We do this … others just talk about it.
I love to learn from the most successful people in life. It’s one of the best ways to gain new insights and accelerate your learning.
When it comes to leadership, it’s hard to find a better example than Sir Winston Churchill. I’ve been fascinated by him ever since I visited the Cabinet War Rooms in London, England years ago.
In Leadership and Motivation I started writing with the premise that leadership is about producing more leaders, not more followers.
So, I thought it worthwhile to look at three common mistakes businesses make when motivating people.
When I started writing the Rough Guide to Leadership Models and Theories, I envisaged a series of articles about the popular leadership models plus some additional insights on how these may be used in today’s organisations.
Now, at the half way point, I am having second thoughts about the application of these models for leading change.
Transformational Leadership is about transforming the business and changing the organisation’s culture.
Take our test and see how high you score.
In Transformational Leadership we learned that one characteristic of the transforming leader is dealing with complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty.
So, let’s take a look at a leadership model based on the work of Ralph Stacey, the author of several books on leadership and organisational dynamics.
Transformational Leadership was first coined by the historian and political scientist, James MacGregor Burns in the late 1970s, and was used to distinguish the inspirational leadership style from Transactional Leadership.
What does it mean to be accountable?
Well, let’s keep things simple and start with the definition of accountability.
In Situational Leadership we introduced four leadership styles: Telling, coaching, participating, and delegating. Hersey and Blanchard contend that choice comes down to a sense of responsibility and willingness on the part of leader and team.
In contrast, Daniel Goleman, who popularised Emotional Intelligence, identifies six styles of leadership. But, this is where the similarity ends.
Here’s why …