The Politics of Leadership

£9.9
FREE Shipping

The Politics of Leadership

The Politics of Leadership

RRP: £99
Price: £9.9
£9.9 FREE Shipping

In stock

We accept the following payment methods

Description

Verba, S. 1961. Small Groups and Political Behavior: A Study of Leadership. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. The case of political leaders is more dramatic, as Pepe Sánchez—former NBA basketball player and Olympic medalist, who is today dedicated to thinking about well-being and high performance—says, “The human body is not prepared to make so many decisions and be in a context of persistent stress.” 1 Social networks and digital newspapers are our main source of information, and there are no curators to help us define criteria for use.

There was little point in asking them to think strategically, to design a more horizontal and empathetic leadership, to allow for team building, or to think long term, because they were basically trying to survive from day to day. Sometimes knowing what something isn’t sheds more light on what it is. While the leadership definition above is a good starting point for understanding its meaning, it doesn’t explain the common pitfalls many make when learning leadership skills. Leadership Is Not Commanding Authority It is difficult to imagine two concepts more abstract and illusive than leadership and politics, yet we must deal with each and join them in productive and parsimonious ways if a conceptual basis for theoretical development is to be established. A start may be made by restating a defining conceptualization of politics and then proceeding to construct a conceptualization of leadership on that foundation. David Easton’s now classic definition of politics may be taken as starting point. Easton proposed what became a landmark definition of politics in asserting that “politics is that social process through which values are authoritatively allocated for a political system” (Easton 1971, 143-44). That definition has been criticized for being too “system oriented” in that it fixes the processes in question in the working of established, sovereign, governmental systems. Much of that criticism can be met by broadening the concept to consider politics as a generic phenomenon that occurs within all social structures or systems, however informal. As Adrian Leftwich put it, “the fact of the matter is that, unless one adopts a very narrow view of it, politics is a pervasive feature of collective human life” (Leftwich 1990, 3). Thus, I suggest that politics should be understood as encompassing those social processes through which contested values are allocated. In this conception all that is required for politics to occur is a conflict over the allocation of values within any social set of two or more actors. A simple difference of preferences among interacting individuals is sufficient to trigger the political process. It does not require the existence of any particular level, form, or structure of formal “system” to exist. The notion of conflict, implicit in Easton’s formulation, is made explicit here in the form of the word “contest” but is not in any way restricted to any particular cultural notion of conflict. All that is required is some difference in perception among participants about preferred outcomes. Such an approa ch allows us to comprehend politics as a social process which, in all cases, has certain fundamental commonalties. Any finite, though probably varying, number of such processes then may construct or come to be components of those systems more conventionally recognized as the family, group, organization, or state.Mughan, A, and S. Patterson. 1992. Political Leadership in Democratic Societies. Chicago: Nelson Hall. This paper seeks to make an effective contribution to how we think about democratic political leadership and also to share personal insight as a politician so that other politicians and leaders can use it as a reference and think about how much they are taking care of themselves. Doing so can contribute to finding solutions for the legitimacy crisis that our democracies are experiencing due to a disconnect with social expectations and demands. This paradigm shift is already occurring in other fields of society, and taking it to the political arena will make the task of those in charge of solving the great problems we face more effective. When in a senior leadership position, this problem can become dramatic since it is entirely up to the leader how he will use his cell phone. Often, it can end up working as an antianxiety agent, and thus end up enhancing disconnection and stress.

Leadership is an incredible impact that upholds discipline in the association beyond what formal principles and guidelines can. Individuals will be submitted and faithful to rules and guidelines if their chiefs believe in them. Continuous Procedure: Leadership is a continuous process. A leader must constantly oversee and supervise their team members to ensure that everyone is working toward the same goals and not deviating from them.To be sure, as concepts, both politics and leadership provide fertile ground for dispute and confusion. To consider them together requires a merger of disciplinary perspectives that may challenge some conventional ways of thinking. Such a merger requires some revisiting of well-worn ideas and some reinvention. It maybe fair (some may contest this assertion!) to say that most students of leadership have an inadequate appreciation and understanding of politics and most students of politics have a similarly inadequate appreciation and understanding of leadership. Although the latter may be in general agreement that politics, generically, is a social process through which contested values are distributed, they rarely pursue the implications of this basic conceptualization into the informal or nonpublic realm. The crux of the matter is that conceptual clarity and precision is at the heart of any theory, and leadership is a highly abstract concept extremely difficult to make either clear or precise. The latter is particularly significant because no attempt at conceptual clarity for leadership seems possible without dealing with other such concepts, such as politics, in the process. There is none of that in politics today because we do not conceive of it as a high-performance activity and because there are no institutions prepared to carry out this task. Of those political scientists who do study and write about leadership most are constrained by disciplinary predilection to focus on leadership as elite behavior within established institutional frameworks such as the American presidency. Few approach leadership, as I will do here, as a political process occurring within human societies at all levels and in almost all (if not all) forms of society. Many recognize that leadership often involves political characteristics, and, certainly, eminent political scientists have focused on leadership as a critical element in the success or failure of governmental office holders, party officials, and the like. Scholars in other disciplines conclude much the same thing in their studies of nongovernmental leaders, but no one has unambiguously argued, as I propose to do here, that the conceptualization of leadership may be redirected and refined with recognition that politics is the central, common element in all leadership.

In this context of volatility, uncertainty, and complexity, we should look at the human dimension, seeing empathy and an emotional bond with the population as a basic and necessary condition. That requires moving away from caudillista, messianic, charismatic, or technocratic leadership models. Awareness of your humanity and connection with others is a path that helps prevent the evils of abuse of power or bad rulers. In ancient Rome, the Caesars had a slave whose task was to whisper in their ear that they were mortal. Since the existence of man, there has been insight into how power impacts the individual, how to prevent the madness of power, and how to ensure good rulers. This is why strategic planning is important for growing credibility and trust. When CEOs create plans that produce positive results, they increase their influence as reliable leaders. Serve Others I here suggest four primary theoretical assertions which hold that leadership (1) is always, in every case, a political phenomenon; (2) is a phenomenon which is necessary but not necessarily sufficient to group syntality (the various performances exhibited by the group in an effort to achieve a goal); (3) may best be approached as an emergent and contingent process phenomenon within all social systems; and (4) within any given social system, in particular as its complexity increases beyond the most primitive levels, leadership roles and functions will be distributed among and circulate in kind, degree, and character among the actors within the system. Again, all social systems are explicitly understood also to be political systems, whether formal or informal, implicit or explicit, in nature. Nearly all organizations will be understood to have multiple leadership actors and performances within them which may or may not coincide with their formal, institutional structure. Leadership, thus, may be treated as a political role-process, or pattern, that occurs at many points, and often concurrently, within any social system.

Recent Articles

Corning, P. 1984. The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution. New York: McGraw-Hill. Leaders can adopt a two-part strategy for managing political conflict in the workplace: Following the practices outlined in this article, they can develop norms and procedures for averting conflicts altogether while also making plans for managing them when they arise.

As the crisis in representation and political parties escalates, there is no institution today that is well positioned to work on the training, development, and care of the human capital dedicated to political leadership. Achieving Shared Organisational Goals: A leader's role in an organisation is to guide employees in achieving shared goals. The leader brings people and their efforts together to achieve common goals. According to Alberto Lederman, an Argentine business management expert: “All leaders have some trauma. I don’t know one that doesn’t. My theory, in short, is that lust for power is a trauma response. Because, just as not everyone needs to get high, not everyone is interested in power. You must have a biographical trauma to do certain things. You must have motive, compelling reasons to aspire to power, to want to make history, to seek prominence. If there is no conflict, there are no demands for redress.”People see and interpret information in ways that serve their political allegiances, and that tendency is not random: Those on the left are more inclined to notice bias, but primarily against socially disadvantaged groups. Those on the right are less inclined to notice bias across the board. The Way Forward The support of doctors, nutritionists, physical trainers, kinesiologists, and other specialties is important if one wants to avoid voluntarism and wants to take advantage of scientific knowledge and advances that continue to develop. The more national the figure one projects, the more their experience resembles that of the most well-known celebrities, be they artists, athletes, or other popular figures. However, there is little awareness that success in political activity will lead you to become famous, and that being famous will come with loss of freedom, impact on families and your inner circle, and constant stress caused by being seen by others.



  • Fruugo ID: 258392218-563234582
  • EAN: 764486781913
  • Sold by: Fruugo

Delivery & Returns

Fruugo

Address: UK
All products: Visit Fruugo Shop