- Teks
- Sejarah
For an example of fluid leadership
For an example of fluid leadership in action,
consider Joan, the general manager of a major
division at a global food and beverage company.
Joan was appointed to her job while the
division was in a deep crisis. It had not made
its profit targets for six years; in the most recent
year, it had missed by $50 million. Morale
among the top management team was miserable;
mistrust and resentments were rampant.
Joan’s directive from above was clear: turn the
division around.
Joan did so with a nimbleness in switching
among leadership styles that is rare. From the
start, she realized she had a short window to
demonstrate effective leadership and to establish
rapport and trust. She also knew that she
urgently needed to be informed about what
was not working, so her first task was to listen
to key people.
Her first week on the job she had lunch and
dinner meetings with each member of the
management team. Joan sought to get each
person’s understanding of the current situation.
But her focus was not so much on learning
how each person diagnosed the problem as
on getting to know each manager as a person.
Here Joan employed the affiliative style: she
explored their lives, dreams, and aspirations.
She also stepped into the coaching role,
looking for ways she could help the team
members achieve what they wanted in their
careers. For instance, one manager who had
been getting feedback that he was a poor team
player confided his worries to her. He thought
he was a good team member, but he was
Leaders who have
mastered four or more—
especially the
authoritative,
democratic, affiliative,
and coaching styles—
have the best climate and
business performance.
Leadership That Gets Results
harvard business review • march–april 2000 page 12
plagued by persistent complaints. Recognizing
that he was a talented executive and a valuable
asset to the company, Joan made an agreement
with him to point out (in private) when his actions
undermined his goal of being seen as a
team player.
She followed the one-on-one conversations
with a three-day off-site meeting. Her goal
here was team building, so that everyone
would own whatever solution for the business
problems emerged. Her initial stance at the offsite
meeting was that of a democratic leader.
She encouraged everyone to express freely
their frustrations and complaints.
The next day, Joan had the group focus on
solutions: each person made three specific proposals
about what needed to be done. As Joan
clustered the suggestions, a natural consensus
emerged about priorities for the business, such
as cutting costs. As the group came up with
specific action plans, Joan got the commitment
and buy-in she sought.
With that vision in place, Joan shifted into
the authoritative style, assigning accountability
for each follow-up step to specific executives
and holding them responsible for their accomplishment.
For example, the division had been
dropping prices on products without increasing
its volume. One obvious solution was to
raise prices, but the previous VP of sales had
dithered and had let the problem fester. The
new VP of sales now had responsibility to adjust
the price points to fix the problem.
Over the following months, Joan’s main
stance was authoritative. She continually articulated
the group’s new vision in a way that reminded
each member of how his or her role
was crucial to achieving these goals. And, especially
during the first few weeks of the plan’s
implementation, Joan felt that the urgency of
the business crisis justified an occasional shift
into the coercive style should someone fail to
meet his or her responsibility. As she put it, “I
had to be brutal about this follow-up and make
sure this stuff happened. It was going to take
discipline and focus.”
The results? Every aspect of climate improved.
People were innovating. They were
talking about the division’s vision and crowing
about their commitment to new, clear goals.
The ultimate proof of Joan’s fluid leadership
style is written in black ink: after only seven
months, her division exceeded its yearly profit
target by $5 million.
Expanding Your Repertory
Few leaders, of course, have all six styles in
their repertory, and even fewer know when
and how to use them. In fact, as we have
brought the findings of our research into
many organizations, the most common responses
have been, “But I have only two of
those!” and, “I can’t use all those styles. It
wouldn’t be natural.”
Such feelings are understandable, and in
some cases, the antidote is relatively simple.
The leader can build a team with members
who employ styles she lacks. Take the case of a
VP for manufacturing. She successfully ran a
global factory system largely by using the affiliative
style. She was on the road constantly,
meeting with plant managers, attending to
consider Joan, the general manager of a major
division at a global food and beverage company.
Joan was appointed to her job while the
division was in a deep crisis. It had not made
its profit targets for six years; in the most recent
year, it had missed by $50 million. Morale
among the top management team was miserable;
mistrust and resentments were rampant.
Joan’s directive from above was clear: turn the
division around.
Joan did so with a nimbleness in switching
among leadership styles that is rare. From the
start, she realized she had a short window to
demonstrate effective leadership and to establish
rapport and trust. She also knew that she
urgently needed to be informed about what
was not working, so her first task was to listen
to key people.
Her first week on the job she had lunch and
dinner meetings with each member of the
management team. Joan sought to get each
person’s understanding of the current situation.
But her focus was not so much on learning
how each person diagnosed the problem as
on getting to know each manager as a person.
Here Joan employed the affiliative style: she
explored their lives, dreams, and aspirations.
She also stepped into the coaching role,
looking for ways she could help the team
members achieve what they wanted in their
careers. For instance, one manager who had
been getting feedback that he was a poor team
player confided his worries to her. He thought
he was a good team member, but he was
Leaders who have
mastered four or more—
especially the
authoritative,
democratic, affiliative,
and coaching styles—
have the best climate and
business performance.
Leadership That Gets Results
harvard business review • march–april 2000 page 12
plagued by persistent complaints. Recognizing
that he was a talented executive and a valuable
asset to the company, Joan made an agreement
with him to point out (in private) when his actions
undermined his goal of being seen as a
team player.
She followed the one-on-one conversations
with a three-day off-site meeting. Her goal
here was team building, so that everyone
would own whatever solution for the business
problems emerged. Her initial stance at the offsite
meeting was that of a democratic leader.
She encouraged everyone to express freely
their frustrations and complaints.
The next day, Joan had the group focus on
solutions: each person made three specific proposals
about what needed to be done. As Joan
clustered the suggestions, a natural consensus
emerged about priorities for the business, such
as cutting costs. As the group came up with
specific action plans, Joan got the commitment
and buy-in she sought.
With that vision in place, Joan shifted into
the authoritative style, assigning accountability
for each follow-up step to specific executives
and holding them responsible for their accomplishment.
For example, the division had been
dropping prices on products without increasing
its volume. One obvious solution was to
raise prices, but the previous VP of sales had
dithered and had let the problem fester. The
new VP of sales now had responsibility to adjust
the price points to fix the problem.
Over the following months, Joan’s main
stance was authoritative. She continually articulated
the group’s new vision in a way that reminded
each member of how his or her role
was crucial to achieving these goals. And, especially
during the first few weeks of the plan’s
implementation, Joan felt that the urgency of
the business crisis justified an occasional shift
into the coercive style should someone fail to
meet his or her responsibility. As she put it, “I
had to be brutal about this follow-up and make
sure this stuff happened. It was going to take
discipline and focus.”
The results? Every aspect of climate improved.
People were innovating. They were
talking about the division’s vision and crowing
about their commitment to new, clear goals.
The ultimate proof of Joan’s fluid leadership
style is written in black ink: after only seven
months, her division exceeded its yearly profit
target by $5 million.
Expanding Your Repertory
Few leaders, of course, have all six styles in
their repertory, and even fewer know when
and how to use them. In fact, as we have
brought the findings of our research into
many organizations, the most common responses
have been, “But I have only two of
those!” and, “I can’t use all those styles. It
wouldn’t be natural.”
Such feelings are understandable, and in
some cases, the antidote is relatively simple.
The leader can build a team with members
who employ styles she lacks. Take the case of a
VP for manufacturing. She successfully ran a
global factory system largely by using the affiliative
style. She was on the road constantly,
meeting with plant managers, attending to
0/5000
Untuk contoh cairan kepemimpinan dalam tindakan,Pertimbangkan Joan, general manager dari besarDivisi di perusahaan makanan dan minuman.Joan diangkat untuk pekerjaannya sementaraDivisi pada krisis yang mendalam. Itu tidak membuattarget laba selama enam tahun; terbarutahun, itu telah kehilangan oleh $50 juta. Semangat juangantara top manajemen tim sangat menderita;ketidakpercayaan dan permusuhan yang merajalela.Jeanne direktif dari atas adalah jelas: mengubahDivisi di sekitar.Joan melakukannya dengan nimbleness di switchingantara gaya kepemimpinan yang langka. Dariawal, dia menyadari dia memiliki jendela pendek untukmenunjukkan kepemimpinan efektif dan untuk mendirikanhubungan baik dan kepercayaan. Dia juga tahu bahwa diadibutuhkan untuk diberitahu tentang apatidak bekerja, jadi nya tugas pertama adalah untuk mendengarkanuntuk orang-orang kunci.Nya minggu pertama pekerjaan yang ia makan siang danmakan malam pertemuan dengan masing-masing anggotaTim manajemen. Joan berusaha untuk mendapatkan masing-masingpemahaman seseorang situasi saat ini.Tapi fokus nya tidak begitu banyak belajar dibagaimana setiap orang mendiagnosis masalah sebagaimendapatkan untuk mengetahui setiap Manajer sebagai orang.Di sini Joan dipekerjakan gaya affiliative: diamenjelajahi kehidupan, impian, dan aspirasi mereka.Dia juga melangkah ke peran pembinaan,mencari cara dia bisa membantu timanggota mencapai apa yang mereka inginkan dalam merekakarir. Misalnya, salah satu manajer yang telahtelah mendapatkan umpan balik bahwa ia adalah sebuah tim yang miskinpemain bercerita kekhawatiran Nya kepadanya. Dia pikirDia adalah seorang anggota tim yang baik, tetapi diaPemimpin yang memilikimenguasai empat atau lebih-terutamaotoritatif,demokrasi, affiliative,dan pembinaan gaya —memiliki iklim yang terbaik dankinerja bisnis.Kepemimpinan yang mendapat hasilHarvard business review • Maret-april 2000 halaman 12diganggu oleh keluhan persisten. Mengenalibahwa ia adalah seorang eksekutif yang berbakat dan berhargaaset bagi perusahaan, Joan membuat kesepakatandengan dia untuk menunjukkan (secara pribadi) ketika tindakannyamerongrong tujuan dipandang sebagaipemain tim.Ia mengikuti satu-lawan satu percakapandengan pertemuan off-site tiga hari. Tujuan Nyadi sini adalah membangun tim, begitu bahwa setiap orangakan memiliki solusi apapun untuk bisnismasalah muncul. Sikap nya awal di offsiteRapat adalah pemimpin Partai Demokrat.Dia mendorong semua orang untuk Bebasfrustrasi dan keluhan mereka.Keesokan harinya, Joan memiliki kelompok fokus padaSolusi: setiap orang membuat tiga proposal yang spesifiktentang apa yang harus dilakukan. Sebagai Joanberkerumun saran, konsensus alamimuncul tentang prioritas untuk bisnis, sepertisebagai memotong biaya. Sebagai kelompok datang denganRencana Aksi spesifik, Joan punya komitmendan membeli-di dia dicari.Dengan visi tersebut di tempat, Joan bergeser kegaya otoritatif, menetapkan akuntabilitasuntuk setiap langkah tindak lanjut untuk Eksekutif tertentudan menahan mereka bertanggung jawab untuk prestasi mereka.Sebagai contoh, Divisi telahmenjatuhkan harga pada produk tanpa meningkatkanvolume. Salah satu solusinya jelas adalahmenaikkan harga, tetapi sebelumnya VP Penjualan telahdithered dan telah membiarkan masalah bernanah. TheBaru VP Penjualan sekarang memiliki tanggung jawab untuk menyesuaikanHarga poin untuk memperbaiki masalah.Selama bulan-bulan berikutnya, Joan's utamasikap adalah otoritatif. Dia terus-menerus diartikulasikankelompok visi baru dengan cara yang mengingatkanmasing-masing anggota bagaimana peran nyasangat penting untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut. Dan, terutamaselama beberapa minggu pertama dari rencanaimplementasi, Joan merasa bahwa urgensikrisis bisnis dibenarkan pergeseran sesekaligaya koersif ke harus seseorang gagal untukmemenuhi tanggung jawab Nya. Seperti dia meletakkannya, "sayaharus menjadi brutal tentang tindak lanjut ini dan membuatTentu saja hal ini terjadi. Itu akan mengambildisiplin dan fokus.Hasil? Setiap aspek dari iklim yang meningkat.Orang yang berinovasi. Merekaberbicara tentang visi Divisi dan berkokoktentang komitmen mereka untuk baru, jelas tujuan.Bukti utama Jeanne cairan kepemimpinangaya ditulis dalam tinta hitam: setelah hanya tujuhbulan, Divisi nya melebihi laba tahunansasaran oleh $5 juta.Memperluas perbendaharaan AndaBeberapa pemimpin, tentu saja, memiliki semua enam gaya dalamPerbendaharaan mereka, dan bahkan lebih sedikit tahu Kapandan bagaimana menggunakannya. Pada kenyataannya, seperti yang telah kitamembawa temuan-temuan dari penelitian kamibanyak organisasi, respon Umumtelah, "tetapi saya memiliki hanya dua darimereka!"dan,"saya tidak dapat menggunakan semua gaya. Itutidak akan alami."Perasaan seperti itu dapat dimengerti, dan dalambeberapa kasus, penangkal racun relatif sederhana.Pemimpin dapat membangun sebuah tim dengan anggotayang menggunakan gaya dia kekurangan. Ambil kasusVP untuk manufaktur. Ia berhasil berlarisistem global pabrik sebagian besar dengan menggunakan affiliativegaya. Dia berada di jalan terus-menerus,pertemuan dengan manajer pabrik, menghadiri
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
For an example of fluid leadership in action,
consider Joan, the general manager of a major
division at a global food and beverage company.
Joan was appointed to her job while the
division was in a deep crisis. It had not made
its profit targets for six years; in the most recent
year, it had missed by $50 million. Morale
among the top management team was miserable;
mistrust and resentments were rampant.
Joan’s directive from above was clear: turn the
division around.
Joan did so with a nimbleness in switching
among leadership styles that is rare. From the
start, she realized she had a short window to
demonstrate effective leadership and to establish
rapport and trust. She also knew that she
urgently needed to be informed about what
was not working, so her first task was to listen
to key people.
Her first week on the job she had lunch and
dinner meetings with each member of the
management team. Joan sought to get each
person’s understanding of the current situation.
But her focus was not so much on learning
how each person diagnosed the problem as
on getting to know each manager as a person.
Here Joan employed the affiliative style: she
explored their lives, dreams, and aspirations.
She also stepped into the coaching role,
looking for ways she could help the team
members achieve what they wanted in their
careers. For instance, one manager who had
been getting feedback that he was a poor team
player confided his worries to her. He thought
he was a good team member, but he was
Leaders who have
mastered four or more—
especially the
authoritative,
democratic, affiliative,
and coaching styles—
have the best climate and
business performance.
Leadership That Gets Results
harvard business review • march–april 2000 page 12
plagued by persistent complaints. Recognizing
that he was a talented executive and a valuable
asset to the company, Joan made an agreement
with him to point out (in private) when his actions
undermined his goal of being seen as a
team player.
She followed the one-on-one conversations
with a three-day off-site meeting. Her goal
here was team building, so that everyone
would own whatever solution for the business
problems emerged. Her initial stance at the offsite
meeting was that of a democratic leader.
She encouraged everyone to express freely
their frustrations and complaints.
The next day, Joan had the group focus on
solutions: each person made three specific proposals
about what needed to be done. As Joan
clustered the suggestions, a natural consensus
emerged about priorities for the business, such
as cutting costs. As the group came up with
specific action plans, Joan got the commitment
and buy-in she sought.
With that vision in place, Joan shifted into
the authoritative style, assigning accountability
for each follow-up step to specific executives
and holding them responsible for their accomplishment.
For example, the division had been
dropping prices on products without increasing
its volume. One obvious solution was to
raise prices, but the previous VP of sales had
dithered and had let the problem fester. The
new VP of sales now had responsibility to adjust
the price points to fix the problem.
Over the following months, Joan’s main
stance was authoritative. She continually articulated
the group’s new vision in a way that reminded
each member of how his or her role
was crucial to achieving these goals. And, especially
during the first few weeks of the plan’s
implementation, Joan felt that the urgency of
the business crisis justified an occasional shift
into the coercive style should someone fail to
meet his or her responsibility. As she put it, “I
had to be brutal about this follow-up and make
sure this stuff happened. It was going to take
discipline and focus.”
The results? Every aspect of climate improved.
People were innovating. They were
talking about the division’s vision and crowing
about their commitment to new, clear goals.
The ultimate proof of Joan’s fluid leadership
style is written in black ink: after only seven
months, her division exceeded its yearly profit
target by $5 million.
Expanding Your Repertory
Few leaders, of course, have all six styles in
their repertory, and even fewer know when
and how to use them. In fact, as we have
brought the findings of our research into
many organizations, the most common responses
have been, “But I have only two of
those!” and, “I can’t use all those styles. It
wouldn’t be natural.”
Such feelings are understandable, and in
some cases, the antidote is relatively simple.
The leader can build a team with members
who employ styles she lacks. Take the case of a
VP for manufacturing. She successfully ran a
global factory system largely by using the affiliative
style. She was on the road constantly,
meeting with plant managers, attending to
consider Joan, the general manager of a major
division at a global food and beverage company.
Joan was appointed to her job while the
division was in a deep crisis. It had not made
its profit targets for six years; in the most recent
year, it had missed by $50 million. Morale
among the top management team was miserable;
mistrust and resentments were rampant.
Joan’s directive from above was clear: turn the
division around.
Joan did so with a nimbleness in switching
among leadership styles that is rare. From the
start, she realized she had a short window to
demonstrate effective leadership and to establish
rapport and trust. She also knew that she
urgently needed to be informed about what
was not working, so her first task was to listen
to key people.
Her first week on the job she had lunch and
dinner meetings with each member of the
management team. Joan sought to get each
person’s understanding of the current situation.
But her focus was not so much on learning
how each person diagnosed the problem as
on getting to know each manager as a person.
Here Joan employed the affiliative style: she
explored their lives, dreams, and aspirations.
She also stepped into the coaching role,
looking for ways she could help the team
members achieve what they wanted in their
careers. For instance, one manager who had
been getting feedback that he was a poor team
player confided his worries to her. He thought
he was a good team member, but he was
Leaders who have
mastered four or more—
especially the
authoritative,
democratic, affiliative,
and coaching styles—
have the best climate and
business performance.
Leadership That Gets Results
harvard business review • march–april 2000 page 12
plagued by persistent complaints. Recognizing
that he was a talented executive and a valuable
asset to the company, Joan made an agreement
with him to point out (in private) when his actions
undermined his goal of being seen as a
team player.
She followed the one-on-one conversations
with a three-day off-site meeting. Her goal
here was team building, so that everyone
would own whatever solution for the business
problems emerged. Her initial stance at the offsite
meeting was that of a democratic leader.
She encouraged everyone to express freely
their frustrations and complaints.
The next day, Joan had the group focus on
solutions: each person made three specific proposals
about what needed to be done. As Joan
clustered the suggestions, a natural consensus
emerged about priorities for the business, such
as cutting costs. As the group came up with
specific action plans, Joan got the commitment
and buy-in she sought.
With that vision in place, Joan shifted into
the authoritative style, assigning accountability
for each follow-up step to specific executives
and holding them responsible for their accomplishment.
For example, the division had been
dropping prices on products without increasing
its volume. One obvious solution was to
raise prices, but the previous VP of sales had
dithered and had let the problem fester. The
new VP of sales now had responsibility to adjust
the price points to fix the problem.
Over the following months, Joan’s main
stance was authoritative. She continually articulated
the group’s new vision in a way that reminded
each member of how his or her role
was crucial to achieving these goals. And, especially
during the first few weeks of the plan’s
implementation, Joan felt that the urgency of
the business crisis justified an occasional shift
into the coercive style should someone fail to
meet his or her responsibility. As she put it, “I
had to be brutal about this follow-up and make
sure this stuff happened. It was going to take
discipline and focus.”
The results? Every aspect of climate improved.
People were innovating. They were
talking about the division’s vision and crowing
about their commitment to new, clear goals.
The ultimate proof of Joan’s fluid leadership
style is written in black ink: after only seven
months, her division exceeded its yearly profit
target by $5 million.
Expanding Your Repertory
Few leaders, of course, have all six styles in
their repertory, and even fewer know when
and how to use them. In fact, as we have
brought the findings of our research into
many organizations, the most common responses
have been, “But I have only two of
those!” and, “I can’t use all those styles. It
wouldn’t be natural.”
Such feelings are understandable, and in
some cases, the antidote is relatively simple.
The leader can build a team with members
who employ styles she lacks. Take the case of a
VP for manufacturing. She successfully ran a
global factory system largely by using the affiliative
style. She was on the road constantly,
meeting with plant managers, attending to
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- A friying pan
- WEKEND WORK
- Kamu adalah pria yang sangat baik di mat
- WEEKEND WORK
- I left the story at a distance.
- Km berasal dri mana?
- Cinta kamu begitu tulus
- kamu sedang sibuk
- Aku cinta kamu karena allah
- Waktu saya kecil. Saya belajar mengenal
- Kamu adalah pria yang sempurna
- Saya pergi
- Hai kawan kawan selamat datang di dunia
- Karena hati aku telah kamu bawa
- Bagiku kamu segalanya
- semoga cepat sembuh sayang..Tetap semang
- Hai kawan kawan selamat datang di dunia
- Karena kamu sudah membawa hatiku
- Cinta kamu segalanya untukku
- semoga cepat sembuh sayang..Tetap semang
- Karena hati aku selalu bersama kamu
- Waktu saya kecil
- Dan kamu selalu menjaga hati aku
- WORK AGAIN
