Gary Yukl’s Multiple Linkage Model of Leadership
This model suggests that success in leadership is determined by how well various variables interrelate and support each other. It argues that performance at the workplace is hinged on several variables. The first is subordinate effort; the lower class workers must be willing to apply as much effort as they possibly can. Reservations on their part mean performance is not optimal. They should willingly put effort for best results. The leadership should constantly support and guide the efforts of their juniors by employing favorable human management skills. Secondly, the performance of work depends on the subordinates’ ability. The skills and competencies of the workers largely define their abilities. Low skills mean lower performance and high-level skills lead to higher-level performance. The leadership should ensure that subordinates assigned certain tasks are equipped with requisite abilities (Yukl, 1981, pp 4-9).
The task structure or the organization of work also influences the performance of work. A properly preconceived task structure ensures the smooth flow of work processes and thus better performances. Teamwork and cooperation are also critical in enhancing performance at work. Poor team relations and poor cooperation can lead to systemic inefficiencies resulting in poor performances. Resources must also be adequately availed for optimal performance. Too few resources in the form of facilities, time, and others disallow smooth work processes by introducing unnecessary interruptions. Finally, the work unit operations have to be effectively coordinated with other work units in an organization to ensure effective contribution to the overall results of the organization (Yukl, 1981, pp 10-16).
Differences between Charismatic leadership and transformational leadership
The debate on the differences between the two has been on for a long time. The two leadership styles truly intertwine. It is impossible to achieve transformation without charisma which is the charm that makes people identify with your ideas. However, some differences have been observed. Most noticeable is the fact that transformational leadership allows the followers to contribute and shape the vision. The transformational leader is open to the inputs of the followers. On the other hand, the charismatic leader has his own defined vision and uses his attraction advantages to enforce it through the people’s power. Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela are examples of transformational leaders. However, they fall short of the thresholds for charismatic leaders. Fidel Castro on the other hand is an example of a charismatic leader who influences his followers to accept and support his ideas.
Factors to consider in developing a good vision for change
The vision is probably the most critical item in the success of any transformational leader. It has to be acceptable and have the power to motivate the masses. According to Nanus (1992), “a vision is a little more than an empty dream until it is widely shared and accepted” (p41).
In developing the vision, leaders must take to account several factors. First, they must fully understand the organization they lead in terms of the nature and purpose of the organization’s existence. Secondly, they should ensure the full involvement of critical persons affected by the status quo. They must also explore various possible future situations likely to affect the victims. Finally, the vision has to be put down in writing in the best possible manner for it to be catchy, attractive, and enticing. Ensuring all these factors are adequately considered leads to the development of highly effective vision statements (Vision, Leadership, and Change, 1993 Par 2-6).
Reference
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction for your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vision, Leadership, and Change, (1993). Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Web.
Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.