The Leadership
Abstract
The phenomenon of leadership has been thought of, discussed, documented since the time there appeared to be a word leader. Leadership interest has grown exponentially over the time with development of many leadership definitions. As Bass concluded as many as there are people attempting to define the concept on leadership there are also many definitions but which the researchers and the practitioners have not accepted. The common theme of the definitions of leadership is social influence whereby an individual puts his influence to a group with an aim of achieving a common goal. The basic concept which seems to be adopted is the exerting of more influence on a group than any other member. This key concept has been adopted to be the most applicable definition for this term. Different cultures have adopted different leadership styles and models.
Leadership roles involve influencing of people to get things done to standards and quality above their norm and willingly. It entails both the leaders and the followers. Leadership may have possible outcomes which include achievement of targets which come as a result of commitment of individuals to such targets and also enhancing of cohesion in the groups and the reinforcing of change in the culture of the organization. In this report we shall consider how leadership has been taking place as compared to the other area in the world.
Thesis statement: What does it mean to be a leader?
Definition
Leadership is the process of directing the conduct of other people towards the achievement of some universal goal.
Leadership in India
India and China has risen in the global scene and this has made it necessary for one to want to know the models of leadership which are in place in the countries. There have been talks emphasizing on how leadership differs from that of the other countries especially the western countries. There has been a shift both in the political and the economical activities geographically. This shift can only be attributed to the leadership which is embraced in the countries.
In the recent years there has been acute economic crisis in many parts of the world however this has not been a very severe in India as it is in U.S. This is an indicator that there is a change which is coming.
We shall trace the traditional sources of the leadership models in India. One of the major differences between western nations and India is the notion of the ‘self”. In western nations the enlightenments and the developments in the 19th century helped to create the sense of self which turned out to be individualistic and observing only a unit in itself. On the other hand in India there is relation on the sense of self. This means that there is relationship with others on the sense of self.
The self notion of self also comes up in the traditions of the Indian texts. In India the leader should lead by example. The ruler who leads by virtue can be compared to be the main pillar to which the others can be attached to. This leader can transform people through his command which is morally right. The activities of a leader in India are taken to be the expressions of his moral value systems. Rulers here are highly regarded with specific titles.
In India the leadership role is largely seen to be the duty or leaders are seen to be obliged to the people. This was manifested in the battle between the Kauravas and the Pandavas when Krishna advised Arjuna to fight even his family members since it was his obligation to fight.
In India the leaders is seen to be part of the people and they lead because it is a duty. Leadership here is defined in terms of the relationship of the leaders with the people who surround him. A leader in this state is more passive as compared to that in the United States or the Anglo countries where the leader is more interactive and engaged with the other people. The emerging developments and differences have however proved that the passive leaders have more powers lying within them.
From experience of the Indian leaders in different sectors the leaders are seen to fly so high but they keep it calm without showing off. They want to stay grounded with the other people despite major achievements. This has been the case even with some presidents.Previous leaders like Gandhi have adapted to some contexts and circumstances at various times.
Because of the colonial past of the Indian country, there has been a tendency to stand up as one self and defend your self individually. This has brought the idea that what need to be done must be done and has made individuals to be more active and developed a sense of responsibility amongst them.If we are to consider the speeches delivered by business men from India it is clear that there are aspects of nationalism. This is because the leaders have been seen to speak for and about the nation; they are seen to have a sense of community responsibility. This is very different if we observe the speeches from the business men from America.
For instance we consider the speech by Jack Welch who talks about the 4e’s: energy, the ability to energy the rest; the capacity to have an edge and be able to take risks; and the capability to execute what one has to do. He also emphasizes on the passion and integrity in whatever one does. In his talks he never talks about how you should be responsible towards the other people as well as to the community and the nation as a whole.
One is able to find more information from the Indian leaders because they interact readily with the people; this is most evident in the business scenario.The leadership models of India and its environs like the China relate so much but they emerge to be very different from those in the western countries.It is note worthy that the Indian leaders need to focus on the youth, this is because they have the skills imparted within them. This has made them to fit in different systems within the globe.
It seems like the enlightenment projects instigated by the western world may get replaced. Being a super power in the global scene it becomes questionable about who will be the new order of the world. This has been a major concern for the Indian states and leaders mainly because they seem to override them in some aspects especially in the economy.The leadership models in India and the neighborhood are more relational and have a lot of inter-dependency. This has become more important in the 21st century which requires more inter-dependency notion the need to have a drive for sustainability in the growth of the economy and other life aspects.
If we consider the diverse leadership styles in US and India and how they would participate in handling the common issues concerned with climate change and then have a debate on the same it is hard to know who is on the right and who is on the wrong side. This debate is also not likely to go very far.In India there has been increased innovation in a way to make use of the green technology and it as well need to move faster in this sector as it did in the emergence of the cell phone technology.It is important that the leadership models come together. This because different circumstances need different sets of skills; India is advantaged in this situation because it possesses varied skills for different situations.
US for instance have been embracing the self-criticizing leadership model that used to be effective half a decade ago. These models are not bound to work in the current generation due to the fast changing environment.People should not very much observe values of a certain culture in the leadership; this is because even if there happens to be a change in the said nation people will react in ways which will send a signal to the leaders and the leadership.Hierarchical leaderships should are only important if what’s happening within them does not matter very much as compared to that which happens to the outside. This concerns the relationships both internal to the leadership as well as external.
There should be need for flexibility in the styles of leadership. This is because diversity in these models can bring hindrances. It implies that the application of the leadership models can either be advantageous or disadvantageous to those who it applies to or causes impact to.In India although there have been questions of the effect of Buddhism in leadership it is notable from the arguments by Desai that this religious affiliation has not had very great impact on the leadership of India. To this effect there has been breakage of the connection between the Asian countries and with the rest of the world when the powers from the West invaded this country. This needs to be strengthened because in real sense there should be relationship with other countries in order to have an effective leadership in the country.
The Indian values and the Asian at large have been preserved. They should however be observed with caution because their application can be misused to cause harm to others. For instance if we check on the countries like Singapore they have been used with discrimination to justify incidences of lack of democracy from the leadership of the country.Personalities play a key role especially in the perception by other external powers. For instance many people view US to be very rigid in its values and culture to be unable to change with the changing generation in terms of leadership for the good of the sovereign of its people. They find it hard for US to adjust with ease. This is very essential as the external perceptions by other people about the actions of certain nation may mean an action by itself. This is because what people view to be likely to happen will most likely happen.
India has been focusing mainly on the leadership styles which were mainly followed by ancient leaders like Gandhi; this is not however bad but also other modalities need to be considered as well.Some factors like the Islamic culture influence need to be put into consideration; secularism as it was put forth by Akbar is a very major factor to be considered.These factors should be discussed in leadership forums and debates and ways in which they can be implemented should be put in place.
Countries should however learn from one another in matters relating to leadership. It should be so because in essence there are aspects of leadership which are equally important in each country. For instance India has been assuming more on the moral obligation on certain issues. They should start reacting less and listening more. Americans are decisive and assumptive on actions that can be implemented. This trait is essential in leadership and other countries should copy and embrace it though they should do this with caution.
In the 21st century we sum up by saying that there should be high respect for the raging diversity for the approaches people make use of within themselves. If one clings to specific approaches of leadership even if they are not bearing fruits they will end up been ineffective. They will therefore get a lot of criticism from the society and those who are affected by the leadership.
Relevance of Leadership Theories in India
In India transformational leadership theory has been greatly use and applied in many sectors. Here we shall consider how this theory has been relevant and of use.Great leadership calls for an authentic expression of oneself. This is not different in India. There has been demonstration of openness, honesty and integrity. This has made many leaders to earn credibility and the trust of other people. Without these values leaders should not expect others to follow them.
Lets consider the sense of the shared anger and the disgust by many Indians over the allegations that arose about the corruption and the poor management that occurred at the Delhi CWG’s, which was mainly aimed at the chairman of the organizing committee, Suresh Kalamadi. There was great difference in the leadership expressed by the Anand Mahindra the managing director and chairman of the largest companies in India Mahindra & Mahindra. He was dedicated to promote professional management in India. He modeled this good behavior for everyone to see everywhere even in the social networking sites.
Leaders in India have been disclosing information about their strengths and their vulnerabilities and making sure that the report they give is accurate and complete. This has been embraced even if the picture of the reports is not very appealing; this will help others see the realistic picture of the status quo. It has allowed others to challenge it successfully.
Taking personal accountability and accepting risks and the consequences of failure and persisting in the face of opposition has inspires the followers of leaders in India. Leaders like Mahindra are consistent in their behavior, they do what they say in terms of the values they uphold, the standards and beliefs and they adhere to the ethics, norms and standards of business even when they are under pressure. This has ensured that their followers have some clear sense of expectation of what they should do and at the same time do.
Satyam Mahindra’s turnaround for example whereby he acted with integrity and followed through all the promises he had made; this assured him of lasting credibility which was to be used for influencing successfully later.Authentic leadership has been a secret ingredient that has enabled homegrown leaders to successfully engage their followers to contribute to their vision of the future for sustained competitiveness on the global scene.
For some time now Indian Companies have been watched as they grow though leaps and bounds. This has left many to wonder how the leaders in these companies operate. A research conducted heard the business leaders say that competency in whatever they do was most the most important ingredient to their success. They also had the thought that shared values and vision and building of the top team were some of the capacities which helped them succeed.
For example let’s take Muthuraman the managing director for Tata steel company that has become widely known after it acquired the Corus steel company from Britain; this leader talked about been visionary as a very essential capacity. He talked about having made people to envision their future, energize them, enthuse and empower them. These showed a desire for having a common interest in strategic thinking and management of talents. He acknowledged that the leaders should lead from the front and by example which were very essential personal characteristics.
The vision for the company was rooted in its underlying values of the company. Leaders work by energizing and exciting the employees of the company. This works a motivation to them and makes them feel appreciated; as a result their productivity has increased. The visionary aspect was common both in Western and the Indian companies.
Indian business executes were marked with a lot of flexibility so as to counter the changing operating environments of the business. The businesses are owned with a family structure in India with risk taking among the entrepreneurs. There is strict regulatory culture here and the environment of the infrastructure is very challenging though. This has necessitated the Indians to be resilient, adaptive and be able to move forward with ease in the face of adversity.
The chairman for Zee entertainment enterprises Subhash Chndra believes that Indian leaders are more flexible than those in the Western countries. The leaders move down to levels at which they can be able to think with the common man and deal with them at their level. They are also able at the same time to come up to the level of the State’s head and be able to handle them at their level.Anu Aga a former chairperson of Thermax India which is an environment and energy firm pointed that there are many obstacles which the Indian leaders deal with. They include roads and ports in terrible condition. Family ownership of the business and organizations made the leaders have a long term strategic approach to these problems. The leaders are more of entrepreneurs which have made the companies to work more nimbly and have taken the advantage of the market place which is changing very frequently.
The culture of the Indians has high performance attitude, innovation, focus on the customers and clients, and entrepreneurship and low cost which has made them to have market competitiveness. The Indians spend more time setting strategies and handling with the customers instead of worrying about the shareholders.There are close characteristics of the Indian leaders; they chose chief input for the strategy of the business; keep the culture of the organization; guiding and teaching of the employees. Unlike in the US leaders they focus more on the internal issues which include how to manage people, motivate the employees. In the contrast the US leaders and the CEOs spend more time on the issues of the shareholders.
Rajesh Hukku the founder of i-flex solutions, a firm dealing with financial services software later acquired by Oracle showed two key differences between the leaders of the US and Indians. The Indian leadership does not follow the hire and fire policy which is very common in US. Indians look at their employees as a long term assets and the culture and behaviors of the companies have grown in this perspective. This shows a general long term view versus the short term one.Indians have become more confident but they mostly tend to operate in safer environments. They want to maximize what they have but are not very ready for new achievements and exploitations.
In India unlike in the United States there is no net safety and this has also led to the CEOs focusing more on the internal issues. These safety nets include unemployment benefits or social factors. In the US they see shareholders as the primary constituents of their companies.At this moment the economy of the country is booming and there is talent shortage. So it is only necessary to invest on the employees to feel the gap and to ensure that there is continued productivity.
Research has shown that not all the practices by the Indian CEOs are worth. Some of them have hierarchical traits which are negative. For example Bhargava the CEO for the VSNL a telecommunication firm said that in India they tend to be hierarchical not only in their managements but also in their personal positions. Some of the companies failed because of their failure to get rid of this mindset.The fact that Indians are very emotional has led to them making emotional decisions which are very effective. This has played a greater among many in the evaluations of investments or opportunities. In America however this is not the case.
In India there is little use of scientific, reasonable assessment of white collar productivity. They are poor in judging people’s capabilities and their expectations.The Indian leaders have used some of the features that they may have got them from their US counterparts although in very minimal circumstances.Indians leaders though engaging in some self criticism they admitted that some of the management aspects were more professional their staff could have been more competent and with more expertise.
The leaders feel that the financial aspect does not need a lot of attention.When you ask the Indian leaders about their legacy they will talk more on their firms’ performance, about its growth, the influence they have and their reputations. This is unlike in the US where there is a lot of they will mostly talk of the increase in the prices of the shares.
Conclusion
In conclusion we say that leadership in the 21st century era should entail for the respect for the diversity within oneself. There is a lot to be emulated from the Indian leadership. Leaders should not be self centered but there should be the relation type of governance whereby the leaders can talk with their juniors as well as their seniors. This will create more understanding and the productivity in the work place will be enhanced.
Reference
Aspen Institute (2009). New global leaders, new leadership models. G8 summit meeting
In Saprono Japan
Bajpai, V. (2010). The street to the highway. India: Jaico books
Edmunds R.D. (2007) Tecumseh and the quest for Indian leadership. New York: Pearson Longman
Mellissa, F. (2010) The need for authentic leadership in the Indian workplace
Wharton (2007) Are business leaders different? Leadership and change: India
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
