http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcon.

html See the ppt attached LEADERSHIP Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. Leadership occurs among people, involves the use of influence, and is used to attain goals. Management is about ensuring a process is delivered efficiently and leadership is about influencing change. A manager is at times a leader and a leader is at times a manager. Leadership versus Management Leader qualities SOUL Visionary Passionate Creative Flexible Inspiring Innovative Courageous Imaginative Experimental Initiates change Personal power Manager qualities MIND Rational Consulting Persistent Problem solving Tough-minded Analytical Structured Deliberate Authoritative Stabilizing Position power

Four leadership styles: 1. Telling style reflects a high concern for production and a low concern for people. (Directive style) 2. Selling style based on a high concern for both people and production. 3. Participating style based on a combination of high concern for people and low concern for production. 4. Delegating style reflects a low concern for both people and production.

Bass' Theory of Leadership Bass' theory of leadership notes there are three basic ways to explain how people become leaders (Bass, Bass, 2008; Stogdill, 1989; Bass, 1990):

A crisis or important event may cause a person to rise to the occasion, which brings out extraordinary leadership qualities in an ordinary person. This is the Great Event or Great Man Theory. Some personality traits may lead people naturally into leadership roles. This is the Trait Theory. People can choose to become leaders. People can learn leadership skills. This is the Transformational or Process Leadership Theory. It is the most widely accepted theory today and the premise on which this guide is based.

Four Factors of Leadership There are four major factors in leadership (U.S. Army, 1983):

Leader You must have an honest understanding of who you are, what you know, and what you can do. Also, note that it is the followers, not the leader or someone else who determines if the leader is successful. If they do not trust or lack confidence in their leader, then they will be uninspired. To be successful you have to convince your followers, not yourself or your superiors, that you are worthy of being followed.

Followers Different people require different styles of leadership. For example, a new hire requires more supervision than an experienced employee. A person who lacks motivation requires a different approach than one with a high degree of motivation. You must know your people! The fundamental starting point is having a good understanding of human nature, such as needs, emotions, and motivation. You must come to know your employees' be, know, and do attributes. Communication You lead through two-way communication. Much of it is nonverbal. For instance, when you set the example, that communicates to your people that you would not ask them to perform anything that you would not be willing to do. What and how you communicate either builds or harms the relationship between you and your employees. Situation All situations are different. What you do in one situation will not always work in another. You must use your judgment to decide the best course of action and the leadership style needed for each situation. For example, you may need to confront an employee for inappropriate behavior, but if the confrontation is too late or too early, too harsh or too weak, then the results may prove ineffective. Also note that the situation normally has a greater effect on a leader's action than his or her traits. This is because while traits may have an impressive stability over a period of time, they have little consistency across situations (Mischel, 1968). This is why a number of leadership scholars think the Process Theory of Leadership is a more accurate than the Trait Theory of Leadership. Various forces will affect these four factors. Examples of forces are your relationship with your seniors, the skill of your followers, the informal leaders within your organization, and how your organization is organized.

The Two Most Important Keys to Effective Leadership

According to a study by the Hay Group, a global management consultancy, there are 75 key components of employee satisfaction (Lamb, McKee, 2004). They found that:

Trust and confidence in top leadership was the single most reliable predictor of employee satisfaction in an organization. Effective communication by leadership in three critical areas was the key to winning organizational trust and confidence: 1. Helping employees understand the company's overall business strategy. 2. Helping employees understand how they contribute to achieving key business objectives. 3. Sharing information with employees on both how the company is doing and how an employee's own division is doing relative to strategic business objectives.

So in a nutshell you must be trustworthy and you have to be able to communicate a vision of where the organization needs to go Principles of Leadership To help you be, know, and do, follow these eleven principles of leadership (U.S. Army, 1983). 1. Know yourself and seek self-improvement - In order to know yourself, you have to understand your be, know, and do, attributes. Seeking selfimprovement means continually strengthening your attributes. This can be accomplished through self-study, formal classes, reflection, and interacting with others. 2. Be technically proficient - As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid familiarity with your employees' tasks. 3. Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions - Search for ways to guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, they always do sooner or later do not blame others. Analyze the situation, take corrective action, and move on to the next challenge. 4. Make sound and timely decisions - Use good problem solving, decision making, and planning tools. 5. Set the example - Be a good role model for your employees. They must not only hear what they are expected to do, but also see. We must become the change we want to see - Mahatma Gandhi

6. Know your people and look out for their well-being - Know human nature and the importance of sincerely caring for your workers. 7. Keep your workers informed - Know how to communicate with not only them, but also seniors and other key people. 8. Develop a sense of responsibility in your workers - Help to develop good character traits that will help them carry out their professional responsibilities. 9. Ensure that tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished Communication is the key to this responsibility. 10.Train as a team - Although many so called leaders call their organization, department, section, etc. a team; they are not really teams...they are just a group of people doing their jobs. 11.Use the full capabilities of your organization - By developing a team spirit, you will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest capabilities. Attributes of Leadership If you are a leader who can be trusted, then those around you will grow to respect you. To be such a leader, there is a Leadership Framework to guide you: BE KNOW DO BE a professional. Examples: Be loyal to the organization, perform selfless service, take personal responsibility. BE a professional who possess good character traits. Examples: Honesty, competence, candor, commitment, integrity, courage, straightforwardness, imagination. KNOW the four factors of leadership follower, leader, communication, situation. KNOW yourself. Examples: strengths and weakness of your character, knowledge, and skills. KNOW human nature. Examples: Human needs, emotions, and how people respond to stress. KNOW your job. Examples: be proficient and be able to train others in their tasks.

KNOW your organization. Examples: where to go for help, its climate and culture, who the unofficial leaders are. DO provide direction. Examples: goal setting, problem solving, decision making, planning. DO implement. Examples: communicating, coordinating, supervising, evaluating. DO motivate. Examples: develop morale and esprit de corps in the organization, train, coach, counsel. Environment Every organization has a particular work environment, which dictates to a considerable degree how its leaders respond to problems and opportunities. This is brought about by its heritage of past leaders and its present leaders. Goals, Values, and Concepts Leaders exert influence on the environment via three types of actions: 1. The goals and performance standards they establish. 2. The values they establish for the organization. 3. The business and people concepts they establish. Successful organizations have leaders who set high standards and goals across the entire spectrum, such as strategies, market leadership, plans, meetings and presentations, productivity, quality, and reliability. Values reflect the concern the organization has for its employees, customers, investors, vendors, and surrounding community. These values define the manner in how business will be conducted. Concepts define what products or services the organization will offer and the methods and processes for conducting business. These goals, values, and concepts make up the organization's personality or how the organization is observed by both outsiders and insiders. This personality defines the roles, relationships, rewards, and rites that take place. Roles and Relationships

Roles are the positions that are defined by a set of expectations about behavior of any job incumbent. Each role has a set of tasks and responsibilities that may or may not be spelled out. Roles have a powerful effect on behavior for several reasons, to include money being paid for the performance of the role, there is prestige attached to a role, and a sense of accomplishment or challenge. Relationships are determined by a role's tasks. While some tasks are performed alone, most are carried out in relationship with others. The tasks will determine who the role-holder is required to interact with, how often, and towards what end. Also, normally the greater the interaction, the greater the liking. This in turn leads to more frequent interaction. In human behavior, its hard to like someone whom we have no contact with, and we tend to seek out those we like. People tend to do what they are rewarded for, and friendship is a powerful reward. Many tasks and behaviors that are associated with a role are brought about by these relationships. That is, new task and behaviors are expected of the present role-holder because a strong relationship was developed in the past, either by that role-holder or a prior role-holder. Culture and Climate There are two distinct forces that dictate how to act within an organization: culture and climate. Each organization has its own distinctive culture. It is a combination of the founders, past leadership, current leadership, crises, events, history, and size (Newstrom, Davis, 1993). This results in rites: the routines, rituals, and the way we do things. These rites impact individual behavior on what it takes to be in good standing (the norm) and directs the appropriate behavior for each circumstance. The climate is the feel of the organization, the individual and shared perceptions and attitudes of the organization's members (Ivancevich, Konopaske, Matteson, 2007). While the culture is the deeply rooted nature of the organization that is a result of long-held formal and informal systems, rules, traditions, and customs; climate is a short-term phenomenon created by the current leadership. Climate represents the beliefs about the feel of the organization by it s members. This individual perception of the feel of the organization comes from what the people believe about the activities that occur in the organization. These activities influence both individual and team motivation and satisfaction, such as:

How well does the leader clarify the priorities and goals of the organization? What is expected of us? What is the system of recognition, rewards, and punishments in the organization? How competent are the leaders? Are leaders free to make decisions? What will happen if I make a mistake?

Organizational climate is directly related to the leadership and management style of the leader, based on the values, attributes, skills, and actions, as well as the priorities of the leader. Compare this to ethical climate the feel of the organization about the activities that have ethical content or those aspects of the work environment that constitute ethical behavior. The ethical climate is the feel about whether we do things right; or the feel of whether we behave the way we ought to behave. The behavior (character) of the leader is the most important factor that impacts the climate. On the other hand, culture is a long-term, complex phenomenon. Culture represents the shared expectations and self-image of the organization. The mature values that create tradition or the way we do things here. Things are done differently in every organization. The collective vision and common folklore that define the institution are a reflection of culture. Individual leaders, cannot easily create or change culture because culture is a part of the organization. Culture influences the characteristics of the climate by its effect on the actions and thought processes of the leader. But, everything you do as a leader will affect the climate of the organization. For information on culture, see Long-Term Short-Term Orientation The Process of Great Leadership The road to great leadership (Kouzes & Posner, 1987) that is common to successful leaders:

Challenge the process - First, find a process that you believe needs to be improved the most. Inspire a shared vision - Next, share your vision in words that can be understood by your followers. Enable others to act - Give them the tools and methods to solve the problem.

Model the way - When the process gets tough, get your hands dirty. A boss tells others what to do, a leader shows that it can be done. Encourage the heart - Share the glory with your followers' hearts, while keeping the pains within your own.

##################################################################

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadob.html

LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Organizational Behavior (OB) is the study and application of knowledge about how people, individuals, and groups act in organizations. It does this by taking a system approach. That is, it interprets people-organization relationships in terms of the whole person, whole group, whole organization, and whole social system. Its purpose is to build better relationships by achieving human objectives, organizational objectives, and social objectives. As you can see from the definition above, organizational behavior encompasses a wide range of topics, such as human behavior, change, leadership, teams, etc. Since many of these topics are covered elsewhere in the leadership guide, this paper will focus on a few parts of OB: elements, models, social systems, OD, work life, action learning, and change. Elements of Organizational Behavior The organization's base rests on management's philosophy, values, vision and goals. This in turn drives the organizational culture which is composed of the formal organization, informal organization, and the social environment. The culture determines the type of leadership, communication, and group dynamics within the organization. The workers perceive this as the quality of work life which directs their degree of motivation. The final outcome are performance, individual satisfaction, and personal growth and development. All these elements combine to build the model or framework that the organization operates from.

Models of Organizational Behavior There are four major models or frameworks that organizations operate out of, Autocratic, Custodial, Supportive, and Collegial (Cunningham, Eberle, 1990; Davis ,1967):

Autocratic The basis of this model is power with a managerial orientation of authority. The employees in turn are oriented towards obedience and dependence on the boss. The employee need that is met is subsistence. The performance result is minimal.

Custodial The basis of this model is economic resources with a managerial orientation of money. The employees in turn are oriented towards security and benefits and dependence on the organization. The employee need that is met is security. The performance result is passive cooperation.

Supportive The basis of this model is leadership with a managerial orientation of support. The employees in turn are oriented towards job performance and participation. The employee need that is met is status and recognition. The performance result is awakened drives.

Collegial The basis of this model is partnership with a managerial orientation of teamwork. The employees in turn are oriented towards responsible behavior and self-discipline. The employee need that is met is self-actualization. The performance result is moderate enthusiasm.

Although there are four separate models, almost no organization operates exclusively in one. There will usually be a predominate one, with one or more areas over-lapping in the other models. The first model, autocratic, has its roots in the industrial revolution. The managers of this type of organization operate mostly out of McGregor's Theory X. The next three models begin to build on McGregor's Theory Y. They have each evolved over a period of time and there is no one best model. In addition, the collegial model should not be thought as the last or best model, but the beginning of a new model or paradigm.

LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZATION http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Kritsonis,%20 Alicia%20Leadership%20In%20Organization%20National%20Implications.pdf

POLITICAL PARTIES IN DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES While it is widely recognized that political parties are facing a deepening crisis worldwide, parties continue to play an irreplaceable role in democratic systems. The 2 weaknesses of political parties must be addressed to allow parties to continue to promote avenues for increased citizen participation in the political process worldwide. Crisis of Political Parties Many political parties, both in established democracies and in nascent multi-party systems, are in a state of near crisis. Globally, citizens have grown increasingly frustrated with their political parties and leaders. Polls, focus groups and voting behavior indicate that society largely views political parties as ineffective, corrupt, and out of touch with their needs. Established political parties have experienced a dwindling membership that is aging. Young people are hesitating to join or become associated with political parties. At the same time, support has risen for independent candidates, special interest parties, and anti-party movements. In emerging democracies worldwide, political parties are either too weak, too personalistic, too constrained by oppressive governments, or too corrupt and out of touch to earn the respect and support of the public. From Russia to Pakistan to Peru to Venezuela, and other countries experiencing political crisis, the troubled state of parties lies at the heart of their political problems. In Russia, anxieties about the state of democracy are clearly linked to the absence of strong, democratic political parties. Ten years after the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia has produced political parties that are strong or democratic but, regrettably, not many parties that are both. Political parties in Russia are weak because powerful politicians have deliberately set out to make them so. President Yeltsin was opposed to political parties and saw no advantage in joining one when he left the CPSU. Though he won two elections himself, he never sought to build an organization based on an enduring program and constituency. His successor, Vladimir Putin, is not a member of any party, though a group supporting him won 25 percent of the

vote in the Duma elections. He quickly proposed legislation that would make it more difficult for parties to organize. There are also a number of countries where political parties have actually lost their mandate to function through their own mismanagement of the political system. In Pakistan, for example, political parties effectively frittered away their credibility to the point where the militarys overthrow of the established political order was accepted, if not welcomed, by the citizenry. In Peru and Venezuela, the collapse of political parties that were viewed as corrupt and elitist, created a political vacuum that was quickly filled by populist leaders with authoritarian tendencies. These leaders rose from the ashes of discredited parties and they sought to further weaken their countrys party system, including legislatures, as a means to maintain power. In Bangladesh, despite an abundance of advocacy and citizen action groups, the recurring partisan political stalemate consigns the country and its citizens to abject poverty. Having moved from military dictatorship to popularly elected governments on a number of occasions over the past decade, it would appear that some political leaders have learned very little. Both of the main political forces in Bangladesh have contributed to the continuing political impasse. Centralized decision making, the lack of well-institutionalized rules and procedures, and the decline of ideology or unifying principles have eroded public support and discouraged participation in political party activities. An unwillingness to undertake greater citizen outreach and consultation has diminished the publics support, while the transformation of campaigning through the mass media has tended to favor candidates over party structures. In fact, one prominent Western consultant has gone so far as to argue that he is no longer dependent on a party structure to deliver targeted messages to different segments of the electorate. In his view, it is the candidate, the message and the medium (i.e. television), that matters more than party. There is hardly a democracy that has been established for more that 20 years when a pollster like myselfcould not come in and take a candidate with a powerful message, a constituency that wanted change, and completely turn that [political] structure on its head, he asserts. He sites the meteoric rise of Canadas Reform party along with the virtual demise of the Conservative Party in 1993, as well as the emergence of populist leaders like Chavez in Venezuela and Fujimori in Peru. To be fair to political parties, however, this crisis of confidence may more accurately reflect a growing lack of trust in institutions more broadly. According to political analysts who have conducted extensive public opinion surveys globally, it is not only parties that are in trouble. It is the institutions of democracy that face difficulties because of an underlying culture of mistrust. These surveys confidence index of democratic institutions in

Europe, Latin America and Africa show that religious bodies enjoy the greatest level of trust, followed by presidents. Armed forces rank third; courts of justice came in fourth; parliaments rank fifth with political parties in sixth place. But what is most striking is that trust in people beyond the family and workplace comes in last place. So how much can we trust institutions of democracy if we do not trust ourselves beyond our families? asks respected Chilean pollster Marta Lagos who has conducted extensive cross-national public opinion surveys. This is not to say that people do not support democracy. They overwhelmingly do. However, the polls show a gap between support for democracy, satisfaction in the performance of democracy and trust in the institutions of democracy. Parties rank at the bottom of these institutions because they have tended to act without transparency. Citizens do not know how parties make decisions; and having open rules, being accessible and accountable is the foundation upon which political trust is built. The Central Role of Political Parties I make these remarks at the outset, as I think it is important to acknowledge that all is not well with political parties and that the parties themselves and their leaders must take a large share of the blame for the current situation. With that acknowledgement of the well-documented problems with political parties, it is also true that parties are needed and cannot be replaced by civil society or by any other organized structure created to give representation to citizens. Why? Because political parties have formed the cornerstone of democratic society and serve a function like no other institution. In a modern society, democracy cannot function without political parties. Organized political parties serve two fundamental purposes. First, they define and express a groups needs in a way that the public and political system can understand and respond to. The late Speaker of the U.S. Congress, Tip ONeill once stated, All politics are local, meaning that all issues of importance to the average citizen are felt on a local level. But only political parties play the crucial role of helping people place their local concerns in a national context. Parties mediate. They create common ground. By definition, their vision goes beyond the town limits. Political parties aggregate interests, especially in diverse and pluralizing societies. They create grounds for compromise. They create order out of chaos. And thus they help societies unite and remain united. Civic organizations do indeed deal with political and governmental institutions. They represent and they mediate. Yet they are local and parochial, and since they are presented as the voice of the people, in the absence of permanent political institutions, they can invite direct entreaties to the populace at large.

This is especially true where governments are weak or underdeveloped or corrupt. Without parties and political institutions that transcend both time and place, the door is opened to someone who will ignore the institutions of government, especially any system of checks and balances and the respect for the rule of law. Needles to say, political parties are not perfect, but no other national institution can serve as well to impede government by fiat, government by mob, government by strongman. Second, political parties develop common ideas among a significant group in order to exert pressure upon the political system. A principled difference of opinion and the tolerance of diversity and dissent that this implies is an important part of the democratic process. The expression of conflicting viewpoints can actually help to create a better understanding of the issues and to identify solutions. When the political system functions, these exchanges can lead to the attainment of new insights or workable compromises essential to the existence of a democratic system. In short, they produce tangible results. In addition to these fundamental purposes, political parties operate day-to-day to nominate candidates, organize political competition, translate policy preferences into public policies, act as a training ground for political leaders who will eventually assume a role in governing society, and seek to win elections in order to manage government institutions. When out of power, they provide a constructive and critical opposition by presenting themselves as the alternative government voters may wish to choose thus pressuring the incumbents to be more responsive to the publics interests. In over two centuries there has been no democratic system without political parties. Parties have provided orientation for individuals and groups of citizens. Citizens may be divided over ideologies, interests, leaders or policies; parties can organize these differences. Parties link the institutions of government to the elements of civil society such as economic, ethnic, cultural, religious and other social groups. The types of linkages may vary greatly but they represent lines of response and control between a party and its constituency. Attempts to build a democracy without political parties have failed in the past. Even a cursory study of the history of democracy in the US and France will underscore this point. Two examples of military leaders turned into national heroes during a fight for national independence or liberation and into leading politicians afterwards provide telling examples: Generals George Washington and Charles de Gaulle extremely disliked political parties. Nevertheless, each of them contributed towards the establishment of a new political system that led to a stable party-based democracy. Because political parties are seen to be agents of power, or vehicles through which the most divisive elements of a society manifest themselves, it is often an ideal of people to

be able to have a political system that can seemingly rise above politics. But it is clear that this state of affairs is impossible. As a prominent US political scientist stated many years ago, Political parties created democracy and that modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties. The Founding Fathers of the United States had the same dislike for parties that many people have today. In his Farewell Address, Washington warned the American people against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, which he viewed as the worst enemy of popular government. More that 100 years later, the Progressive movement in the US was motivated by an effort to root out political corruption which, in its view, was caused by entrenched parties. Also, anti-party sentiments have traditionally formed the basis of third party movements which have been a common feature of the American landscape - - from Teddy Roosevelts Bull Moose to Strom Thurmonds Dixiecrats to Ross Perots Reform Party. In fact, political scientist Marjorie Randon Hershey has characterized the American political system as a long running conflict between our need for parties and our dislike of them. However, there is no suitable alternative to the role and function of political parties. The active support and collaboration of strong, inclusive political parties in partnership with a vibrant civil society is fast gaining acceptance as the correctly balanced equation to achieve a more transparent and participatory system of government. In strengthening democratic institutions in new or transitioning democracies, it is not a matter of having to choose between building a strong civil society or strengthening political parties and political institutions such as parliaments. The real challenge lies in balancing support for democratic institutions and organizations that are more accountable and inclusive, while at the same time continuing to foster and nurture the development of a broadly based and active civil society. Strengthening Political Parties Political parties have been forced to address their weaknesses and the growing lack of credibility in a variety of ways. These include placing greater emphasis on issues of ethics in public office, modernizing party structures to allow for greater participation, and greater openness and transparency in the operation of government and political systems generally. Democratization within parties must be a priority in efforts to restore public confidence in political parties and the democratic process generally. Greater citizen participation, accountability of leadership, transparency and institutional safeguards are now more important than ever for the democratization of political parties.

In Latin America, in recent years, new reforms have slowly begun to be adopted, albeit unevenly, in order to stem or reverse the decline of political parties in the region. Reforms have focused on internal democratization of parties and reforming systems for financing parties and electoral campaigns. These include: higher levels of transparency and participation in the selection of party leaders and candidates for public office, including the use of party primaries; greater public funding for parties; limits on private contributions to parties; public disclosure of contributions; and enhanced outreach efforts to women and youth. Regional experts point out, however, that new reform measures alone will not solve the problem. The behavior of politicians themselves must change; and education and enforcement must accompany reform measures. The British Labour Party, which came into power in 1997 after 18 years of Tory government, is often cited as a model for party reform, renewal and modernization. Therefore, Labours ability to change deserves special examination. When describing their efforts, senior Labour officials first point out that the partys success was borne out of years of failure and, in hindsight, the lessons learned were quite simple. The first was to learn from past mistakes and be prepared to fundamentally change the party reactions. The party went through a series of phased alterations in order to finally understand this basic fact. We thought the voters should be concerned about what we were worried about, said one senior Labour official. But needed to be worried about what the electorates were worried about. Fundamental change came in two primary areas. First, was a reform of Labours constitution which had, as its core principle, government ownership of the means of production - - not a particularly popular agenda. This was changed to a platform based on social justice and economic prosperity. The second change was a new policy-making process in which government ministers, party members and labor unions communicate year round and not just at annual party congresses. Dubbed partnership in power, this new approach to communication and policy development reduced tensions within the party, thereby sending a more unified and coherent message to the electorate. The third change was for the party to talk in values rather than a more rigid and doctrinarian ideology. This new approach was in reaction to the voters who, in the view of Labour Party leaders, were reflecting the rise of individualism in the 1980s.

The fourth change was the party becoming more accessible. This included affirmative action for women candidates whose ranks in the parliament rose 19 to 101 following Labours 1997 win. Accessibility was also extended to party organization at the local level. Civil society is not to blame for the decline in political parties, and neither are those who promoted increased support for citizen participation outside of the party system. On the other hand, one should not take any comfort from the current crisis, as the decline of political parties has ultimately threatened the foundations of democratic political systems. For decades, it was believed the economic development aid by donor countries could achieve the kind of economic growth and opportunity that would lead to social stability in the developing world. But even when successful, the emphasis on economic growth often lost momentum because it was not accompanied by political growth. It became increasingly apparent that an ever-growing number of problems in the developing world were beyond the reach of traditional economic aid. While they have economic consequences, the problems are not predominantly economic in nature they are intrinsically political. Truly, so-called sustainable development requires the capacity to resolve problems without resorting to violence or repression.