Best Leader, Worst Leader based on Performance
- Details
- Hits: 14090
Best Leader, Worst Leader
According to Ahn & Ettner (2014), leadership commonly gets attribution to an individual, and chance presented to a person to offer leadership to a group of people would see the leader get judgment from the public opinion base on qualities and performance. According to Curtis & Manning (2015) a leader’s skills, ability, and styles are important factors that make or break them and people look up to them for accountability in every decision they make and every action the leaders take. In the recent times, leadership has attracted more interests and involved aspects of leadership in a person and ability of the individual to use the capabilities to offer leadership. Leadership qualities and effectiveness are hard to understand and involve the manner in which leaders play their roles, together with the interaction with the rest of the organization and its people.
Andrews & Boyne (2010) argue that serving one of the world greatest economies, as the head of state that has multi-cultural and ethnic differences, class, and other social factors may be one of the most challenging things. According to Johansen (2012), leading a country that the world looks upon in terms of direction and support (mostly the developing countries) requires tact, confidence; with articulate vision and commitment that will offer solutions at each level. It is common that the effectiveness of the regime of a president depends on abilities of the advisors in different areas, but the political experience, knowledge of the system and personal skills are essential aspects that would offer a leader greater chance to excel.
Ahmad, Aslam, Bhatti, Nadeem, & Ramzan (2012) argue that political leadership is a complex in our current times where democracies offer criticism to the regime. According to Fernandez & Rainey (2006), it would require a leader to have an understanding that is greater than the apparent and influence out of the normal to have support of the majority on critical issues that touch on the people. Being visionary forms part of an effective leader, guiding an institution well, ensuring relevant revolutionary strategies and organizational continuity throughout the operations. The head of states ever known stand to be the best charismatic leader who can connect with the people of different backgrounds and influence on various issues. In the events of Rocky opposition from political rivalry, the leader must offer stability in the regime and persistence that is vital in seeing achievements made for the benefit of people.
According to Ahn & Ettner (2014), a leader who is not effective will always fail and experience deviancies within the institutions in which they serve. Different corporate have experiences of failures with some winding up their businesses due to weak leadership that is unable to offer critical support in rocky times. Ahmad et al. (2012) argue that if leadership is not effective, followers may tend to be deviant, have misconduct or non-commitment to the organization, which the leadership is not able to control. According to Miao, Newman, Yu, & Xu (2013) the conviction and moral rightness of a leader should always lead a team towards positive direction with a focus that would see an organization get success rather than failure. A multinational corporation would require a leadership that has diverse competencies that would see the businesses succeed even in the times of the rocky global business environment and rapid economic shifts.
Lack of vision and ability to offer leadership to the multinational corporation saw the failure of operations of the institution that saw it dissolve into another corporation and ceasing all its operation in its capacity. Curtis & Manning (2015) argue that ability to make personal choices to place the aspirations, needs, interests of others above own to serve with confidence, and show concern to other employees would see excellence. However, leading without ability, and enthusiasm deserved would see failure throughout the systems of an organization that would not benefit its operations.