What is the relationship between leadership and influence? Is the leader ever influential and always influences leadership?
Saying that leadership always keeps an impact like saying that all snow is white. That's true, but the resolution does not work on the other side. It is not, all white things are snow. In the same way, though all leadership affects, there are many types of effects that are not considered as leadership. Here are some examples:
– Scare or force someone to do something.
– Offend someone to make your offer.
– Paying for what you want somebody to do for you.
– Teaching a student to make a living in the classroom.
– Encourage kids to eat their vegetables.
The last two examples are not leadership because they have nothing to do with group jobs to achieve the goal. Teaching students and encouraging children to eat vegetables is for their own benefit, not for the benefit of a larger group. Likewise, dealers can be very influential, but their influence is self-interest. The seller and the customer does not choose a group.
Formal Authority and Leadership Influence
Suppose you are a boss and you decide to monitor production by 50%, since everyone needs to work faster and longer without overtime. Is this leadership? No, it can affect but it's not a leader because employees had no choice. To say that leadership is an informal effect means that followers follow the choice to follow or not.
What are some examples of true leadership effects? One of the knowledge is Martin Luther King's demonstration against the separation of buses that led to the United States Supreme Court's dissolution of this work. The king had no formal power or other power to move the US government. This is a real meaning leadership.
Another example of real leadership effect was the Sony employee who influenced management to accept his idea for PlayStation, despite the fact that Sony does not have toys.
Once you've convinced your colleagues or boss to accept a new idea, you've shown them the lead. Or you could simply set a good example for others and if you follow them you have shown leadership.
Market companies influence their competitors to change course, another example of real leadership.
When managers make decisions that take their team into new guidelines, they are taking administrative action, DO NOT show leadership because employees have no choice.
To be considered as leadership, the impact must be informal and followers need to fully acquire their own free will. A leader is also a group phenomenon and aims to serve any unselfish purpose, something to improve the effectiveness of the group.
For this reason, even if your children willingly follow their vegetables, you have not shown leadership because you and your children are not a team of common goals.
Informal leadership and influenza
We often distinguish between formal and informal leadership. The only difference between these ideas is that an informal leader makes decisions unformally. Formal leaders have been the formal power to control the group, but the informal leader is given the role of the group itself. Informal leader has personal power – charisma, knowledge or some kind of expertise that the group assesses.
It is important to admit that the traditional concept of informal leadership is not the same as saying that all leadership effects are informal. Ordinary concept, formal or informal, is all about being in charge of the group. The requirement here is that actual leadership is independent of position, as it was about Martin Luther King. He was not an informal leader in the traditional sense – the Supreme Court did not know him as an informal leader. As another example, the technical geek could affect its peers to accept new software. He has influenced them informally. However, this geek could be so incapable of managing the group as they could never see him as their informal leader – someone they would turn to help plan their daily work as they would seek advice and resolve conflict. The informal leadership of the nerd is a simple operation, not a continuing role. His effects are informal, but he is not what we call ordinary informal leaders because he has no interest or ability to take control of the group for administrative purposes.
So what? By redefining the meaning of leadership, I am saying that the old distinction between formal and informal leadership is outdated. It's really only formal and informal management because all leadership is informal, as this concept readily reflects on some ways NOT to informally assume responsibility for the group.
Leadership effects include a group change policy because of someone's informal influence. It's always true that if you influence people to support you by applying your needs, you actually work as a sales representative, not a leader. True leadership asks people to put forward personal needs and to do something good for the group. Think back about Martin Luther King. He was fighting for justice, not being elected president of the United States. His leadership included a personal sacrifice for the greater cause.