Leadership Styles--Transactional Leadership
Most of the times we associate Leadership styles with Individuals and that is one possible reason for the dearth of Leadership in most professions. Either we end up following a particular person or we end up in chaos if we don't find someone. On the other hand accepting a group of individuals or entities to lead the rest is also something which has its own advantages and disadvantages. If a group of individuals, then there is a significant possibility that irrespective of them being good or bad, we continue to accept whatever is thrown to us and if institutional, we end up without questioning the sanctity of the institution lest it be seen as a revolution. However, if the institution or group of individuals are able to create Leaders continuously without bias, then the result is something that cannot be replaced.
In this post to show a particular difference I am bringing in Institutions and within them group of individuals (without naming anyone) within a particular leadership style known as "Transactional Leadership Style". This style is not a typical leadership style but a type of Management and hence it is mostly used for solutions which are for the Short Term.
In Transactional Leadership, the team members accept their task with an idea that they agree to obey the leader when they begin their task. It is very simple, if you agree to obey and act as told, you are rewarded by the Institution else you are shown the door. The Leader has a right to punish if the team members do not adhere to certain standards. The best advantage in this type of Leadership (or Management) is that it clearly provides the roles each person has to play and their duties and responsibilities towards the task and thereby towards the Leader or Institution. Another advantage is that the team members are motivated by associated rewards and those who are pushed by external rewards are extremely motivated to thrive under such styles of Leadership. Simply put there are many who join the bandwagon and the saga continues.
The significant example of such a Leadership Style are two institutions and since this series is on Cricketing Leadership, I am providing the instances of The West Indies Cricket Board and New Zealand Cricket and their respective control on the Cricketers in such a manner that was self defeating. On the other hand the Board of Cricket Control in India which is significantly stronger than their counterparts, the Management Style is simply different with participation from various angles providing relief to the incumbents. However, I would like to bring in a caveat here that if there is success in the Management style, things are relatively easier. The difference here is the interference in the Field is less from the BCCI when compared to the WICB and NZC.
The examples shown above clearly indicate that too much interference in the activities does not give strength. It de-motivates teams beyond a certain level of control. There is too little effort made by teams to improve since irrespective of whatever they do they would be rewarded or punished. There is very less satisfaction from the Job on hand and the resultant is very high turnover. Both New Zealand and West Indies Cricket teams have seen many players over the last few years and to beat this, the constant cutting and chopping of Captains is something both the teams regularly found themselves in. They were simply battered teams and from the pedestal they were, one as a "world beater" and another as a "fighter always", they are wooden spoonists in most competitions. This type of Leadership Style has serious limitations and can fall short of Creativity and Knowledge based work, which means you don't get risk takers and only those who are willing to play the game what their masters want them to or simply play a game which is not understood by many.
In this post to show a particular difference I am bringing in Institutions and within them group of individuals (without naming anyone) within a particular leadership style known as "Transactional Leadership Style". This style is not a typical leadership style but a type of Management and hence it is mostly used for solutions which are for the Short Term.
In Transactional Leadership, the team members accept their task with an idea that they agree to obey the leader when they begin their task. It is very simple, if you agree to obey and act as told, you are rewarded by the Institution else you are shown the door. The Leader has a right to punish if the team members do not adhere to certain standards. The best advantage in this type of Leadership (or Management) is that it clearly provides the roles each person has to play and their duties and responsibilities towards the task and thereby towards the Leader or Institution. Another advantage is that the team members are motivated by associated rewards and those who are pushed by external rewards are extremely motivated to thrive under such styles of Leadership. Simply put there are many who join the bandwagon and the saga continues.
The significant example of such a Leadership Style are two institutions and since this series is on Cricketing Leadership, I am providing the instances of The West Indies Cricket Board and New Zealand Cricket and their respective control on the Cricketers in such a manner that was self defeating. On the other hand the Board of Cricket Control in India which is significantly stronger than their counterparts, the Management Style is simply different with participation from various angles providing relief to the incumbents. However, I would like to bring in a caveat here that if there is success in the Management style, things are relatively easier. The difference here is the interference in the Field is less from the BCCI when compared to the WICB and NZC.
The examples shown above clearly indicate that too much interference in the activities does not give strength. It de-motivates teams beyond a certain level of control. There is too little effort made by teams to improve since irrespective of whatever they do they would be rewarded or punished. There is very less satisfaction from the Job on hand and the resultant is very high turnover. Both New Zealand and West Indies Cricket teams have seen many players over the last few years and to beat this, the constant cutting and chopping of Captains is something both the teams regularly found themselves in. They were simply battered teams and from the pedestal they were, one as a "world beater" and another as a "fighter always", they are wooden spoonists in most competitions. This type of Leadership Style has serious limitations and can fall short of Creativity and Knowledge based work, which means you don't get risk takers and only those who are willing to play the game what their masters want them to or simply play a game which is not understood by many.
Comments
Post a Comment