Are Leaders Born or Made?

Throughout history, there has been, and still is an ongoing debate on whether leaders are born or made. It has been an age-old question that has been on the minds of many. So are leaders born or made? I believe that it takes both, more so of being born with certain qualities and nurturing those qualities that makes effective leaders, rather than just nurturing alone.

According to Gary Johns et al (2005) and Robbins, S et al. (2006), leadership, in an organizational context, is defined as the ability to exert influence on others to achieve (organizational) goals: leaders are people, who not only able to influence others towards (organizational) goals, but also have managerial authority. Furthermore, S.A Kirkpartrick and E.A Locke (1991) state that leaders are intelligent individuals who are initiative, energetic, ambitious, and willing to take on responsibility. Therefore, a (effective) leader is someone who is able to inspire (influence) others (e.g. taking charge or command), a figurehead whom others look up to, and is able to lead people towards certain goals.... Read more>>

What is a Team?

Consisting of more than two individuals, Robbins and Judge (2007) describe a team as a group of interdependent individuals with special skills and/or knowledge, who have gathered together to achieve specific objectives; interaction is necessary and encourages “positive synergy through coordinated effort” (Robbins & Judge 2007, p299).

For example, 3 people (e.g. Lawyer, Programmer, Accountant) work together as a team producing high quality (computer/system) programs for an organization specializing in tax accounting. The programs produced require a high level of programming skills and aptitude to comprehend the law, with new laws and interpretation of existing laws have to be integrated quickly (and flawlessly) into the existing regulations and analysis tools. Each individual is equipped with the necessary (complimentary) skills and knowledge to integrate, as well as interpret new laws into the organization’s existing programs’ efficiently and effectively. Due to their education background and working experiences, each team member is able to contribute an area of expertise (law, accounting and programming); integrating desired objectives seamlessly and effectively through coordinated effort...Read more>>

How Different (Cultural) Environments Affect Orgaizations

Mentions how different types of cultural environments have an effect on organizations, and the way they do things.

Robbins, S et al. (2006) state that the degree of how much an organization is dependent upon its specific environments, as well as its awareness of what potential influences its general environment brings about, would affect the type of decisions that it makes.

Demographic change is an external (general) environment "that can potentially affect the organization's performance" (Robbins, S etal. 2006, p.83). As no two environments are similar, they are differentiated by their degree of environmental uncertainty. The greater the uncertainty, the more it is a threat to an organization's effectiveness. This is why managers try to minimize uncertainty. Thus, it can be said that demographics is a dynamic and somewhat complex environment.

There are different approaches and ways of doing things with each new generation: each generation thinks and does things fundamentally differently from others, with the differences emerging and developing as they go through every life stage. Hence, these different approaches determine and impact the direction in which an organization decides to take...Read more>>

How Formal Planning Contributes To An Organization's Efficiency and Effectiveness

According to Daft (2008, p210) planning is the “act of determining the organization’s goals and the means for achieving them” - the source of motivation and commitment, with legitimacy, guides to action, rationale for decisions, resources allocation and standard of performance as benefits -, and goals as what define and state the organization’s purpose.

By implementing formal planning, an organization’s (achievements) goals are outlined, with allocations of necessary resources, tasks, schedules and other actions being specified (Daft 2008). Explicit goals (targets) and plans at each planning stage would be developed, sending out messages to internal and external audiences. Thus, an organization improves its efficiency and effectiveness (financial and operational performance) when it adopts a formal planning approach... Read more>>

Labor Specialization Vs. Overspecialization

Labor specialization tends to increase an organization’s productivity. In Wealth of the Nations, Smith (1776) indicated that the benefits of labor specialization would increase in productivity: a worker’s skill and dexterity would increase. This division of labor would facilitate higher productivity and efficiency; such labor specialization breaks down the scope of jobs into narrow and repetitive tasks.

Using the pin manufacturing industry as an example, Smith (1776) stated that with each worker doing a specified task, a group of 10 workers would be able to produce 48,00 pins a day. However, if each individual were to work separately, performing separate tasks individually, the same group of people would only be able to produce within 10 pins a day... Read more>>

The Socioeconomic View vs. The Classical View

The socioeconomic view and the classical view are two approaches that shape and influence the way managers (especially in large organizations) prioritize and do things.

The socioeconomic view is “the view that management’s social responsibility goes beyond making profits to include protecting and improving society’s welfare” (Robbins, S et al. 2006, p.161). According to Carroll (1991), the four fundamentals to corporate social responsibilities - economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic - can be linked to corporate social processes such as environmental assessment, stakeholder management, and issues management (Wood, 1991)... Read more>>

Management by Objectives (Mbo)

Discusses how an organization with a traditional mindset ensures the successful implementation of the MBO concept.

By implementing MBO throughout an organization, managers would be able to "use strategic, tactical, and operational goals to direct employees and resources toward achieving specific outcomes that enable the organization to perform efficiently and effectively"...Read More>>

The Only Responsibility of Managers is to Maximize Shareholder Wealth

Critically discuss whether the only responsibility of managers is to maximize shareholder wealth.

There are two approaches that shape and influence the way managers prioritize and do things - the classical view and the socioeconomic view. The classical view "says that management's only social responsibility is to maximize profits". (Robbins etal. 2006, p.161) Milton Friedman (1970 p.6) asserted that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud." Friedman (1962, 1970) argued that managers' main responsibility is to operate the organization in the interest of the shareholders, the organization's true owners', by increasing financial returns. He reasoned that when managers decide on their own to use the organization's resources for ‘socialgood', they would be adding to the costs of doing business. These additional costs would then be at the expense of the shareholders, resulting in lower profits.

Robbins etal. (2006) also mention that those supporting the classical view fear that too much focus on social goals may dilute economic productivity. As the costs incurred by many socially responsible actions do not cover their costs, profits would be affected and costs would increase. This by no means implies that those who are in favor of the classical view are opposed to organizations becoming socially responsible - they just feel that "the extent of that responsibility is to maximize organizational profits for shareholders". (Robbins etal. 2006 p.161)

However, a major flaw with the classical view is that its focus tends to be on short term profit. A good example would be Manville Corporation in the United States: 50 years ago management decided to conceal information from employees that one of its products, asbestos, caused fatal lung disease. Chest X-rays results from employees were withheld from them. The rationale behind this was being able to save money and increase profits. Although this seemed to work for a short term period, in the long run the company was forced into bankruptcy in 1982 in order to protect itself from the increasing lawsuits in relation to asbestos liabilities. (Robbins etal., 2006) Manville had to set up a US$2.6 billion personal injury settlement trust fund in cash and bonds, and pledge a certain percentage of future profits in 1988 when it emerged from bankruptcy due to the overwhelming claims. As a result, on 1 April 1996 Manville Corporation permanently went out of business, with only the independent trust fund continuing to pay out asbestos settlements in its name....Read more>>