Leadership Concepts Summary

Published: 2021-06-29 06:30:02
essay essay

Category: Business

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

Leadership influence: access skills& resources / overcome your limitation through others (network, assimilation, persuasion) Innovation: import/export of ideasInterpersonal Power and Persuasion:Bias(use heuristics to simplify两面性,disarming or tools of persuasion): Sampling; Inattentive to base; No cross-checking, unspecified; Anchoring and adjustment: do not adjust estimates sufficiently from an initial reference point (actively consider info opposite of anchor, write down estimation, first argument before exposed to anchor; go first to anchor, first impression matter&lock in perceptions, use opt out program to increase participation, opt-in to de-); Availability Heuristic: vivid, rare, easily imagines, consistent with memory structures events drive decisions more than trends/are judged more likely and important/overweighted, (use documentation, not recall, don’t rely on first thing that comes to mind; make yr success close to evaluate time, vivid stories are convincing); Presumed Association/representative heuristic: unusual characteristics of data drive decision > averages, judge likelihood based on how closely its salient feature fit our stereotype and neglect probability (casual inferences) (use base rates, remove biasing associations, make it more unique/hard to categorize, involve more individuals w/ varied biases, avoid strong conclusion from small sample size/when chance/regression to the mean could explain; model behavior consistent to salient associations/leverage regression to the mean, take over after bad events, selective highlighting of extreme); Representative: appropriateness/likelihood judged on how it fits an expectation while ignoring base rates sample size/selection; Confirmation trap: seek confirming evidence for hypothesis (prove yrself wrong/disconfirming data, most telling/economical); Framing effects: re-frame all problems/data both as a loss/gain, binary decisions susceptible (risk-averse to gains, risk seeking to losses, marginal value of gains - as gain +/marginal value of loss + as loss +) Disjunctive events: underestimate likelihood of events that we believe occur separately (risk homeostasis; build modular systems) Overconfidence; Hindsight Bias: chance successful outcomes misguide future decisions (consider ways outcome might be diff. , understand and reward process) (Criteria pre-set: go last, not, be 1st anchor)Team conflict: A type, C typeRational decision needs: facts, framework, preference -> default to simple rule of thumb, signal of critical mass when missing either (social proof)Socratic Leadership: combating non-collaborative learning, NAPA(neutral stance, attack data/logic not persons, polarization of group is bad, avoid absolute statements, 2steps: create doubt, present alternative to remove doubt, have others believe they are persuading you) Let them talk strategy (overcome resistance with right questions, identify weak arguments, surface unique info, puts burden of proof on majority, split coalition, break social proof by showing uneven support, profile potential swing votes, appeal to a common superordinate goal, offer unique experience/info to trigger reciprocity, cast doubt, seek disconfirming evidence)HF Resource gained (credibility, time, doubt, cracking coalition) – change leadership style: (appear impartial, confront bullies, protect swing votes, build relationship, set rules of engagement, surface new info, use biases to influence, “power posing”)Thought leadership/3S strategy: leading other ppl to think by asking Qs: surface private/unique info(break problem down, provide right questions, change frames, challenge assumptions, provide alternative explanations and try to falsify them, reject authority for expertise, private info gathering, call on everyone), get swing votes(pull: elevate ppl’s position, build trust/reciprocal relationships, protect ppl from reprisals, push: create common enemy), build support structure(rules of engagement, roles that capitalize on expertise in the team)Private data collection and then publicly discuss, sell by highlighting time saved, everyone write 3 pros and consVoting strategies: secret ballot(eliminates social proof, lack accountability, reduce risky shifts, permit free-riding), public voting(intensify conformity, create commitment pressure, highlight social proof), influence strategies(reframe decision, use customs, reciprocity rule, define concrete deliverable)Golden rules of leading teams: 1. Pre-meeting discussions, understand interest, find ally; 2.speak early to frame, choose yr ally to speak first; 3. Minority-postpone vote, slow decision process, question and seed doubt, use veto, identify/get enough swing votes, diff. in motives, biases, don’t permit opening vote vs. Majority – move for early vote, maintain unity, control agenda, manage through setting procedural rules/norms, seek quick decision process; 4. Track info; 5. Use socratic /thought leadership methodsLeadership roles over the lifecycle of dysfunctional teams?Leading collaborative team:Fast team: set stretch goal, divide labor, coordinate tasks, create rules beforehand for reacting to coordination problems6 set-up strategies: skill diversity(outside expert);  physical proximity(increase interaction btn experts, lower transaction/communication costs); rules&roles(no conspicuous hierarchies);  stretch goal(public commitment, promise to customer);  all star status(elite);  BBQs(neutral turf, reciprocity, personal tie reduces stereotyping/builds trust)2 success factors:  cohesion (high trust, strong norms collaboration, valued intangible rewards (high moral, devotion, loyalty) + skill complementarities(efficient specialization, increase creativity & complex problem solving): pseudo-team(LL), conflict coalitions(LH, info transfer w/o cohesion), groupthink(HL, keep relationship/striving for unanimity at the expense of outcome/appraising alternative courses of action, w/o info transfer), high impact team(innovative solutions)   ;    Cohesion alone: common info sharing leads to high confidence/low accuracy, search for confirming data, censorship and inability to appraise alternatives; Comp alone: low trust-costly communication, conflict arise, resource hoarding, low norms of collaboration  ; Leadership roles/rules for balance 2Cs: role(devils advocate position, use outside experts, create competing sub teams), rules(full explanation of decisions(use private info collection, leader appear impartial bf all data is revealed, institute norms of asking Qs I/O simply asserting a position, debates are resolved by revisiting facts/assumptions/pre-established decision criteria, leaders discourage A type conflict/encourage C type conflict, create team contracts that reflect rules)IDEO steps: 1.get the known facts: benchmark existing products, observe ppl using them; 2. Develop superior concept: brainstorming; 3. Prototype: scale models, trouble shootingIncentives and motivation:(rewards) Needs theory/hierarchy: 5 basic needs from low to high: physiological, safety, affiliation, esteem, self-actualization –> organizational counterpart: salary, job security/advancement, status/acceptance/appreciation, recognition/responsibility, psychic fulfillment; -> marketing: core products, reliable service tied to core products/services, client co-developed p/s, preferred client status, partnership w/ clients.  (+ for focus on top of pyramid: low cost, more variety of motivators, differentiation (culture)Managerial applications: satisfaction-progression rule: fulfillment of higher order needs is not motivating unless lower order needs are fulfilled-thus incentives must be ordered & sequenced. However, needs can be culture/industry-specific and learned – so order can change.Expectancy theory: 3 components under mgmt’s control determine/predict motivation: effort-to-performance ex.(perceived probability that an effort(reliability, cooperation, skills+ability) level produces a level of performance), performance-to-outcome ex.(p. p. pf level guarantees a reward), desirability of reward (-1 to 1) NYC cabbie: cabbies find cash less motivating than higher order needs that are satisfied w/ time off; expectancies in place but valance of outcome lacks motivating potential; transactional sales: strip everything of pyramid away from you – want to get back, motivating a few ppl the org actually needs(select ppl) – break exp. Managing w/ exp theory: determine rewards each employee value/perf behavior you desire/link rewards to pf./ make sure pf. Levels reachable/analyze system for conflicting exp.(align perception of E2P link w/ reality, align perceptions of P2R link w/ reality); motivation is a function of 3 exp. , check the system for its equityEquity theory: reward/effort ratios not absolute but relative to peers (fairness is std) -> fairness is as important as absolute pay; identify/correct misperceptions of inequity, vary outputs(pay, compensation) to match diff. in inputs(efforts, skills, pf)-integrative rewards packages, not singular, manage FAE/Egocentric bias -Fundamental Attribution Error: we overestimate own good contributions/under- bad c.; Tools: codes of conduct(honor code, oath, codes focus on cooperation, sharing ideas, dependability), transparency(make visible contributn, open office space, public billings, publications, peer review), contracts (specificity)Five pieces: needs (equity) effort (expectancy) performance (contingency) outcomes (desirability)Collaborative cultures, creativity, and CharismaCulture: Pattern of beliefs, values, and behavioral expectations shared by the org’s members; Socialization is the process by which new members learn culture (internalize values/goals so company personnel implement them based on principle, not money)Tools for managing culture: visible artifacts/symbols(objects reinforce/communicate economically values/ideology), ceremonies(celebrate everything to foster cohesion/morale, create a status hierarchy  with an equal opportunity rewards structure), jargon/language, stories(narratives make ordinary actions into extrao- heroic acts/role models),costumes, special physical settings (promote network closure/role-taking consistent with org objectives)Socialization strategies: rigorous selection- face2face interview(by peers too); members share humility-inducing experience-explicit, public, of free-choice/get strong initial commitment; distinctive training, adherence to core values-folklore/stories w/ morals, heroes/champions; bricolage tradeoffs-motherhood and money making; status rewards system-reachable by everyone, symbolic rewards; structural closureResponses to socialization: slavish conformity of values/norms(bureaucracy-rewards conformity, obscures constructive diff.) vs. creative individualism (balanced culture-rewards acceptance of pivotal values/innovative “builds” on pivotal values-members set own goals within cultural constraints)Benefits of culture: 1. Control/measurement of individual behavior (Invisible constraint experienced as autonomy, culture provides decision rules/codes of conduct even for acting in private); 2. Low financial compensation costs: generate inexpensive but highly valued rewards (symbolic rewards); 3. Incentives and motivation (going that extra mile, identification w/ org’s goals/values (non-monetary, variety); 4. Strategic positioning: differentiate the firms in hypercompetitive environments beyond product characteristics  Also the leader’s tool – managing by symbols/create the cult, key competitive driver in resource tight environmtLeadership and Collaborative networksNetwork: who you know, how the ppl you know know each otherPaul revere/Rainmaker network: Combine the benefits of both clique – for production (access to opportunities/diverse info, low cooperation) and entrepreneurial-for mkting/distribution (maximize team cooperation/control, redundant info) networks, connects echo chambers (brokers bridge otherwise disconnected clusters, see things in panoramic ways, pull in info from diff. echo chambers, generate value, but super-connecter/only broker hurt ability to build trust, worry no competition that will keep you honest); diversity 1st property, trust 2nd;   Dawes network: contacts are contacts of each other (redundant, single echo chamber/clique)John Clendenin builds relationship: 1. Redirection (redirect negative emotions from you to 3rd entity beyond yr control; opens the emotionally stymied “mind” to rationality, e.g. find common emotional ground), 2. Reciprocity (give sth of value to the other person before you talk about the give and take of the exchange), 3. Rationality (rationally refers to putting the deal on the table/specifying expectations and how rewards and costs are shared.  e.g. use scarcity principle, put authority, power, set expectations, time-limited offer to remove skepticism) – (Les: competency, need/agenda, motive); build team rich in social capital: recruit “stray cats/dogs” (diversity, trust, brokerage, costs, expectations), trust building – reciprocity (peer review, flexible work schedule), shared activitiesEffective networking: raise what you know to the power of who you know- individual strategy: six degrees of separation worksheet, locate brokers, build contacts based on shared activities, optimize yr “holiness”, discourage “organic networking”, never turn all social interaction into commerce (best contact don’t have immediate utility); team building: get diff. types of control through diff. types of networks, clique/entrepreneurial/rainmaker, network controls(info flows(redundancy), power relations (broker), creativity, cohesion)Principles of networking: self-similarity principle (inclined to pick ties that have similar intellectual backgrounds, training, experiences, and ways of making inferences from incomplete info – why overbuild: trust, comfort zone, utility in mind, self-affirmation, joy of spontaneous agreement; limitations: minimized access to discrepant info, stifled problem solving/creativity, create echo chambers) proximity principle (in the same departments, units and teams as ourselves – why overbuild: frequency of interaction, the world organize things by likeness; limitations: create echo chambers, makes network structurally equivalent to the others like you – lower yr differentiation), shared activity principle (give you everything the ss principle gives  w/o any drawbacks; solves trust/diversity paradox; builds Paul Revere networks- 3 properties maximize shared activities: passion, interdependence, stakes; why it builds PR N: diversity-cross-section of ppl, break down self-selection; trust-common goals align interests, profiling/perceived transparency of behavior/character, bonding from celebrating victory&commiserating over defeats, flexibility to display personal scripts/differentiate ; brokerage=trust+diversity)Golden rules of trust building/reciprocity:1. always give before you’re asked (build trust, invested&take a risk w/ other, give more than favor-save them indignity of asking, project power/connectedness) 2. value of a favor rises/falls within time 3. Personal/professional good turns are transposable (dual favors are powerful/flexible) 4. Never expect a tidy closure to a favor  5. Keeping score suggests you’re in it for the short term gain (if you seek a specific repayment, ask immediately) 6. Ppl in power need a reason to interactLeading collective dynamics: Persuasion through Contagion2 steps: Create critical mass; make CM visible/apparent to the passive massive     - combination of good content + social influenceS-shaped diffusion/adoption curve(social epidemic curve): -> focus resources on rationality then normativenessMavensBrokersPragmatistConservatistsHow to spotLike to share knowledge all the time, high awareness of pre-release products, accumulate special knowledge, tend to be specialistsKnow a lot of ppl in diverse parts of firm, link key org players, do many shared activities, interest + w/ trial by mavensLook for % increases, predictable returns don’t like risk, think mavens waste their time, attend to brokers&statusIf it ain’t broke, don’t fix it mentality, see change as a net gain of zero, influenced by bandwagon but won’t admitWhat they doExperiment w/ risky but promising innovations, persuasive but unselfish credibility, is infectiousConnectedness and cosmopolitanism, puts them ahead of majority, spread ideas (see maven cluster consensus, contagious element that infects early majority)Get the bandwagon going w/ a critical mass of adopters (care both functional(CM) + normative (endorsement from broker)Jump on the bandwagon after critical mass (social proof, adopt cos it’s normative)Influence tacticsFace-to-face meeting, magazine/blog/twitter/facebook groups, emails memosSeek advice, shared activities, offer followersTraining, workshop, staff meeting, pilot test, watch out for: directives and covert lobbyingWant to fit in, do what’s normative, make adoption rate salient: broadcast, get message out, raise profileTipping point in P: adoption point where future adoption is self-generating. bf TP, adopt for functional reason vs. after TP due to a critical mass of prior adopters, not marketing. bandwagon effect: a critical mass of adopters induces others to adoptGenerate TP: before TP Critical Mass:  5 one-on-one high touch + 1 low touch (avoid collective high touch, back-to-back low touch)   vs.   after TP Social Proof: pilot, training (control attendance), workshop, speaker -> pilot test led by broker (H+L harmonize process) -> director’s meeting Cons of directive: 1.lacks best knowledge of the implications of the change; 2. Hurts learning organization (stifles individual initiative); 3. What if ppl follow directive but change turns out to be a flop; 4. Every imposed change uses political capital (compliance has tremendous cost and stifles creativity vs commitment) – update CEO regularly, keep in the loop, access through 3rd parities that screen for CEO (social proof), face to face, or meet in social contextSeek advice is effective in the beginning, 3 notes: elevate the importance of the initiative, give a role (set of expectations), get specific tactics (execute, follow up, invested)Two types of influence techniques: High Touch tactics: Pros:  commitment/neutrality, customize message, feedback, relationships, target; Cons: inefficient-time consuming, non-representative/bias, political-behind people’s back(non-transparent, exclusivity, inconsistent due to customization) Low Touch: Pros: Scalable Awareness, Consistent message, Efficiency(one to many), politically neutral, Cons: Impersonal, Passive-one-way communication, genericPersuasion by contagion: who to target, what tactics, when to update and time tactics / 4 stages in individual adoption: awareness, interest, trial, adoptionThreshold model of decision making: sudden switch from one alternative to he other once exceeding a critical threshold

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!


We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read