Effective Leadership
Many people celebrated as highly effective leaders have character traits that the society classifies as both good and bad. However, from the broad definition of leadership, the end seems to justify the means. Leadership is about influencing people or subordinates through motivation so that they can accomplish set of activities, goals, or objectives (Walker, & Miller, 2009). The personal attribute of a leader is critical in defining his or her input in leading the organization. The known successful leaders are either rough or smooth. However, the model of influencing the activities in the organization tends to define their success. For example, Gandhi believed in smoothness whereas Hitler believed in sternness, yet all of …show more content…
The dissenting kinds of campaigns that leaders undergo propagate negative worldview against the leaders. Thus, attempt by the leader to achieve influence the society to believe his or her views attract moral corruption. The circumstances surrounding the leader at times permeate the need to employ corrupt means of achieving certain goals. Perhaps, one could argue that the choice to opt for moral corruption in pursuing organization goals is to enable the organization attain its desires in unsupportive environment. Both political and non-political leaders often use moral corruption in eliminating people who they believe are a threat to the choices. The idea is to silence the opponent through all means in order to achieve the desired …show more content…
For example, when it comes to defending the choices of the organization, the leader must be stern in pursuing the perceived choices. At times, the leaders take stern choices to an extent of transcending morality. Sternness is desirable because it distinguishes the choices of the leader from the choices opposing ones (Walker, & Miller, 2009). However, the extent to which the leader should be stern remains as a paradigm. At times, sternness contributes to effective leadership, but at times, it might transcend the morality. Thus, the leader must learn to limit extent which he or she should exercise the same. Lastly, masculinity often transcends morality because at times the leader might regard the subject as passive recipient of instructions. In such situation, the leader would transcend
Many people celebrated as highly effective leaders have character traits that the society classifies as both good and bad. However, from the broad definition of leadership, the end seems to justify the means. Leadership is about influencing people or subordinates through motivation so that they can accomplish set of activities, goals, or objectives (Walker, & Miller, 2009). The personal attribute of a leader is critical in defining his or her input in leading the organization. The known successful leaders are either rough or smooth. However, the model of influencing the activities in the organization tends to define their success. For example, Gandhi believed in smoothness whereas Hitler believed in sternness, yet all of …show more content…
The dissenting kinds of campaigns that leaders undergo propagate negative worldview against the leaders. Thus, attempt by the leader to achieve influence the society to believe his or her views attract moral corruption. The circumstances surrounding the leader at times permeate the need to employ corrupt means of achieving certain goals. Perhaps, one could argue that the choice to opt for moral corruption in pursuing organization goals is to enable the organization attain its desires in unsupportive environment. Both political and non-political leaders often use moral corruption in eliminating people who they believe are a threat to the choices. The idea is to silence the opponent through all means in order to achieve the desired …show more content…
For example, when it comes to defending the choices of the organization, the leader must be stern in pursuing the perceived choices. At times, the leaders take stern choices to an extent of transcending morality. Sternness is desirable because it distinguishes the choices of the leader from the choices opposing ones (Walker, & Miller, 2009). However, the extent to which the leader should be stern remains as a paradigm. At times, sternness contributes to effective leadership, but at times, it might transcend the morality. Thus, the leader must learn to limit extent which he or she should exercise the same. Lastly, masculinity often transcends morality because at times the leader might regard the subject as passive recipient of instructions. In such situation, the leader would transcend