To what extent does personality influence management style free essay sample

The aim of this essay is to analyse how personality traits can affect the way people are led by their leaders. As it may be possible that as many different leaders, there are many ways to lead people. The definition of leadership is commonly known as an â€Å"ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals â€Å"(Robbins, p. 156). I believe that it is necessary for leaders to posses this ability, to become as effective as possible in an organisation/workplace or even their subordinates to complete entrusted tasks and goals in a perfect manner. Furthermore leaders are seen as people who are able to have authority and control and tend to develop their own individual style. According to Matthew J. Robinson (2010, p. 32), the most productive leadership style is contingent on the personnel traits of those who manage people; these individuals ultimately should select and adopt a style which would be the most efficient for the situation. We will write a custom essay sample on To what extent does personality influence management style? or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The four general leadership styles that have been identified (Mondy, Shaplin and Premeaux, 1991, cited on humankinetics. com, 2013) are autocratic, democratic, participative and laissez-faire. In line with the way if managing subordinates, I would also link them to theory of â€Å"X and Y† (Douglas McGregor, 1960, cited on humankinetics. com, 2013). This theory is a description of two types of employee motivation. Theory X states that the average person dislike work and would more likely avoid it. Therefore, to achieve organisational objectives, most people need to be coerced to work towards them. Furthermore, the person avoids responsibilities and relatively un-ambitious. On the other hand, theory Y states that people are committed to achieve the company’s objectives without external control or threat of punishment. They also often seek responsibilities and accept established tasks ( HYPERLINK http://www. businessballs. com www. businessballs. com ). Based on these â€Å"it is important to appreciate the usefulness of need hierarchy when trying to manage a workforce† (Maund, p. 99). In my opinion, it can be also extremely useful when planning the incentive system in the company. Interestingly, this theory also depends on the approach of the leaders and the way in which its workers receive it. The leaders tend to use the certain tactics depending on what tasks they wish to accomplish ( HYPERLINK http://www. leadership-expert. co. uk www. leadership-expert. co. uk). The effectiveness of these tasks largely depends on what style of directing they choose. In autocratic style nobody can dispute the fact that authority is in one person’s hands and it may cause dissatisfaction among the employees (HYPERLINK http://www. buzzle. comwww. buzzle. com). This management style leads to a very high efficiency in the working group. However, its quality and motivation to work is low. Authoritarian leaders make independent decisions with just little or no input from the group members. It therefore links to McGregor’s X orientated style. The second and probably the most efficient leadership style is democratic which allows employees to take part and have greater involvement in decision-making process. Their opinions are taken into consideration and used to delegate certain tasks to attain organisation’s goals. On the contrary, it may be seen as a weakness so â€Å"leaders may lose an ultimate control as they become more a part of the team (Mullins, p. 37). However, it demonstrates employees as having more of theory Y orientation, which results in higher employee motivation in order to successfully implement new procedures and systems within the workplace. The other types of the leaders who view their subordinates as theory Y orientated are those who lead participative style of management. Even though, they also encourage rely on opinion of their followers, they maintain the final decision making authority. Although commonly recognised style laissez-fair appears to have genuine opinion of the least productive, in the same way could be described as the most challenging and the most motivating out of all four. Leaders offer an incredible autonomy and trust to their subordinates in a way where they rarely interfere in workers performance and allowing them to make decisions. Nevertheless this style implies the absolute hand-off approach, it is in company’s interest to follow the most important aspect as to recruit the highly motivated and skilled employees in order to effectively accomplish given tasks. Another way to describe the management styles is by looking into scientific, classical and relationship approaches. Each of them has a specific ways of developing the leadership and was propounded by the individuals. According to Frederic Taylor in 1900, the scientific management style also known as â€Å"taylorism† if â€Å"individuals were given precisely defined set of tasks† with† clear set of objectives† then â€Å"they would calculate the benefits of improving their output and their productivity would rise† (Maund,p. 94). Other principals indicated that to perform each job with the standard methods should be developed. Taylor believed that each trained worker with the sufficient support would determine the best way of performance. The modification on the scientific approach was propounded by Henri Fayol in the 1920s. As such it is popularly known as â€Å"fayolism† or classical management style. Its 5 fundamental principals were described as planning, organising, command, coordinating and control. Nowadays following these rules may play a crucial role in terms of achieving continued success and reaching goals (www. gwhatis. com). In my opinion, leaders who follow the both of the above management styles would also be classed as the autocratic characters as the main principal and concerns are profits and they are production-orientated. Certainly the opposite way of approach was presented in Elton Mayo’s theory in early 1930s. His studies concluded that â€Å"worker’s behaviour and sentiments were closely related† and that â€Å"group standards were highly effective in establishing individual worker output† as well as â€Å"money was less a factor in determining worker output than were group standards, sentiments and security† (Robbins. p. 105). Consequently, the focus should be concentrated on â€Å"providing employees with the required amenities† (HYPERLINK http://www. buzzle. comwww. buzzle. com ) as when people then feel more valued and they work better. Nowadays, each leader’s style differs and consists of various factors but the one common one is their personality traits. According to Kendra Cherry, personality is â€Å"made up the characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviours that make a person unique†. Personality â€Å"arises from within the individual and remains fairly consistent throughout life† ( HYPERLINK http://www. psychology. about. com www. psychology. about. com ). As a result, the formation of a personality of men is the ability to process incoming information so as to form a picture of the world and themselves and the ways to respond to people and situations. It determines the course of actions. Each personality types bring both the good and the bad aspects of character. Throughout the history, different researchers in different ways tried to understand human nature and to characterize it by looking for certain patterns and similarities between people. Probably the oldest known theory of personality built the Greek physician Hippocrates. â€Å"Moods† defined the four fluids contained in his opinion in human body. Hippocrates also claimed that according to their proportion of people have different dispositions. He distinguished four personality traits: sanguine (Lat. Sanguis), phlegmatic (Gr. Phlegm), choleric (Gr. Cholesterol) and melancholic (Gr. Melas Chole). Observing the behaviour of individuals in terms of their personality leads me to the conclusion that the representative of each type has its way to perform certain tasks at work and also influence the behaviour of others. It leads to believe that these personality traits could also fit in connection with the leadership styles. For example, leaders with the style of Sanguine really like to live and work with the group. They have great contact with people, not only with those who already know each other but also with those who have just met. Establishing the new contacts comes to them with great ease. Therefore Sanguine leaders work best in these positions, which need to communicate with a large number of people. They are perfectly able to present the company on a broad forum. Besides Sanguine has a positive influence on the atmosphere prevailing in the band and is well able to motivate the others to work. Undoubtedly, in situations requiring high regularity and patience at work, Sanguine leaders will not feel the best. Also in such cases, leaders are isolated from a group of co-workers and will have to work alone. This kind of leadership can be easily compared to democratic style where leaders are open for cooperation with their subordinates. On the contrary, the specific type of autocratic leader can be seen in the Choleric traits. Those are typical leaders who work quickly and they seek to dominate others. Their manners of speaking, gestures are a proof of this. Therefore the choleric are usually well suited for managerial positions. One of the Choleric’s features is that when they have a new task to complete, they quickly develop the plan in their head and take it to work without looking too much at theirs superiors or colleagues. In addition, the conflicts are possible because Choleric will not care about the doubts and opinions of other contributors. Spitfire also does well in difficult situations of crisis whereas jobs requiring patience, analysis of tables filled with columns of numbers are not very satisfactory. Due to analytical skills, regularity, order and patience I would identified the participative leader to the Melancholic traits. They will be melancholic in their environment maintained rigorous even order. Melancholic feels good at work when all of its tasks are carefully planned and described, while it is lacking dynamics in action and quick decision- making. These people tend to analyse the problem to the smallest detail. The last Phlegmatic personality trait could be combined with the laissez-faire leadership style due to their calm and composure at work, not many enemies and excellent ability to resolve conflicts. They carry out their jobs the best when there is no pressure of time. Apart from Hippocrates’ theory regarding personality, another famous one has been developed by Sigmund Freud. His â€Å"Structure of Personality consists of Id, Ego and Super Ego. Freudian Theory is the representation of the interrelationship among the Id, Ego and Super Ego (Hiriyappa, 2012). This mean they interact closely with each other and it is impossible to separate their effects. Human behaviour is a result of the interaction of three systems psyche. Id is already present at birth. It stores entire human psychic energy and operates according to principle of pleasure and avoids pain. The second running of the mind which grows on the ground Id is Ego. Ego is guided by the principle of reality and represents the mind, the intellect, planning, and self-control. The man who wants to experience the subjective satisfaction (ID) must execute them using his mind (EGO). The third structure of personality is the Super Ego that develops the latest in human development and represents morality, conscience. With the Super Ego arouses among us positive feelings-pride (if we live according to the moral principles) or negative-shame (when we break these rules). Ego in order to protect our well being at the moment of conflict between the desires of the Id and Super Ego requirements provides us with the tools in the form of defence mechanism. One of the newer concepts about the personality is Costa and McCrea’s model also known as â€Å"Big Five† (1984). It differentiates personality types based on the intensity of the five substances: Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. Leaders who want to be the most successful will be seeking in scoring the highest in all five dimensions. I would imagine an excellent leader being creative and curious in dimension of openness, responsible and persistent in conscientiousness, assertive and sociable in extroversion, also cooperative and trusting in agreeableness and finally self-confident and secure in dimension of neuroticism. Upon the described reflections about the leadership styles and personality traits, in my conclusion not all the effective and successful leaders demonstrate the same personality traits. I believe that personality traits shape how a leader is seen and how a leader reacts in to an organisation.