LAISSEZ-FAIRE LEADERSHIP

The Laissez-Faire leadership style frequently has a negative connotation. This style of leadership depicts an inert leader who is averse to stimulating subordinates or giving focus (Deluga, 1990).

The Laissezz-Faire leadership style places an emphasis on the employee centered attribute that was discussed in the University of Michigan and Ohio State University studies (Professional Organizations, n.d.). Leaders who use this style fail their employees because they offer no positive or negative direction nor do they interfere at any time (Webb, 2007). According to Deluga (1990), Laissezz-Faire leaders renounce their leadership thus giving employees a wide spectrum of decision-making which could lead to amplifying their power and influence. Another assessment of research reported these leaders shun goal-setting, opportunities to succeed, fail to coordinate organizational objectives, ignore responsibilities, and routinely avoid making decisions on important matters (van Eeden, Cilliers, & van Deventer, 2008). Leaders assume the employees will make decisions in a timely manner and handle whatever problems that arise (Professional Organizations, n.d.).

There are some advantages and disadvantages of using this style of leadership. It allows team members to develop a working relationship in an informal setting and generates an opportunity to be successful by making their own decisions. On the other hand, a team member can dominate and take control which could lead the team to make incorrect decisions and possibly have the team reprimanded which would lead to negativity within the group; affecting the process and their motivation (Professional Organizations, n.d.). This absence of leadership leads to nothing happening which promotes ineffective leadership (McGuire & Kennerly, 2006).

Comments

FUNCTIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Function of the Holy Spirit. This list of the 70 Functions of the Holy Spirit come from her research. He leads and directs. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 2:27; 4:1; Acts 8:29; Romans 8:14) The Holy Spirit speaks – in, to and through. (Matthew 10:20; Acts 1:16; 2:4; 13:2; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7) He gives power to cast out devils. (Matthew 12:28) He releases power. (Luke 4:14) The Holy Spirit anoints. (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) The Holy Spirit “comes upon” or “falls on”. (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 2:25; 3:22; 4:18; John 1:32,33; Acts 10:44; 11:15) He baptizes and fills. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 1:15,41,67; 3:16, 4:1; John 1:33; Acts 1:4-5; 2:4; 4:8,31; 6:3,5; 7:55; 10:47; 11:24; 13:9,52; 1 Corinthians 12:12) He gives new birth. (John 3:5,8) He leads into worship. (John 4:23) He flows like a river from the spirit man. (John 7:38-39) He ministers truth. (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) He dwells in people. (John 14:

SETTING A DIRECTION VS PLANNING AND BUDGETING

Since the function of leadership is to produce change, setting the direction of that change is fundamental to leadership. Setting direction is never the same as planning or even long-term planning, although people often confuse the two. Planning is a management process, deductive in nature and designed to produce orderly results, not change. Setting a direction is more inductive. Leaders gather a broad range of data and look for patterns, relationships, and linkages that help explain things. What’s more, the direction-setting aspect of leadership does not produce plans; it creates vision and strategies. These describe a business, technology, or corporate culture in terms of what it should become over the long term and articulate a feasible way of achieving this goal. Most discussions of vision have a tendency to degenerate into the mystical. The implication is that a vision is something mysterious that mere mortals, even talented ones, could never hope to have. But developing

ON BUHARI, NEW YORK TMES WROTE

Four months after seizing power, Nigeria’s military leaders appear to be suffering an erosion of popular support. Last Dec. 31, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Buhari led a group of young officers in a coup against the civilian Government of President Shehu Shagari, saying the takeover was necessary to save Nigeria, Africa’s richest and most populous nation, from economic collapse. The military intervention appeared at the time to enjoy enthusiastic support from a broad range of Nigeria’s population. Many intellectuals argued that the corruption and incompetence of the Shagari administration had made drastic action both necessary and inevitable. Traders, merchants and people in the streets welcomed the soldiers and looked forward to a quick improvement in their standard of living. Growing Disappointment Recently, however, there seems to be growing disappointment with both the military Government’s approach and pace. Since coming to power, this Government has not found a sing

Comrade J.C Njoku's Blog

Search This Blog