The purpose of the article is to explore business leadership changes and developments in parallel with business leader’s changes and developments, the relationship between them and how could we bridge them to fit the best business leadership to the best business leader. “Leadership development is defined as expanding the collective capacity of organizational members to engage effectively in leadership roles and processes”, (McCauley et al., 1998). “In the case of leader development, the emphasis typically is on individual-based knowledge, skills, and abilities associated with formal leadership roles. These acquired capabilities enable people to think and act in new ways”, (Coleman, 1988). Considering rank and power is the most two element that would be reflected by family owned business leadership controlling their businesses , on the other side two elements of understanding and responsibility would be reflecting leadership of systematic well organized and balanced organizations. For the best return of the integration between leadership and leader, would require a great deal of flexibility and agility to maintain balancing the complexity of both human being leader and combined leadership development. These methods must be linked with each other and connected to a broader organizational strategy (Hall & Seibert, 1992; Latham & Seijts, 1998).
Type of leadership:
In Leadership practices intended to be the influence, while management intended to be the practices on managerial internal organizational duties which is affected by the type of Leadership practices. Destructive Leadership practice is using the methodical and constant performance by a leader to superintendent or executive that violates the justifiable concern of the business by discouragement and loosing the organization’s targets, responsibilities, possessions, and efficiency and the incentive, comfort or job fulfillment. The second type is Constructive leadership practice when leaders act beneficially in cooperation towards the employees and the business. The leaders at this part, act’s according with the justified concern of the business, sustaining and improving the target, duties, and approach of the business then getting most advantageous use of organizational possessions.
Looking through the comparison between the leader and the leadership, we could recognize the practice within particular framing each of them, in general the leader more to human being and leader ship more the social collective. Leadership image, the leaders toward self-power, business experience and the dependability. However the leadership image towards relational, Commitments, general respect and the trust.
Bridging Leader AND Leadership:
Building character leaders using the training to create capabilities probably that leadership will consequence to a balancing standpoint approaches leadership as a social practice that engages everyone in the community (Barker, 1997; Drath & Palus, 1994; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). In that process, we could consider every individual is a leader and the leadership is the effect rather than a cause (Drath, 1998). Leadership is growing assets of efficient systems design (Salancik, Calder, Rowland, Leblebici, &Conway,1975). The Leadership improvement from this standpoint should be taking advantage of using social relationship methods to support constructs obligations between the members of the business (Wenger, 1998).
It’s always fine leadership would be recognized by a leader, however, a leader could be without any leadership experience but because he positioned on the top of the business due to a heritage position exchange, then the training could be more useful to improve the leadership practice. However, For the best return of the integration between leadership and leader, would require a great deal of flexibility and agility to maintain balancing the complexity of both human being leader and combined leadership development.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 207-216.
Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development:: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier,M. F.(1981). Attention andself-regulation: A controltheory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619–636.
Chappelow, C. T. (1998). 360-degree feedback. In C. D. McCauley, R. S. Moxley, & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development (pp. 29–65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, L. A., & Lyness, K. S. (1991). Succession planning as strategic activity at Citicorp. In L. W. Foster (Ed.),Advances in applied business strategy (vol.2; pp. 25–57).
Greenwich, CT: JAI. Cohen, G. L., Steele, C. M., & Ross, L. D. (1999). The mentor’s dilemma: Providing critical feedback across the racial divide. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1302– 1318.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.