think about your preferred style of leadership. Why? Do you have the same taste in clothing for the office, the sports team, and the classroom?