The Difference Between Avere and Tenere

Learning a new language is not only tough because there are thousands of new words to learn, but even tougher because those words often overlap in meaning. This is definitely the case with the two verbs in Italian - â€Å"tenere - to hold, to keep† and â€Å"avere - to have, to obtain, to hold†. What are the main differences? First, tenere is often understood as to keep or to hold, like to keep a window open, keep a secret or hold a baby. Avere is to understood as meaning, to have, in the sense of possession, like age, fear, or an iPhone. Second, tenere is used, more often in the south, particularly in Naples, in the place of avere, but grammatically, its incorrect. Meaning, even if you hear Tengo 27 anni or Tengo fame, its not grammatically correct. Here are some situations where choosing between avere and tenere might be tricky. Physical Possession 1.) To have/keep an item Ho una mela, ma voglio mangiare un’arancia. - I have an apple, but I want to eat an orange.Non ho una borsa che si abbina a/con questo vestito. - I don’t have a purse that matches this dress.Ho il nuovo iPhone. - I have a new iPhone. In the situation above, you couldnt use tenere as a substitute for avere. Tengo questo iPhone fino alluscita di quello nuovo. - Im keeping this iPhone until the new one comes out. 2.) To not have any money Non ho una lira. - I dont have any money. Here, you can use tenere, but avere is still preferred. Non tengo una lira. - I dont have any money. Non avere/tenere una lira is an expression that literally means, I dont have one lira. To Maintain a Situation 1.) Keep/have a secret È un segreto che tengo per Silvia, quindi non posso dirtelo. - Its a secret that Im keeping for Silvia, so I cant tell it to you. However, if you have a secret and youre not keeping a secret for anybody, you can just use avere. Ho un segreto. Ho un amante! - I have a secret. I have a lover! 2.) Have/keep in pockets Ha le mani in tasca. - He has his hands in his pockets. In this situation, both avere and tenere can be used. Tiene le mani in tasca. - He has (keeps) his hands in his pockets. 3.) Have/keep In mind Ti spiegherà ² quello che ho in mente. - Ill explain to you what I have in mind. In this context, avere and tenere can both be used although the sentence structure will change. Tieni in mente quello che ti ho detto ieri. – Keep in mind what I told you yesterday. To Hold Something 1.) Hold/have a baby in your arms Tiene in braccio un bimbo. Il bebà © ha sei mesi. - She is holding a baby in her arm. The baby is six months. In this situation, you can use avere interchangeably. Ha in braccio un bimbo. Il bebà © ha sei mesi. - She is holding a baby in her arm. The baby is six months. 2.) Have a bouquet of flowers Perchà © hai un mazzo di fiori? Hai molti spasimanti? - Why do you have a bouquet of flowers? Do you have a lot of admirers?Non posso rispondere perchà ¨ ho un mazzo di fiori in mano. - I can’t answer the phone because I’m holding a bouquet of flowers. Then, the person youre talking to might respond to you using the verb tenere. Rispondi, che te lo tengo io. - Answer, and I’ll hold it for you. 3.) Hold a bouquet with style La sposa tiene il bouquet con classe. - The bride holds the bouquet in her hands with style. In the example above, tenere is used to stress the way she holds the bouquet. To help make this easier, use tenere whenever you have something that youre physically holding in mano - in your hands or in braccio - in your arms. It can also be used in figurative expressions, as you saw tenere in mente, but since we would be likely to translate that as keep in mind, its easier to distinguish from avere. Avere, on the other hand, is used to talk about something you possess, either literally or figuratively. If you find yourself in conversation, and you cant think of which one is right to use, its best to ask yourself what the simplest meaning is.  For example, instead of saying, He had a change of heart, you can say, He changed his mind or â€Å"Ha cambiato idea†.

Why Car Interiors Get So Hot in Summer

Weve all heard the saying, If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen. But during summer, you could insert the word car  into that sentence just as easily. Why is it that your car feels like an oven, no matter if you park in the sun or shade? Blame the greenhouse effect.   A Mini Greenhouse Effect Yes, the same greenhouse effect that traps heat in the atmosphere and keeps our planet at a comfy temperature for us to live is also responsible for baking your car on warm days.  Your cars windshield not only allows you an unobstructed wide view while on the road, it also allows the sunlight an unobstructed pathway inside your cars interior. Just like , the suns shortwave radiation passes through a cars windows. These windows are only warmed a little, but the darker colored objects that the sunrays strike (like the dashboard, steering wheel, and seats) are heated immensely due to their lower albedo. These heated objects, in turn, heat the surrounding air by convection and conduction. According to a 2002 San Jose University study, temperatures in enclosed cars with a basic gray interior rise approximately 19 degrees F in 10 minutes time; 29 degrees in 20 minutes time; 34 degrees in half an hour; 43 degrees in 1 hour; and 50-55 degrees over a period of 2-4 hours.   The following table gives an idea of just how much above the outside air temperature ( °F)  your cars interior can heat up over certain periods of time.   Time Elapsed 70 F 75F 80F 85F 90F 95F 100F 10 minutes 89 94 99 104 109 114 119 20 minutes 99 104 109 114 119 124 129 30 minutes 104 109 114 119 124 129 134 40 minutes 108 113 118 123 128 133 138 60 minutes 111 118 123 128 133 138 143 1 hour 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 As you can see, even on a mild 75 degree day, the inside of  your car would warm to triple digit temperatures in just 20 minutes!  Ã‚   The table also reveals another eye-opening reality: that two-thirds of the temperature spike happens within the first 20 minutes! This is why drivers are urged not to leave children, the elderly, or pets in a parked car for any amount of time -- no matter how seemingly short -- because contrary to what youd think, the bulk of the temperature rise happens within those first few minutes.   Why Cracking the Windows is Useless If you think you can avoid the dangers of a hot car by cracking its windows, think again. According to the same San Jose University study, temperatures inside a car with its windows cracked down rise at a rate of 3.1  °F every 5 minutes, compared to 3.4  °F for closed windows. The   just isnt enough to significantly offset the .    Sunshades Offer Some Cooling Sunshades (shades that fit inside the windshield) are actually a better cooling method than cracking windows. They can reduce your cars temperature by as much as 15 degrees. For even more cooling action, spring for the  foil type since these actually reflect the suns heat back through the glass and away from the car. Why Hot Cars are a Hazard A stifling hot car isnt only uncomfortable, its also dangerous to your health. Just like overexposure to high air temperatures can cause heat illness such as heatstroke and hyperthermia, so can   but even faster since because they. this leads to hyperthermia and possibly death. Young children and infants, the elderly, and pets are most susceptible to heat illness because their bodies are less skilled at regulating temperature. (A childs body temperature warms 3 to 5 times faster than an adults.) Resources and links: NWS Heat Vehicle Safety: Children, Pets, and Seniors.   Heatstroke Deaths of Children in Vehicles. http://www.noheatstroke.org McLaren, Null, Quinn. Heat Stress from Enclosed Vehicles: Moderate Ambient Temperatures Cause Significant Temperature Rise in Enclosed Vehicles. Pediatrics Vol. 116 No. 1. July 2005.

Leadership Taxonomy Free Essays

Introduction There a numerous leadership theories that help manage a successful business. These theories include techniques that have been developed and constantly improving since 1888. Theorists such as Thomas Carlyle, Kurt Lewin, and James Kouze, have developed characteristics they believe will shape the leaders of tomorrow. We will write a custom essay sample on Leadership Taxonomy or any similar topic only for you Order Now These characteristics are structured together to create theories based on personality, relationships, and developmental styles. The following will provided an organized overview of ten theorists and the characteristics they believe to develop successful leaders. Theorist |Theory Title |Theory Characteristics |Year | |Thomas Carlyle |Great Man |â€Å"According to this theory, you’re either a natural born leader or |c. 1888 | | | |you’re not. The term â€Å"Great Man† was used because, at the time, | | | | |leadership was thought of primarily as a male quality, especially in | | | | |terms of military leadership. (About, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |The Great Man leadership theory became more prevalent during the 19th| | | | |century and was developed from the success of several famous leaders. | | | |A famous quote that sums up this theory is â€Å"great leaders are born, | | | | |not Made. † (Changing Minds, 2011) | | Cherry, K. (2011). The Great Man Theory of Leadership. In About. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://psychology. about. com/od/leadership/a/great-man-theory-of-leadership. htm Straker, D. (2011). Great Man Theory. In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/theories/great_man_theory. htm |Gordon Allport |Personality Trait Theory |â€Å"The trait approach to personality is one of the major theoretical |c. 1936 | | | |areas in the study of personality. The trait theory suggests that | | | | |individual personalities are composed broad dispositions. (About, | | | | |2011) | | | | | | | | | |Allport discovered that there are more then 4,000 words to describe | | | | |personality traits. Allport categorized those traits into three | | | | |different levels, Cardinal, Central and Secondary traits. | | | | | | | | | |Cardinal traits were characterized as traits that dominate an | | | | |individual’s whole life. Central traits are general characteristics | | | | |of an individual personality that would affect their leadership | | | | |quality. â€Å"Terms such as intelligent, honest, shy and anxious are | | | | |considered central traits. (About, 2011) Secondary traits reefers | | | | |to attitudes or preferences that appear in certain situations or from| | | | |the result of a specific circumstance. | | Cherry, K. (2011). Trait Theory of Personality. In About. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://psychology. about. om/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/trait-theory. htm Cherry, K. (2011). Leadership Theories – 8 Major Leadership Theories. In About. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://psychology. about. com/od/leadership/p/leadtheories. htm |Kurt Lewin |Lewin’s leadership styles |Lewin’s developed three leadership styles, autocratic, democratic |c. 1939 | | | |style and Laissez-Faire style. | | | | | | | | |â€Å"In the autocratic style, the leader takes decisions without | | | | |consulting with others. The decision is made without any form of | | | | |consultation. In Lewin’s experiments, he found that this caused the | | | | |most level of discontent. † (Changing Minds, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |The autocratic style is used when the result from a decision would | | | | |not change if it had the input from others. | | | | | | | | |â€Å"In the democratic style, the leader involves the people in the | | | | |decision-making, although the process for the final decision may vary| | | | |from the leader having the final say to them facilitating consensus | | | | |in the group. (Changing Minds, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |The democratic style is a group decision making process. This style | | | | |usually opens it up for individuals to voice their opinions and can | | | | |create adversity and problems. | | | | | | | | |â€Å"The laissez-faire style is to minimize the leader’s involvement in | | | | |decision-making, and hence allowing people to make their own | | | | |decisions, although they may still be responsible for the outco me. | | | | |(Changing Minds, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |When individuals are motivated to make their own decisions and there | | | | |is no need for a central coordination, the laissez-faire style would | | | | |be best suited for that situation. | | | | | | | | | | | | Straker, D. (2011). Lewin’s leadership styles. In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/styles/lewin_style. htm |F. E. Fiedler |Least Preferred Co-worker |â€Å"Leaders prioritize between task-focus and people-focus. |c. 1964 | | |(LPC) Theory |Relationships, power and task structure are the three key factors | | | | |that drive effective styles. † ( Changing Minds, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |Fiedler used a scoring system to be able to determine if that leader | | | | |would work with that person again. | | | | | | | | |â€Å"High LPC leaders tend to have close and positive relationships and | | | | |act in a supportive way, even prioritizing the relationship before | | | | |the task. Low LPC leaders put the task first and will turn to | | | | |relationships only when they are satisfied with how the work is | | | | |going. (Changing Minds, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |Three identifying factors | | | | | | | | | |Leader-Member Relations | | | | |Task structure | | | | |Leader’s Position-power | | Straker, D. (2011). . In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/theories/fiedler_lpc. htm Rensis Likert |Likerts leadership styles |Likerts four style of leadership were developed around decision |c. 1967 | | | |making and how much people are involved in the decision making | | | | |process. | | | | | | | | | |Likerts four styles are exploitive authoritative, benevolent | | | | |authoritative, consultative, and participative. | | | | | | | | |The Exploitive authoritative style is a style where the leader has | | | | |low- no concern on how their actions will psychologically affect | | | | |people. This style is based off of fear and threats in order to | | | | |accomplish the task at hand. | | | | | | | | | |The Benevolent authoritative style is a complete opposite of the | | | | |Exploitive authoritative style. This style involves higher ranked | | | | |leaders in an organization listening to the concerns of individuals | | | | |lower in the organization. | | | | | | | | | |The consultative theory is focused on still listening to the upward | | | | |flow of information, but generally decisions are still centrally | | | | |made. | | | | | | | | |The participative theory’s where leaders maximize methods to engage | | | | |with people lower down in the organization in the decision-making | | | | |process. | | | | | | | | | | | | Straker, D. (2011). Likert’s leadership styles. In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/styles/likert_style. htm |D. J. Hickson |Strategic Contingencies |The strategic contingencies theory states that if a person does|c. 1971 | | |Theory |no they charisma but that person possesses the ability to solve| | | | |problems they still can be a effective leader. | | | | | | | | | |â€Å"The theory helps to objectify leadership techniques, as | | | | |opposed to relying on personalities. (Leadership-Central, | | | | |2011) | | | | | | | | | | | | Strategic Contingencies Theory (2011). In Leadership-central. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. leadership-central. com/strategic-contingencies-theory. html#axzz1ZeSf2sGc |Dr. Paul Hersey, |Situational Leadership |Hersey and Blanchard leadership model was developed into four styles|c. 972 | |Ken Blanchard |Model |(S1 to S4) to match the employee development level (D1 to D4). | | | | | | | | | |â€Å"Leaders should adapt their style to follower development style (or | | | | |’maturity’), based on how ready and willing the follower is to | | | | |perform required tasks (that is, their competence and motivation). | | | | |(Straker, 2011) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Style one is Telling/Directing which is designed for an employee at | | | | |a D1 level. This employee is a t a low competence, low commitment | | | | |level to the company. | | | | | | | | |Style two is Selling/ Coaching which is designed for a employee at a| | | | |D 2 level. This employee has some competence and a variable | | | | |commitment to his/her position. | | | | | | | | | |Style three is Participating/ Supporting which is designed for an | | | | |employee at a D3 level. This employee has high competence but still | | | | |a variable commitment to his/her position and the company. | | | | | | | | | |Style four is Delegating/ Observing which is designed for a employee| | | | |at D 4. This employee with have a high competence and a high | | | | |commitment to the company. | | | | | | | | | | | | | |At level S1 the leader is high task focus and not real focus on the | | | | |relationship. As you reach a S4 the leader has a low task focus and | | | | |a low relationship focus. At S3 that is where the leader builds a | | | | |strong relationship to develop that employee into a D4. | | | | | | Straker, D. (2011). Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership. In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/styles/situational_leadership_hersey_blanchard. htm Situational Leadership- About us (2011). In Situational Leadership. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. situational. com/about-us/ |Dansereau, Graen, |Leader-member Exchange (LMX)|â€Å"How a leader maintains leadership through working with her or |c. 1975 | |and Haga |his supporters, those entrusted with responsibility and advisers | | | | |defines the Leader-member Exchange theory as a method for | | | | |exerting and maintaining leadership. † (Leadership-Central, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |LMX is a intuitive theory and would be more expected from a | | | | |leader-group structure. LMX uses three stages of development. | | | | | | | | |Organizational Stage | | | | |Role Development | | | | |Leader-led relationship | | | | | | | | | |Leaders in this theory can range from a person leading a small | | | | |discussion group or a supervisor of a work crew to heads of | | | | |countries or empires. â€Å"The more complex the task and | | | | |organization, the more factors enter into the organizational | | | | |dynamics. † (Leadership-Central, 2011) | | | | | | | Leader-Member Exchange Theory â€⠀œ LMX (2011). In Leadership-central. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. leadership-central. om/leader-member-exchange. html#axzz1ZeSf2sGc |James MacGregor |Burns Transformational |â€Å"Burns Transformational leadership Theory, in other words, |c. 1978 | |Burns |Leadership Theory |Burns focuses upon motivations and values in assessing how a | | | | |leader approaches power. This aspect of having that basic | | | | |ethical system sets leaders apart from those merely aspiring to| | | | |power. (Leadership-Central, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |Burns theory appeals to those interested in developing social | | | | |values and individual purpose. Burns theory asks a fundamental | | | | |question of what the ultimate goal of leadership is and why one| | | | |should be a leader. | | | | | | Burns Transformational Leadership Theory (2011). In Leadership-central. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. leadership-central. com/burns-transformational-leadership-theory. html#axzz1Z eSf2sGc |Bass, B. M. |Transformational Leadership |‘Bass defined transformational leadership in terms of how the |c. 1985 | | |Theory |leader affects followers, who are intended to trust, admire and | | | | |respect the transformational leader. (Straker, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |Bass described three ways which leaders can transform their | | | | |followers. | | | | |Easing their awareness of task importance and value. | | | | |Getting them to focus first on team or organizational goals, rather| | | | |than their own interests. | | | | |Activating their higher-order needs. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Bass Transformational Leadership Theory (2011). In Leadership-Centeral. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. leadership-central. com/bass-transformational-leadership-theory. html#axzz1ZeSf2sGc Straker, D. (2011). Bass’ Transformational Leadership Theory. In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/theories/bass_transformational. htm |James Kouze and |Leadership Participation |â€Å"Specific factors are listed in a checklist form that |c. 1987 | |Barry Posner |Inventory |organizers can use to assess a group’s affinity to a leader. | | | | |While they are subjective, they are better than nothing and can| | | | |help in a focus on organizational problems. † | | | |(Leadership-Central, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |Five characterizes for successful leadership | | | | | | | | | |1. Role Model | | | | |2. Inspiration: | | | | |3. Facing Adversity | | | | |4. Empowerment | | | | |5. Generates Enthusiasm | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Leadership Participation Inventory (2011). In Leadership-central. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. leadership-central. com/leadership-participation-inventory. html#axzz1ZeSf2sGc How to cite Leadership Taxonomy, Papers

Leadership Taxonomy Free Essays

Introduction There a numerous leadership theories that help manage a successful business. These theories include techniques that have been developed and constantly improving since 1888. Theorists such as Thomas Carlyle, Kurt Lewin, and James Kouze, have developed characteristics they believe will shape the leaders of tomorrow. We will write a custom essay sample on Leadership Taxonomy or any similar topic only for you Order Now These characteristics are structured together to create theories based on personality, relationships, and developmental styles. The following will provided an organized overview of ten theorists and the characteristics they believe to develop successful leaders. Theorist |Theory Title |Theory Characteristics |Year | |Thomas Carlyle |Great Man |â€Å"According to this theory, you’re either a natural born leader or |c. 1888 | | | |you’re not. The term â€Å"Great Man† was used because, at the time, | | | | |leadership was thought of primarily as a male quality, especially in | | | | |terms of military leadership. (About, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |The Great Man leadership theory became more prevalent during the 19th| | | | |century and was developed from the success of several famous leaders. | | | |A famous quote that sums up this theory is â€Å"great leaders are born, | | | | |not Made. † (Changing Minds, 2011) | | Cherry, K. (2011). The Great Man Theory of Leadership. In About. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://psychology. about. com/od/leadership/a/great-man-theory-of-leadership. htm Straker, D. (2011). Great Man Theory. In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/theories/great_man_theory. htm |Gordon Allport |Personality Trait Theory |â€Å"The trait approach to personality is one of the major theoretical |c. 1936 | | | |areas in the study of personality. The trait theory suggests that | | | | |individual personalities are composed broad dispositions. (About, | | | | |2011) | | | | | | | | | |Allport discovered that there are more then 4,000 words to describe | | | | |personality traits. Allport categorized those traits into three | | | | |different levels, Cardinal, Central and Secondary traits. | | | | | | | | | |Cardinal traits were characterized as traits that dominate an | | | | |individual’s whole life. Central traits are general characteristics | | | | |of an individual personality that would affect their leadership | | | | |quality. â€Å"Terms such as intelligent, honest, shy and anxious are | | | | |considered central traits. (About, 2011) Secondary traits reefers | | | | |to attitudes or preferences that appear in certain situations or from| | | | |the result of a specific circumstance. | | Cherry, K. (2011). Trait Theory of Personality. In About. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://psychology. about. om/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/trait-theory. htm Cherry, K. (2011). Leadership Theories – 8 Major Leadership Theories. In About. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://psychology. about. com/od/leadership/p/leadtheories. htm |Kurt Lewin |Lewin’s leadership styles |Lewin’s developed three leadership styles, autocratic, democratic |c. 1939 | | | |style and Laissez-Faire style. | | | | | | | | |â€Å"In the autocratic style, the leader takes decisions without | | | | |consulting with others. The decision is made without any form of | | | | |consultation. In Lewin’s experiments, he found that this caused the | | | | |most level of discontent. † (Changing Minds, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |The autocratic style is used when the result from a decision would | | | | |not change if it had the input from others. | | | | | | | | |â€Å"In the democratic style, the leader involves the people in the | | | | |decision-making, although the process for the final decision may vary| | | | |from the leader having the final say to them facilitating consensus | | | | |in the group. (Changing Minds, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |The democratic style is a group decision making process. This style | | | | |usually opens it up for individuals to voice their opinions and can | | | | |create adversity and problems. | | | | | | | | |â€Å"The laissez-faire style is to minimize the leader’s involvement in | | | | |decision-making, and hence allowing people to make their own | | | | |decisions, although they may still be responsible for the outco me. | | | | |(Changing Minds, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |When individuals are motivated to make their own decisions and there | | | | |is no need for a central coordination, the laissez-faire style would | | | | |be best suited for that situation. | | | | | | | | | | | | Straker, D. (2011). Lewin’s leadership styles. In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/styles/lewin_style. htm |F. E. Fiedler |Least Preferred Co-worker |â€Å"Leaders prioritize between task-focus and people-focus. |c. 1964 | | |(LPC) Theory |Relationships, power and task structure are the three key factors | | | | |that drive effective styles. † ( Changing Minds, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |Fiedler used a scoring system to be able to determine if that leader | | | | |would work with that person again. | | | | | | | | |â€Å"High LPC leaders tend to have close and positive relationships and | | | | |act in a supportive way, even prioritizing the relationship before | | | | |the task. Low LPC leaders put the task first and will turn to | | | | |relationships only when they are satisfied with how the work is | | | | |going. (Changing Minds, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |Three identifying factors | | | | | | | | | |Leader-Member Relations | | | | |Task structure | | | | |Leader’s Position-power | | Straker, D. (2011). . In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/theories/fiedler_lpc. htm Rensis Likert |Likerts leadership styles |Likerts four style of leadership were developed around decision |c. 1967 | | | |making and how much people are involved in the decision making | | | | |process. | | | | | | | | | |Likerts four styles are exploitive authoritative, benevolent | | | | |authoritative, consultative, and participative. | | | | | | | | |The Exploitive authoritative style is a style where the leader has | | | | |low- no concern on how their actions will psychologically affect | | | | |people. This style is based off of fear and threats in order to | | | | |accomplish the task at hand. | | | | | | | | | |The Benevolent authoritative style is a complete opposite of the | | | | |Exploitive authoritative style. This style involves higher ranked | | | | |leaders in an organization listening to the concerns of individuals | | | | |lower in the organization. | | | | | | | | | |The consultative theory is focused on still listening to the upward | | | | |flow of information, but generally decisions are still centrally | | | | |made. | | | | | | | | |The participative theory’s where leaders maximize methods to engage | | | | |with people lower down in the organization in the decision-making | | | | |process. | | | | | | | | | | | | Straker, D. (2011). Likert’s leadership styles. In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/styles/likert_style. htm |D. J. Hickson |Strategic Contingencies |The strategic contingencies theory states that if a person does|c. 1971 | | |Theory |no they charisma but that person possesses the ability to solve| | | | |problems they still can be a effective leader. | | | | | | | | | |â€Å"The theory helps to objectify leadership techniques, as | | | | |opposed to relying on personalities. (Leadership-Central, | | | | |2011) | | | | | | | | | | | | Strategic Contingencies Theory (2011). In Leadership-central. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. leadership-central. com/strategic-contingencies-theory. html#axzz1ZeSf2sGc |Dr. Paul Hersey, |Situational Leadership |Hersey and Blanchard leadership model was developed into four styles|c. 972 | |Ken Blanchard |Model |(S1 to S4) to match the employee development level (D1 to D4). | | | | | | | | | |â€Å"Leaders should adapt their style to follower development style (or | | | | |’maturity’), based on how ready and willing the follower is to | | | | |perform required tasks (that is, their competence and motivation). | | | | |(Straker, 2011) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Style one is Telling/Directing which is designed for an employee at | | | | |a D1 level. This employee is a t a low competence, low commitment | | | | |level to the company. | | | | | | | | |Style two is Selling/ Coaching which is designed for a employee at a| | | | |D 2 level. This employee has some competence and a variable | | | | |commitment to his/her position. | | | | | | | | | |Style three is Participating/ Supporting which is designed for an | | | | |employee at a D3 level. This employee has high competence but still | | | | |a variable commitment to his/her position and the company. | | | | | | | | | |Style four is Delegating/ Observing which is designed for a employee| | | | |at D 4. This employee with have a high competence and a high | | | | |commitment to the company. | | | | | | | | | | | | | |At level S1 the leader is high task focus and not real focus on the | | | | |relationship. As you reach a S4 the leader has a low task focus and | | | | |a low relationship focus. At S3 that is where the leader builds a | | | | |strong relationship to develop that employee into a D4. | | | | | | Straker, D. (2011). Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership. In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/styles/situational_leadership_hersey_blanchard. htm Situational Leadership- About us (2011). In Situational Leadership. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. situational. com/about-us/ |Dansereau, Graen, |Leader-member Exchange (LMX)|â€Å"How a leader maintains leadership through working with her or |c. 1975 | |and Haga |his supporters, those entrusted with responsibility and advisers | | | | |defines the Leader-member Exchange theory as a method for | | | | |exerting and maintaining leadership. † (Leadership-Central, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |LMX is a intuitive theory and would be more expected from a | | | | |leader-group structure. LMX uses three stages of development. | | | | | | | | |Organizational Stage | | | | |Role Development | | | | |Leader-led relationship | | | | | | | | | |Leaders in this theory can range from a person leading a small | | | | |discussion group or a supervisor of a work crew to heads of | | | | |countries or empires. â€Å"The more complex the task and | | | | |organization, the more factors enter into the organizational | | | | |dynamics. † (Leadership-Central, 2011) | | | | | | | Leader-Member Exchange Theory â€⠀œ LMX (2011). In Leadership-central. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. leadership-central. om/leader-member-exchange. html#axzz1ZeSf2sGc |James MacGregor |Burns Transformational |â€Å"Burns Transformational leadership Theory, in other words, |c. 1978 | |Burns |Leadership Theory |Burns focuses upon motivations and values in assessing how a | | | | |leader approaches power. This aspect of having that basic | | | | |ethical system sets leaders apart from those merely aspiring to| | | | |power. (Leadership-Central, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |Burns theory appeals to those interested in developing social | | | | |values and individual purpose. Burns theory asks a fundamental | | | | |question of what the ultimate goal of leadership is and why one| | | | |should be a leader. | | | | | | Burns Transformational Leadership Theory (2011). In Leadership-central. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. leadership-central. com/burns-transformational-leadership-theory. html#axzz1Z eSf2sGc |Bass, B. M. |Transformational Leadership |‘Bass defined transformational leadership in terms of how the |c. 1985 | | |Theory |leader affects followers, who are intended to trust, admire and | | | | |respect the transformational leader. (Straker, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |Bass described three ways which leaders can transform their | | | | |followers. | | | | |Easing their awareness of task importance and value. | | | | |Getting them to focus first on team or organizational goals, rather| | | | |than their own interests. | | | | |Activating their higher-order needs. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Bass Transformational Leadership Theory (2011). In Leadership-Centeral. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. leadership-central. com/bass-transformational-leadership-theory. html#axzz1ZeSf2sGc Straker, D. (2011). Bass’ Transformational Leadership Theory. In Changing Minds. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://changingminds. org/disciplines/leadership/theories/bass_transformational. htm |James Kouze and |Leadership Participation |â€Å"Specific factors are listed in a checklist form that |c. 1987 | |Barry Posner |Inventory |organizers can use to assess a group’s affinity to a leader. | | | | |While they are subjective, they are better than nothing and can| | | | |help in a focus on organizational problems. † | | | |(Leadership-Central, 2011) | | | | | | | | | |Five characterizes for successful leadership | | | | | | | | | |1. Role Model | | | | |2. Inspiration: | | | | |3. Facing Adversity | | | | |4. Empowerment | | | | |5. Generates Enthusiasm | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Leadership Participation Inventory (2011). In Leadership-central. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www. leadership-central. com/leadership-participation-inventory. html#axzz1ZeSf2sGc How to cite Leadership Taxonomy, Papers

Leadership Change Management Is Organized †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Leadership Change Management Is Organized? Answer: Introducation According to Hayes (2014), change management is an organized way to deal with progressing people, groups, and associations from a present state to a coveted future state, to satisfy or execute a dream and methodology. It is an authoritative procedure went for engaging representatives to acknowledge and grasp changes in their present condition. There are a few unique streams of belief, which have molded the act of change management. Change management is the formal procedure for hierarchical change, including an orderly approach and use of learning. Change management implies characterizing and receiving corporate methodologies, structures, systems, and innovations to manage change coming from inward and outside conditions. Change management is a basic piece of any venture that leads, oversees, and empowers individuals to acknowledge new procedures, advances, frameworks, structures, and qualities. It is the arrangement of exercises that enables individuals to progress from their present method for attempting to the coveted method for working. A change exertion or activity must begin with a dream. Regardless of whether change is incited by outer (political, monetary, social or technological) or interior variables (policy, frameworks or structure), making a dream will clear up the heading for the change. Moreover, the vision will help in rousing those that are affected to make a move the correct way (K. Vora, 2013). Leadership and change management: According to Burke (2017), leader implies somebody who has the leadership and power to control a gathering of individuals and get it sorted out for a specific assignment or objective. Leader has an unmistakable vision for the welfare of his association and improvement of his association. Administration is that nature of leader by which he drives the group or his gathering. Leadership has six essential identity qualities named as; self-assurance, aspiration, drive and perseverance, authenticity, mental transparency, craving for learning, inventiveness, decency and devotion. To include different individuals from group in basic leadership is additionally the piece of administration. Hornstein (2015) shows three establishment attributes for a man to be in an influential position in the advanced associations and they are of a designer, an instructor, and a steward. These three qualities help with illuminating mission, vision and qualities; distinguishing procedures, structure and strategies; creating productive learning forms; and encouraging subordinates to build up their mental model persistently and think methodically. For a compelling change, several researches have uncovered that charismatic leadership and trust in top administration both are essential. They are firmly related with change executing conduct, observing of anticipators, administration level, and division association. As indicated by Bolman Deal (2017), the leader, as a man, is the most critical device for change. The leader's soul, knowledge, insight, empathy, qualities, and learning aptitudes are immeasurably imperative features in the abilities to lead others to grasp change and upgrade. The leader who prompts change inside a firm is regularly subject to rough idea. It is the leaderships conduct that rolls out the improvement circumstances more compelling. Because of the present financial condition for fruitful authoritative improvement, the key characterized by Gollenia (2016) is epitomized in the administrative leaders' states of mind, and the equivalent considerations and sentiments imparted to the world, both inside and outsi de of their associations. Role of management in implementing change: According to Goetsch Davis (2014), management is responsible for distinguishing inclines in the full scale condition and additionally in the microenvironment in order to have the capacity to recognize changes and start programs. It is likewise essential to evaluate what affect a change will probably have on behavior of the employees, work forms, innovative necessities, and inspiration. Management must survey what employees responses will be and create a change program that will offer help as specialists experience the way toward accepting change. The program should then be actualized, spread all through the association, observed for adequacy, and balanced where essential. Associations exist inside a dynamic domain that is liable to change because of the effect of different change "triggers, for example, advancing technologies. To keep on operations adequately inside this natural turbulence, associations must have the capacity to change themselves because of inside and outside initia ted change. In any case, change will likewise affect upon the people inside the association. Viable change management requires a comprehension of the conceivable impacts of the changes upon individuals and the ways to oversee potential wellsprings of imperviousness to that change. Change can be said to happen where there is an imbalance between the present state and the environment. Lewinss change management model: The idea of change management is well-known in many associations today yet how they oversee change (and how fruitful they are) fluctuates massively relying upon the idea of the business, the change and the general population included. According to Gollenia (2016), associations that handle change well seem to flourish, while those that don't may battle to survive. A key piece of this relies upon how far individuals inside the association comprehend and manage the change management. One of the foundation models for understanding authoritative change was produced by Kurt Lewin in the 1950s, is as yet utilized today. His model is a simple and straightforward structure for overseeing change known as Unfreeze Change Refreeze. Lewin clarified hierarchical change utilizing the similarity of changing the state of a square of ice, i.e. unfreezing an expansive solid shape of ice to transform it and change it into a cone of ice. By perceiving these three unmistakable phases of progress, one ca n plan to actualize the change required. One begins by making the inspiration to change (unfreeze) as it is important to change existing mentalities towards working practices and set up the ground. Correspondence about the proposed change is important at this stage if individuals are to comprehend and bolster it. One travels through the change procedure by advancing successful correspondences and enabling individuals to grasp better approaches for working and learn new esteems, states of mind and practices. Issues are distinguished and activity designs are created to empower execution. Greatest adaptability is required in the arranging and execution of the change (Matos Marques Simoes, Esposito, 2014). The procedure closes when the association comes back to a feeling of steadiness (refreeze) and the advantages of the change are acknowledged, which is vital for making the certainty from which to leave on the next unavoidable change. Acclaim, rewards and other fortification by manage rs are required on an individual level and more successful execution at an authoritative level. Not until the point that the change has turned out to be consolidated into the way of life would it be able to be said to be solidified. Figure: Lewins Framework for change (Source: Hayes, 2014) Kotters change model: Kotter believed that it is essential to go through several steps in order to successfully implement changes within an organization. The first step involves creating a sense of urgency. According to him, for a change to be successful, more than 75 percent of the management of the company must feel the need and urgency of the change. The change must be implemented as soon as it is identified as any delay in implementing change might lead to losses and inefficiency of the organizations. The second step involves creating a guiding coalition. This step mentions that it is necessary to involve the organizational people in order to successfully implement the change because the senior management and executives can not alone implement the change. The senior authorities are required to guide the employees of the organization and help them to adapt with the changes. The third step involves developing a vision and strategy. It is necessary to develop a proper strategy and vision (Van der Voet, 2 014). The change manager is responsible for developing appropriate strategies that will guide the change process. They are required to involve all the key stakeholders in the change management process. The fourth step is conveying the change vision. It is very necessary to communicate the changes that are to be implemented within an organization that shall affect the key stakeholders. Change can not be implemented successfully by mere planning the change instead, it is necessary to convey the changes to the related stakeholders so that they can prepare themselves for the changes to be implemented within the organization. The fifth step involves empowering employees. In this step, the change is not only conveyed to the related stakeholders but also they are allowed to come up with their thoughts, fears and ideas regarding the change. It is essential to involve the people who shall be affected due to the changes so that there is no resistance and the change is implemented without any hurdles (Pollack Pollack, 2015). The sixth step involves generating short- term wins. Maintaining momentum is essential for the successful implementation of change. Short- term wins is one of the strategies that help in the successful implementation of changes by achieving early success. The seventh step involves consolidating gains. In this step the short- term wins shall have a positive impact on the related people and they shall be encouraged to further implement the change in order to obtain long- term gains. The eighth step involves anchoring new approaches in the culture (Fullan, 2014). The organizations must be constantly involved in developing new approaches that help in the organizational development because the approaches that have been successful in the past might not be successful in the future. Therefore, the organizations must be creative and innovative and come up with a new approach when the previous approaches seem to be of no use. Change management in Nestle: Nestle is a Swiss multinational company that is involved in production of transnational food and drink. The company produces dairy products, confectionaries, coffee, tea, snacks and several other food and drinks items. The company is ranked among the top 100 companies in the world (https://www.nestle.com/). However, the company faced several issues in its pyramidal model that required several changes. Several changes were required to be implemented in the organizational structure in order to keep it functioning effectively. The company moved towards becoming a non-pyramidal association that empowers a system culture implied that Nestl needed to decrease its various hierarchical levels. In 2002, the company began to survey its overall association, with the motivation behind building a coordinated and adaptable authoritative structure, while keeping up its development. Inspiring administration Nestle needed to change the way directors wanted commitments from their staff. Obviously, in the event that they needed greater arrangement, knowledge, collaboration, and activity, it would need to begin with an adjustment in the way supervisors drove their kin. Two projects were created to address this issue: The Nestle Leadership Program and the Develop People activity (https://www.nestle.com/). According to the Nestle Leadership Program, the company needed both leaders and managers. Nestle built up this program around four principle convictions. In a progressive association authority change should begin with the top line. Authority abilities could be enhanced just if chiefs acknowledged that they could enhance and in this way it should have been a self-advancement program, not an appraisal apparatus. Both direct administration inclusion and any connection with pay were disposed of. Thusly, it must be keep running with an outside association, generally administrators may not concede that they can make strides. Besides, they could feel that their conceivable shortcomings would not conflict with them as far as reward. The program ought to be founded on real criticism from every administrator's associates that involved companions, bosses and subordinates. This input, additionally gathered by the outside association and incorporated the individual himself/herself, was the most imperative piece of the program. Results were given to the administrators by proficient mentors and full privacy was guaranteed. Around 450 administrators went to in the vicinity of 2003 and 2006. Besides, Nestle broadened the program and moved it out to another 4,000 center supervisors beginning mid 2006 (https://www.nestle.com/). Nestle utilized a similar association to convey this decentralized program. It had a universal system with three focuses: Singapore, Miami and London. Extraordinary care was taken to guarantee that the decentralized program had an indistinguishable attributes from the best line program and that it was of a similar quality. In 2006 alone somewhere in the range of 1,200 members went to at a cost of about $25 million (https://www.nestle.com/). The Leadership Program did a ton to advance "Nestle on the Move" amid the program. Top officials were as one with the more youthful era, which extraordinarily helped the difference in mindset. This change helped in the further development of the organization. References: Bolman, L. G., Deal, T. E. (2017).Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. John Wiley Sons. Burke, W. W. (2017).Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications. Cameron, E., Green, M. (2015).Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. Kogan Page Publishers. Fullan, M. (2014).Leading in a culture of change personal action guide and workbook. John Wiley Sons. Goetsch, D. L., Davis, S. B. (2014).Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson. Gollenia, L. A. (2016).Business transformation management methodology. Routledge. Hayes, J. (2014).The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave Macmillan. Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational change management is now a necessity.International Journal of Project Management,33(2), 291-298. Vora, M. (2013). Business excellence through sustainable change management.The TQM Journal,25(6), 625-640. Matos Marques Simoes, P., Esposito, M. (2014). Improving change management: How communication nature influences resistance to change.Journal of Management Development,33(4), 324-341. Nestle.com. Retrieved 18 August 2017, from https://www.nestle.com/ Pollack, J., Pollack, R. (2015). Using Kotters eight stage process to manage an organisational change program: Presentation and practice.Systemic Practice and Action Research,28(1), 51-66. Van der Voet, J. (2014). The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure.European Management Journal,32(3), 373-382.