Leadership is a process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others towards the

achievement of a goal. Leadership is of paramount importance as leaders set the tone for the
organization they lead. It positively influences the organization’s symmetrical communication
system and employee– organization relationships, positively affecting organizational
performance. However, though commonly assumed to be incredibly significant, leadership
influence usually is not studied in terms of the variance accounted for in organizational
performance.

In times of crisis, silence is not golden; crisis communication should integrate policy, operations,
and communications, and a leader communicates most powerfully by what they do. Leaders
today need to manage uncertainty and complexity, navigate the unrelenting pace of change, meet
an insatiable need for innovation, stay grounded with constantly shifting goals and expectations,
and lead people through the discomfort. More specifically, leaders need to provide the necessary
guidance, inspiration, and motivation for followers/members of an organization during
uncertainty.

Question# 01:

A few years ago, leaders, entrepreneurs, and innovators created companies, whereas managers

were hired to run their operations. But, nowadays, you will notice that our educational system is
mostly geared towards management education. Also, there is a perceptual change that treats both
management and leadership as the same, which is not a mere reality.

Leadership:

Leadership is the creation of positive, non-incremental change through meticulous planning,

vision, and strategy. Workforce empowerment and adaptive decision-making also add up to the
crucial attributes of leadership. Most often, people relate leadership with one’s position in an
organization. But leadership has nothing to do with titles, management, or one’s personal
agendas. It’s also not restricted to personality traits such as better vision or charismatic
personality.
It is more like a process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others towards the
achievement of a common goal. It stems from social influence and requires human resources to
achieve the intended outcomes. That is the only reason why people around start following them. 

Management:

Management is all about performing pre-planned tasks on a regular basis with the help of
subordinates. A manager is completely responsible for carrying out the four important functions
of management: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. Managers can only become
leaders if they adequately carry out leadership responsibilities, including communication of good
and bad, providing inspiration and guidance, and encouraging employees to rise to a higher level
of productivity.

Difference between Leadership vs Management:

“Leaders can see possibilities, whereas managers see what is.”

The role of management is to control a group or group of individuals in order to achieve a

specified objective. Leadership is the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable
others to contribute to the organization's success. 

It is possible to be a manager and a leader at the same time. But keep in mind that just because
someone is a great leader doesn't mean they'll be a great manager or the other way around.

1. Differences in Vision

Leaders are considered as visionaries. They set the pathways to excel the organizational
growth. They always examine where their organization stands, where they want to go,
and how they can reach there by involving the team. 
In comparison, managers set out to achieve organizational goals by implementing
processes, such as budgeting, organizational structuring, and staffing. Managers' vision is
bound to the implementation strategies, planning, and organizing tasks to reach the
objectives set out by leaders.

2. Organizing vs Aligning

Managers achieve their goals by using coordinated activities and tactical processes. They
break down long-time goals into tiny segments and organize available resources to reach
the desired outcome.

On the other hand, leaders are more concerned with how to align and influence people
than how to assign work to them. They achieve this by assisting individuals in
envisioning their function in a wider context and the possibility for future growth that
their efforts may give.

3. Differences in Queries

A leader asks what and why, whereas a manager focuses on the questions how and when.
To do justice to their duties as a leader, one might question and challenge the authority to
reverse decisions that may not be in the better interests of the team. On the other hand,
managers are not required to assess and analyze failures.

4. Position vs Quality

A manager is a role that frequently refers to a specific job within an organization's

structure, whereas the term leader has a more ambiguous definition. Leadership emerges
as a result of your actions. You are a leader if you act in a way that inspires others to do
their best. It makes no difference what your title or position is. On the other hand, a
manager is a job title that comes with a fixed set of responsibilities.
Question# 02:

Leadership is:

a. Merely Common Sense:

Much like the definition of leadership, there is not one common word or phrase that
seems to best describe what common sense is all about, just what attributes are
encompassed in that term. With a plethora of human relations theories on better
managing one’s human assets. Broad categorizations of what common sense can be
identified as encompassing among senior leaders across multiple disciplines and various
locations across the world. Decision Making was the most prominent areas identified
with 46% of the comments in that area; Motivation was noted in 29% of the opinions
expressed; and Goal Setting concepts came in at a close third at 25% of the
classifications. In the exploration of this study, we discovered that a general conceptual
recognition of common sense leadership was held among a diverse and wide-ranging
population sample. Although a single clear-cut definitive explanation of common sense
leadership is still elusive, a more defined parameter of what it is not was determined. This
finding matches what is noted in the current literature where there are disparate opinions
on whether common sense exists in the first place and, if so, how one identifies it outside
of a cultural context. Our work adds to the existing literature by suggesting common
sense decision making requires a sense of morality that sometimes supersedes
organizational performance and profitability.

b. That leaders are ‘born not made’:

Leader is defined as a person who is “appointed, elected, or informally chosen to direct

and co-ordinate the work of others in a group”. So one has to understand leader and
leader-ship are two very different concepts. With reference to the statement leaders are
“born not made”, certain predispositions such as personality characteristics, could add an
additional advantage of being a leader. The other factors such as family genes which one
may procure are definitely cannot be argued upon. Intelligence, religion-growth-status,
society, education, training, job etc. remain as external factors influencing ones
 leadership. Therefore a change and a conflict is simply evident. The recent breakthrough
of a concept called “Cloning” has stirred a wider controversy about replicating a
“LEADER”. Although the research is banned in most countries, a possibility of “BORN”
leader in every Human mind is very much an innate quality.

According to William A Cohen, “Lack of leadership ability” can most of the time be
corrected with training and a little motivation. Let’s take an example for a cause is
“Freedom”, wars where fought from Stone Age to industrial age under this concept, a
person who had a “Vision to Liberate” became a leader. So one may even draw to a
conclusion that a Leader can just persuade to make another leader or in a sense LEADER
makes an OTHER LEADER.

c. Leadership can only be learned by experiencing adversity:

Every leader goes through passages, significant or even transformative personal and
professional life experiences. Some passages are positive; others are upsetting, even
damaging. For an organization, learning how to help a leader – or potential leader –
negotiate these passages will deliver lasting and satisfying benefits. As this author states,
it will help an organization better recruit, measure and develop people to become leaders
of others.

Great leaders are lauded for their successes. But, paradoxically, what makes good leaders
great are the trials and tribulations of failure. Very often, the lessons learned from
confronting fear and uncertainty, and from experiencing frustration, transform good
leaders into great ones. Today, leaders who have endured adversity are most likely to be
the ones with the resilience and resolve to succeed.

We call these adverse and diverse experiences “passages,” because they take you from
one place to another: You see the world and yourself differently after you’ve gone
through the events and emotional states that define each passage. What differentiates
these experiences from ordinary difficulties or hurdles is the three elements they all have
in common:
  While they are inevitable, they are random and unpredictable. Adding to the
confusion is the fact that you can’t predict how you will respond or where you will
end up after you go through the passage. And the more significant the event, the more
unpredictable your response and the results. The only certainty is that the way you
respond will define your present and future career.
 These passages are emotionally and cognitively intense. They test and push you. You
will have to call on resources you didn’t know you possessed, rely on skill sets you
previously ignored, assess your priorities and re-evaluate your basic values.
 As a result, your sense of yourself will change in some fundamental way. Who you
are, what you’re capable of doing and your place in the world will all shift.

Question# 03:

Leadership is about the interaction between the leader, the followers and the situation. If a
given situation changes, the interaction between the leaders and followers can change
dramatically. The leaders who understand well this interaction have a huge advantage
because leaders are able to:

1. Change the situation:

For example, if the followers and leaders are more productive under pressure, a leader can
create a stressful environment or set aggressive goals to change the situation.

2. Change the followers:

For example, if the followers are not productive in a given situation, the leader can choose
to replace the team (if possible) or provide training in the specific area to build their skills,
confidence and ability to accomplish the desired goal.

3. Change their own behavior:

 For example, if during a company crisis the followers look for a more comfortable state of
assurance, then leaders can work on creating a more secure environment avoiding their
own behaviors that translate to doubt and hesitation among the followers.

Leadership skills can be learned and practiced. It is not necessary to be an outgoing or

charismatic person to be a good leader. A good leader learns from the different
circumstances that their life presents and uses this to enhance their leadership skills.

It may be useful to approach leadership from the point of view of four different “frameworks”.
Circumstances determine which approach (s) is appropriate. Effective leaders may use a number
of these approaches at the same time.

a. The Structural Framework

The “structural” manager tries to design and implement a process or structure appropriate to the
problem and the circumstances. This includes:

i. to clarify organizational goals

ii. manage the external environment

iii. develop a clear structure appropriate to task, and environment

iv. clarify lines of authority

v. focus on task, facts, logic, not personality and emotions

This approach is useful when goals and information are clear, when cause-effect relations are
well understood, when technologies are strong and there is little conflict, low ambiguity, low
uncertainty, and a stable legitimate authority.

b. The Human Resource Framework

The human resource manager views people as the heart of any organization and attempts
to be responsive to needs and goals to gain commitment and loyalty. The emphasis is on
 support and empowerment. The HR manager listens well and communicates personal
warmth and openness. This leader empowers people through participation and attempts to
gain the resources people need to do a job well. HR managers confront when appropriate
but try to do so in a supportive climate

This approach is appropriate when employee morale is high or increasing or when

employee morale is low or declining. In this approach resources should be relatively
abundant; there should be relatively low conflict and low diversity.

c. The Political Framework

The political leader understands the political reality of organizations and can deal with it.
He or she understands how important interest groups are, each with a separate agenda.
This leader understands conflict and limited resources. This leader recognizes major
constituencies and develops ties to their leadership. Conflict is managed as this leader
builds power bases and uses power carefully. The leader creates arenas for negotiating
differences and coming up with reasonable compromises. This leader also works at
articulating what different groups have in common and helps to identify external
“enemies” for groups to fight together.

This approach is appropriate where resources are scarce or declining, where there is goal
and value conflict and where diversity is high.

d. The Symbolic Framework

This leader views vision and inspiration as critical; people need something to believe in.
People will give loyalty to an organization that has a unique identity and makes them feel
that what they do is really important. Symbolism is important as is ceremony and ritual to
communicate a sense of organizational mission.

These leaders tend to be very visible and energetic and manage by walking around. Often
these leaders rely heavily on organizational traditions and values as a base for building a
common vision and culture that provides cohesiveness and meaning.
 This approach seems to work best when goals and information are unclear and
ambiguous, where cause-effect relations are poorly understood and where there is high
cultural diversity.

Question# 04:

Nowadays, group or team concept is adopted by the organization, to accomplish various client
projects. When two or more individuals are classed together either by the organization or out of
social needs, it is known as a group. On the other hand, a team is the collection of people, who
are linked together to achieve a common objective.

Most of the work in a business entity is performed in groups. Although the individual personality
of an employee is important, their effectiveness depends on the teams in which they are working
collectively to achieve any objective. In a particular team, there can be several groups in which
the group members individually help their leader to accomplish the goals. Below you can see the
difference between group and team in an organization, explained in tabular form.

Key differences:

The difference between group and team in the workplace can be drawn clearly on the
following grounds:

1. There is only one head in a group. A team can have more than one head.
2. The group members do not share responsibility, but team members share the
responsibility.
3. The group focuses on achieving the individual goals. Conversely, the team
members focus on achieving the team goals.
4. The group produces individual work products. As opposed to, the team who
produces collective work products.
5. The process of a group is to discuss the problem, then decide and finally delegate
the tasks to individual members. On the other hand, a team discusses the problem,
then decide the way of solving it and finally do it collectively.
 6. The group members are independent. Unlike a group, the team members are
interdependent.

Tuckman’s Stages of Team Development:

These stages are commonly known as: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and
Adjourning. Tuckman's model explains that as the team develops maturity and ability,
relationships establish, and leadership style changes to more collaborative or shared leadership.

Tuckman's original work simply described the way he had observed groups evolve, whether they
were conscious of it or not. In CORAL, the real value is in recognizing where a team is in the
developmental stage process, and assisting the team to enter a stage consistent with the
collaborative work put forth.

1. Forming

The initial forming stage is the process of putting the structure of the team together. Team
members feel ambiguous and conflict is avoided at all costs due to the need to be
accepted into the group. Team members look to a group leader for direction and
guidance, usually CORAL project guides. To advance from this stage to the next stage,
each member must relinquish the comfort zone of non-threatening topics and risk the
possibility of conflict.

2. Storming

This stage begins to occur as the process of organizing tasks and processes surface
interpersonal conflicts. Leadership, power, and structural issues dominate this stage.

In order to progress to the next stage, group members must move from a "testing and
proving" mentality to a problem-solving mentality. The most important trait in helping
teams move to the next stage is the ability of team members to listen to their team mates.
3. Norming

In this stage, team members are creating new ways of doing and being together. As the
group develops cohesion, leadership changes from ‘one’ teammate in charge to shared
leadership. Team members learn they have to trust one another for shared leadership to
be effective.

The major task function of stage three is the data flow between group members: They
share feelings and ideas, solicit and give feedback to one another, and explore actions
related to the task. Creativity is high. Collaboration emerges during this stage when team
work ethic and shared leadership is understood.

The major drawback of the norming stage is that members may begin to fear the
inevitable future breakup of the team; they may resist change of any sort.

4. Performing

True interdependence is the norm of this stage of group development. The team is
flexible as individuals adapt to meet the needs of other team members. This is a highly
productive stage both personally and professionally.

The Performing stage is not reached by all groups. If group members are able to evolve to
stage four, their capacity, range, and depth of personal relations expand to true
interdependence. In this stage, people can work independently, in subgroups, or as a total
unit with equal competencies.

5. Adjourning

In this stage typically team members are ready to leave (course termination) causing
significant change to the team structure, membership, or purpose and the team during the
last week of class. They experience change and transition. While the group continues to
perform productively they also need time to manage their feelings of termination and
transition.
 The final stage, adjourning, involves the termination of task behaviors and
disengagement from relationships. A planned conclusion usually includes recognition for
participation and achievement and an opportunity for members to say personal goodbyes.
Concluding a group can create some apprehension – in effect, a minor crisis.

Question# 05:

Leadership is a trait of influencing the behavior of individuals, in order to fulfill organizational

objectives. A number of leadership theories have been propounded by various management
experts considering behavior, traits, nature, etc. namely, Authoritarian, Laissez-faire,
Transactional, Transformational, Paternalistic and Democratic. Transactional Leadership or
otherwise known as management leadership, refers, to a leadership style which lays emphasis on
the transaction between leader and its subordinates.

On the other hand, Transformational Leadership is a type of leadership which becomes a reason

for the transformation (change) in the subordinates. In this style, the leader works with the
subordinates to ascertain the desired change in the organization.

Characteristics of a Transactional Leader:

Transactional leader is someone who can replace the wants of a leader for the wants of a
follower, emphasize development in setting goals, directing them and striving to control
outcomes, can make important decisions and have a strong personality

The benefits and rewards issue of contingency comes up frequently in discussions about
transactional leadership. Contingency means that workers know their reward is
contingent upon them completing the tasks that have been assigned to them. So, the
leader must set explicit expectations that are understood by the worker. If this
transactional process is not clear, a leader might appear to be practicing coercion by not
sharing common goals and tasks with an employee.

Transactional leaders usually use manage by exception, which means they won’t make
changes or get involved if everything runs as expected. Negative exceptions, such as
 missing sales goals or production quality targets, get immediate attention. This leadership
style can be noticed in various degrees of practice and vary by goals and vision.

Characteristics of a Transformational Leader:

Transformational leader can identified with the following four elements:

1- Idealized influence: Leaders hold, share and demonstrate core values and trust.
2- Inspirational motivation: Leaders motivate workers by conveying confidence and
a sense of purpose.
3- Individualized consideration: Leaders are concerned with people’s feelings and
needs.
4- Intellectual stimulation: Leaders provide opportunities for creativity and
innovation and allow people to learn, grow and try new things.

These components, called the Four I’s, have a substantial impact on a leader’s ability to
enrich both the organization and the individual. Transformational leaders hold positive
expectations for followers, believing that they can do their best. As a result, they inspire,
empower and stimulate followers to exceed normal levels of performance.”

The following are the major differences between transactional and transformational leadership:

1. Transactional Leadership is a type of leadership whereby rewards and punishment are

used as a basis for initiating the followers. Transformational Leadership is a leadership
style in which the leader uses his charisma and enthusiasm to influence his followers.
2. In transactional leadership leader, is lays stress on his relationship with followers.
Conversely, in transformational leadership leader lays stress on the values, beliefs and
needs of his followers.
3. Transactional Leadership is reactive whereas Transformational Leadership is proactive.
4. Transactional Leadership is best for a settled environment, but Transformation is good
for the turbulent environment.
5. Transactional Leadership works for improving the present conditions of the organization.
On the other hand, Transformational Leadership works for changing the present
conditions of the organization.
 6. Transactional Leadership is bureaucratic while Transformational Leadership is
charismatic.
7. In Transactional Leadership, there is only one leader in a group. In contrast to
transformational leadership, in which there can be more than one leader in a group.
8. Transactional Leadership is focused towards planning and execution as compared to
transformational leadership which promoted innovation.

It’s tempting to debate which style of leadership is better, but that misses the point. Both
styles are valid, and what matters is context. Some organizations need rigidity and a clear
chain of command. Others work best in a fluid environment where leadership sets an
example and establishes goals. Leadership styles that work for Google won’t work for the
military — and vice versa. In fact, both types of leadership styles might be needed in the
same organization to counterbalance each other and help achieve growth and development
goals. Transactional leaders make sure the team is running smoothly and producing results
today, while transformational leaders spur innovation and look toward tomorrow. In either
case education and training can be an effective tool in advancing one’s abilities as a
leader.

Conclusion:

Leadership is a process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others towards
the achievement of a goal. The immediate benefits of using the lessons of personal and
professional passages to develop leaders include reducing the risk of great leaders leaving
the company, increasing leadership bench strength and diversity, preventing
organizations from firing leaders at times of maximum learning, and identifying and
defusing ticking time bombs. A team is qualitatively different from a group. A team plays
a very vital role in the life of the members. The team members as it motivates the
members for working creatively and actively participating in the team tasks. Moreover, a
team stimulates the members to work for/with one another in an achieving an objective.
The Group is also not less; the group also helps the members in developing a sense of
conformity between the members and respect the group values. It increases their
resistance to change. Above all, the power of a group is always more than an individual.

Transactional leadership is best while some think that transformational leadership is

better. So the debate is never ending, for the two leadership styles. In my opinion, there is
no standard leadership style which is best suited to all the circumstances.