Please enter something
?Leadership. Big Five personality traits
?Leadership. Big Five personality traits

?Leadership. Big Five personality traits

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 4 (1779 words)
  • Published: August 16, 2017
  • Type: Case Study
Text preview

After analyzing this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Specify leading and contrast leading and direction. 2. Sum up the decisions of trait theories of leading. 3. Identify the cardinal dogmas and chief restrictions of behavioural theories. 4. Assess eventuality theories of leading by their degree of support. 5. Compare and contrast magnetic and transformational leading. 6. Define reliable leading and demo why effectual leaders exemplify moralss and trust. 7. Show the function mentoring dramas in our apprehension of leading. 8. Address challenges to the effectivity of leading.

9. Assess whether magnetic and transformational leading generalize across civilizations. I am more afraid of an ground forces of 100 sheep led by a king of beasts than an ground forces of 100 king of beastss led by a sheep. Talleyrand

Private Equity’s Poster Boy
If it’s true that “Nice guys finish last, ” there is no better cogent evidence than Stephen Schwarzman, main executive of the Blackstone Group, who says his mission in life is to “inflict pain” and “kill off” his challengers. “I want war, ” he told the Wall Street Journal, “not a series of skirmishes.” And win in concern he has. In 20 old ages, he has made Blackstone one of the most profitable—and most feared—investment groups on Wall Street, with assets nearing $ 200 billion.

Though these are non easy times for any investing bank, Blackstone has mostly avoided the booby traps of subprime mortgages and mortgage-backed securities. Some of this scheme might be considered good fortune—Blac


kstone invests much more to a great extent in commercial than in residential existent estate. However, some recognition is due to Schwarzman’s foresight. As he notes, “We were cautious in the alleged aureate age. We were the least aggressive of all the large houses in the first half of 2007. We were really concerned about the high monetary values of trades and the huge sum of liquidness fuelling the roar. . . .

Thingss ever come to an terminal, and when they do they stop badly.” Not merely is Schwarzman smart and driven ; he likes the attending his success has drawn. When he turned 60, his birthday party might hold made Caligula bloom. The matter was emceed by comedian Martin Short. Rod Stewart performed. Marvin Hamlisch put on a figure from A Chorus Line. Singer Patti LaBelle led the Abyssinian Baptist Church choir in a vocal about Schwarzman. Who staged this event?

Schwarzman himself! When Blackstone executives prepared a picture testimonial to him to be played at the event, Schwarzman intervened to quell any roasting or other gags played at his disbursal. Schwarzman owns abodes in Manhattan ( a 35-room Park Avenue triplex, for which he paid $ 37 million ) , in the Hamptons ( a Federal-style house, for which he paid $ 34 million ) , in Palm Beach ( a 13,000-square-foot sign of the zodiac, which, at $ 20.5 million, is the slum of the clump ) , in Saint-Tropez, and in Jamaica.

“I love houses, ” Schwarzman says. The New Yorker called him “the designated scoundrel of an epoch. . . of unheeding self-indulgence.” As you might conceive of, Schwarzman is non th

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay
View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

easiest cat to work for. While sunning himself at his Palm Beach estate, he complained that an employee wasn’t have oning the proper black places with his uniform. On another juncture, he reportedly fired a Blackstone executive for the sound his olfactory organ made when he breathed. Give his success, his life style, and his contentious personality, you might conceive of Schwarzman is immune to the ridicule, bitterness, and unfavorable judgment he receives. “How does it experience? ” he asked, and so answered his ain inquiry: “Unattractive.

No believing individual wants to be reduced to a caricature.”1 As Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman shows, leaders frequently are non like other people. But what makes them so? Intelligence? Drive? Luck? A certain leading manner? These are some of the inquiries we’ll tackle in this chapter. To measure yourself on another set of qualities that we’ll discourse shortly, take the undermentioned self-assessment. In this chapter, we look at what makes an effectual leader and what differentiates leaders from nonleaders.

First, we present trait theories, which dominated the survey of leading up to the late fortiess. Then we discuss behavioural theories, popular until the late sixtiess. Following, we introduce eventuality and synergistic theories. Finally, we discuss the most modern-day attacks: magnetic, transformational, and reliable leading. But first, let’s clear up what we mean by leading. Self-Assessment Library: What’s My Leadership Style?

In the Self-Assessment Library ( available on Cadmium and online ) take assessment II.B.1 ( What’s My Leadership Style? ) and reply the undermentioned inquiries. 1.
How did you hit on the two graduated tables?

Do you believe a leader can be both undertaking oriented and people oriented? Do you believe there are state of affairss in which a leader has to do a pick between the two manners?

Do you believe your leading manner will alter over clip? Why or why non? What Is Leadership?
1. Specify leading and contrast leading and direction. Leadership and direction are frequently confused. What’s the difference? John Kotter of the Harvard Business School argues that direction is about get bying with complexity.2 Good direction brings about order and consistence by pulling up formal programs, planing stiff organisation constructions, and supervising consequences against the programs.

Leadership, in contrast, is about get bying with alteration. Leaderships set up way by developing a vision of the hereafter ; so they align people by pass oning this vision and animating them to get the better of hurdlings. Although Kotter provides separate definitions of the two footings, both research workers and practising directors often make no such differentiations. So we need to show leading in a manner that can capture how it is used in theory and pattern. We define leading as the ability to act upon a group toward the accomplishment of a vision or set of ends.

The beginning of this influence may be formal, such as that provided by managerial rank in an organisation. But non all leaders are directors, nor, for that affair, are all directors leaders. Merely because an organisation provides its directors with certain formal rights is no confidence they will take efficaciously. Nonsanctioned leadership—the ability to act upon that arises outside the formal construction

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay