领导风格外文翻译文献
监督管理模式和领先的领导风格非常适合工作满意度的提高【外文翻译】
外文翻译原文Regulatory Mode and Preferred Leadership Styles: How FitIncreases Job SatisfactionMaterial Source:BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY,29(2),137-149 Author:Arie W. Kruglanski，Antonio Pierro, E. Tory Higgins.Four studies conducted in diverse organizational contexts examined preferences and fit between two regulatory modes, referred to as ‘‘locomotion’’ and ‘‘assessment’’ (Higgins,Kruglanski, & Pierro, 2003; Kruglanski, et al., 2000), and leadership styles practiced by supervisors over their subordinates. The locomotion mode constitutes the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with movement from state to state, and the assessment mode constitutes the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with making comparisons.The present studies consistently show that individuals high in locomotion prefer a ‘‘forceful’’ leadership style, represented by ‘‘coercive’’, ‘‘legitimate’’, and ‘‘directive’’ kinds of strategic influence, whereas individuals high in assessment prefer an ‘‘advisory’’ lead er-ship style, represented by ‘‘expert’’, ‘‘referent’’, and ‘‘participative’’ kinds of strategic influence. Consistent with regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), the job satisfaction of subordinates was found to be higher when the style of strategic influence practiced by their supervisor fit their regulatory mode orientation (high locomotion/‘‘forceful’’ style;high assessment/‘‘advisory’’ style).Social influence, conceived of in terms of the ways whereby people deliberately affect each other’s actions,co gnitions and feelings, counts among social psychol ogy’s most fundamental topics of study. Whether one deals with conformity, persuasion, leadership or social change, the underlying concern is with social influence in one of its forms. From both theoretical and pragmatic perspectives, a particularly interesting question concerns the strategies of social influence. Over the centuries, writers like Machiavelli, Hobbes, Dale Carnegie and many others had numerous insights to offer about how best to influence people and enlist theirassistance in advancing one’s own interests.An influential classification of the different potential bases of social influence was offered by French and Raven (1959) in their ground-breaking analysis of social power (see also Raven, 1992, 1993; Raven & Kruglanski,1970). French and Raven (1959) distinguished between five specific power bases: (1) coercive power, related to the threat of punishment; (2) legitimate power, related to one’s normatively accepted right to exert influence;(3) expert power, related to the influencing agent’s superior knowledge recognized by the influence target;(4) referent power, based on the target’s identification with the influencing agent; (5) reward power, related to one’s ability to dispense desirable obj ects like money or effect desirable states like security or pleasure.The bases of power have been subdivided into two more general categories that Raven and his colleagues refer to as ‘‘strong’’ and ‘‘soft’’ (Bui,Raven,&Schwarzwald,1994; Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998).Coercive and legitimate power constitute bases in th e ‘‘strong’’ category in which compliance is demanded of others via the invocation of strictly enforcable rules or through the threat of painful consequences contingent on the failure to comply. By contrast, expert, referent,and reward power constitute bases in the ‘‘soft’’ category in which others are essentially free to decide whether to accept the advice or counsel of the influencer.Conceptually related to these two types of power bases is the distinction between autocratic and democratic leadership styles (Lewin & Lippit, 1938; Lewin, Lippit & White, 1939; Lippit & White, 1960; see for a review Bass, 1990). In his review of the literature on leadership styles, Bass (1990) concluded that leadership practices fall on a continuum ranging from purely autocratic to purely democratic (see also Stewart & Manz, 1997).This clustering of widely recognized leader behaviors is empirically supported by relevant factor analyses (e.g.,Sweeney, Fiechtner, & Samores, 1975). According to Bass (1990), the autocratic cluster includes such styles as authoritarian, directive, and coercive, whereas the democratic cluster includes such styles as democratic,participative, and consultative.The present paper is concerned with these two basic types of leadership styles. To avoid associations with extraneous content of political labels (e.g., ‘‘autocratic’’versus ‘‘democratic’’) or labels with evaluative connotations (e.g., ‘‘strong’’ versus ‘‘soft’’), we will refer to the‘‘strong’’/‘‘autocratic’’ type of leadership style as ‘‘forceful’’ and the ‘‘soft’’/‘‘democratic’’ type of leadership styleas ‘‘advisory’’. ‘‘Forceful’’ captures the demanding, direc tive and coercive nature of the ‘‘strong’’/‘‘autocratic’’ typ e of leadership while remaining more neutral in political content and evaluative tone. To ‘‘force’’ means to press,drive or compel. ‘‘Advisory’’ captures the counselling,consultative and participative nature of the ‘‘soft’’/‘‘democratic’’ type of leadershi p style while also remaining more neutral in political content and evaluative tone. To‘‘advise’’ means to recommend, counsel, or consult, and‘‘advised’’ means considered and thought out.The ‘‘forceful’’ and ‘‘advisory’’ leadership styles rep resent different ways of influencing others. In organizational settings, supervisors use these different strategies to influence the goal pursuits of their subordinates.How do these leadership strategies of supervisors affect the job satisfaction of the subordinates who are the target of the influence strategies? Is impact of leadership strategy invariant across circumstances or is it contingent on a fit between type of leadership strategy and type of target of influence. The present research assumes the latter, and tests the hypothesis that a fit between relevant personality dimensions and type of leadership style plays an important role in determining the impact of supervisors’ social influence strategies on subordi nates’ job satisfaction.This impact of fit on job satisfaction can be conceptualized in terms of regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000).Regulatory fit occurs when individuals’ orientation toward goal pursuit is sustained by the manner of the goal pursuit, by how progress toward the goal is striven for.Previous studies have examined the fit between people’s promotion orientation on accomplishments versus prevention orientation on security, and the strategic means of eagerness (trying to ensure ‘‘hits’’) versus vigilance (trying to ensure ‘‘correct rejections’’). Several studies (see Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Freitas, Liberman, & Higgins, 2002) have found that individuals enjoy an activity more when there is a fit between their regulatory focus orientation and the strategic means used in that activity (promotion focus/eagerness means; prevention focus/vigilance means). There is also evidence from a daily diary study that life satisfaction is higher when there is a fit between individuals’ regulatory focus orientation and the strategic means they use to cope with everyday problems (Grant, Higgins, Baer & Bolger, 2006).Often individuals themselves determine how they pursue a goal, and when this happens they are likely to pursue the goal in a manner that fits their goal orientation. But it is not always the case that individuals determine how they pursue a goal. Other people with power over them can determine how they pursue a goal,as parentsoften do with children, teachers with students, and supervisors with those they supervise. Indeed,in experimental work on the effects of regulatory fit, it is the experimenter who determines how the participants pursue their goal, as by having participants make a decision in an eager way or in a vigilant way, thereby creating fit and non-fit conditions (e.g., Higgins, Idson,Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003). Thus, although regulatory fit is itself an intrapersonal motivational experience, the determinants of that experience can be interpersonal. Regulatory fit concerns the relation between a person’s goal orientation and the manner o f that person’s goal pursuit—whether the manner sustains or disrupts the orientation—but the manner of goal pursuit can be determined by another person. This is precisely the situation when a supervisor has a leadership style, a preferred way of carrying out goal pursuits or tasks, that determines how subordinates carry out their work. Different leadership styles make the followers pursue their goals, perform their tasks, in different ways,and these different ways can sustain (fit) or disrupt (non-fit) the goal pursuit orientations of the followers.Supervisors affect the day-to-day activities of their subordinates through the use of different influence strategies. These influence strategies may provide a better fit for the self-regulatory orientations of some subordinates than others. Which self-regulatory orientations might have a better fit with either the ‘‘forceful’’ influence strategy or the ‘‘advisory’’ influence strategy? We hypo thesized that locomotion and assessment, two self-regulatory orientations distinguished by regulatory mode theory (see Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000),would have a better fit, respectively, with the ‘‘forceful’’and the ‘‘advisory’’ strategies. Next, we describe these two regulatory modes and discuss how they relate to the ‘‘forceful’’ and ‘‘advisory’’ leadership styles.Most goal pursuit activities involve two essential self-regulatory modes: a mode of assessment and a mode of locomotion. Assessment is the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with critically evaluating entities or states, such as goals or means in relation to alternatives in order to judge relative quality (Higgins et al., 2003;Kruglanski et al., 2000). Individuals with strong assessment concerns want to compare all options and search for new possibilities before making a decision, even if that means waiting. They relate past and future actions to critical standards. They want to choose the option that has the best attributes overall compared to the alternative options; they want to make the correct choice (Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000).In a decision-making context, for example,Avnet and Higgins (2003) found that individuals with high assessment concerns preferred to choose among a set of alternatives by fully comparing each option to one another on all of the attribute dimensions. This full comparison strategy is a thorough assessment process because it involves comparing all options on all attributes.By contrast, the locomotion mode is the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with movement from state to state. Individuals with strong locomotion concerns want to take action, to get started, even if that means not considering all the options fully. Once the task is initiated, they want to maintain it and complete it without undue disruptions or delays (Higgins et al.,2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000). They want to make steady progress. Avnet and Higgins (2003), for example,found that individuals with high locomotion concerns preferred to make their choice by eliminating at each step whichever option was worst on the attribute dimension being examined. This progressive elimination strategy is a relatively quick and steady way to identify a final course of action because only one option remains at the end.Research by Higgins, Kruglanski, and their colleagues (see Higgins et al., 2003; Kruglanski et al., 2000) has shown that locomotion and assessment may be differentially emphasized by different individuals.Kruglanski et al. (2000) developed two separate scales to measure chronic individual differences in assessment and locomotion. In a comprehensive series of studies,these authors demonstrated the unidimensionality,internal consistency, and temporal stability of each scale. They found that locomotion and assessment tendencies are essentially uncorrelated with each other (i.e., a person can be high or low on both, or high on one and low on the other, etc.), that each are needed for self-regulatory success, and that each relates to a distinct task orientation and motivational emphasis.译文监督管理模式和领先的领导风格:非常适合工作满意度的提高资料来源:社会心理学基础与应用，29（2），137-149作者：Arie W. Kruglanski，Antonio Pierro, E. Tory Higgins.通过在不同的组织环境中进行的四项研究，探讨两种监管模式的喜好和适应，被称为“运动”和“评估”（希金斯，Kruglanski，＆Pierro，2003; Kruglanski，等，2000），领导对其下属的监管就是采用这种领导方式。
【管理英文】为自己选择最佳的领导风格
【管理英文】为自己选择最佳的领导风格How does a leader act? You may have an idea, but there are many different types of leadership, so when you are ready to lead, you don’t have to look like the other leaders you know. You can look like you. You can pick the best types of leadership that work for you. That’s a big relief when you already have a ton on your plate in your new leadership role.领导是怎么做的？也许你是有主意的，但是有许多不同类型的领导类型，所以，在你准备领导时，你不需要看起来像你所认识的其他领导者一样。
你可以让自己的领导类型像你自己。
你可以选择最适合自己的领导类型。
在你的新的领导角色层面已经有很多的事情要做时，这会让你感到很轻松。
Daniel Goleman’s 'Harvard Business Review Study, Leadership That Gets Results' identified six types of leadership styles. Here they are:丹尼尔·戈尔曼博士在“哈佛商业评论研究，领导取得成果“一文中将领导风格分为以下六种风格：1The pacesetting leader: This leader says “Do as I do, now.” Many people think this is what a leader looks like. The downside is that if you’re always doing what the boss says, there isn’t much room for your innovation.领头型领导：这种类型的领导者会说：“现在，照我说的做。
领导风格理论averageleadershipstyleals
领导风格理论(average leadership style，ALS)美国依阿华大学的研究者、著名心理学家勒温和他的同事们从３０年代起就进行关于团体气氛和领导风格的研究。
勒温等人发现，团体的任务领导并不是以同样的方式表现他们的领导角色，领导者们通常使用不同的领导风格，这些不同的领导风格对团体成员的工作绩效和工作满意度有着不同的影响。
勒温等研究者力图科学地识别出最有效的领导行为，他们着眼于三种领导风格，即专制型、民主型和放任型的领导风格。
领导作风类型理论[美]勒温在1939年前后提出领导作风类型理论以领导的权力定位为主要依据，将领导作风（风格、习惯、方式）分为专制（权力定位于领导者个人）、放任（权力定位于群体成员个人）、民主（权力定位于整个群体）三种类型，倡导民主型领导作风关于领导方式有哪些理论领导权变论：西方领导理论的主流自本世纪三十年代以来，西方组织行为学家、心理学家从不同角度，对领导问题进行了大量研究。
这些研究经历了几十年的演进，已经由一般的领导形态学（Morphology of leadership ）、领导生态学（Ecology of leadership ）发展为领导动态学（Dynamics ofleadership）研究，导致了领导权变理论的诞生与发展，成为当今西方领导理论的主流。
因此，回顾领导权变理论的产生历史，科学地评介这种领导理论，对于我国的领导科学的发展不无积极意义。
从权变理论的产生到现在只有20多年的时间，但是它的影响已经波及到组织行为学、人力资源管理研究的许多领域，有着十分重要的地位。
60年代初，人们逐渐地认识到，要找到一个适合于任何组织、任何性质工作和任务、任何对象的固定的领导性格特质、领导类型和领导行为方式，都是不现实的，明白了组织管理应根据组织所处的内部和外部条件随机应变。
普遍认为领导过程是领导者、被领导者及其环境因素的方程式，即领导的有效性＝f（领导者、被领导者、环境）。
领导风格的选择中文
论企业管理者领导风格（leadership styles）的选择Abstract: Based on the comparisons of the advantages and s disadvantage of the two main leadership styles - democratic style and authoritarian style, which highlights that each leadership style has its weakness and strength and cannot be generalized as bad or good. Managers need to consider the impact from the leaders, their subordinates and the environment in the particular situation when they choose the leadership style. And no matter which leadership style the managers may choose, it would be the best as long as it’s appropriate.Keywords：Corporate managers; leadership stylesPeople often ask this question: "What kind of leadership style is the best one?" The subconscious of this question hopes to find the best leadership style and master the complex management practices. To be a wise leader, the actual situation is far more complicated..d能给领导风格简单排序，分出优劣，各种领导风格都有其所长、所短。
TheFourLeadershipStyles四种领导风格
The Four Leadership StylesDirections: Read the following descriptions of the four leadership styles. Which best describes you as a leader? Note the contexts where you minister best and the strengths that you bring to that context or situation. Also, be aware of your weaknesses.Directors (The Strong Leadership Style)Context. Directors are task-oriented leaders. As such, they bring this strength to ministries that need more task orientation.Strengths. Directors excel at the task-oriented aspects of leadership. Some are visionaries and most set lofty goals for their ministries and regularly challenge people to accomplish those goals. They’re change agents who question the status quo and may struggle with maintaining traditions. They tend to be point pastors in their churches and are often involved in leading church planting and refocusing efforts.Weaknesses. While Directors are strong, task-oriented leaders, they often struggle with the relational side of leadership. They have to resist the temptation to take control of a ministry and to work around rather than with a ministry team.Inspirationals (The Personable Leadership Style)Context. Inspirationals are people-oriented leaders that bring this strength to ministries that need a more relational orientation. Like the Directors, they often gravitate to lead positions, especially in church contexts.Strengths. Some temperament tools call Inspirational leaders influencers because they tend to be natural born leaders, especially in relating well to people. Thus, they, too, often lead church planting and refocusing efforts.Weaknesses. However, some Inspirationals can be loud and obnoxious. They enjoy being the center of attention, and that often bothers followers. While Inspirationals are strong relationally, they may struggle at accomplishing necessary leadership tasks and may prove to be weak at administration.Diplomats. (The Supportive Leadership Style)Context. Diplomats are people-oriented leaders who, like the Inspirationals, bring a more relational orientation to the ministry context. They lead best in situations that call for a person that is caring, supportive, friendly, and patient They prefer a slower ministry pace and resist change environments because they’re concerned about the risks change brings and how it will affect people.Strengths. Other leaders praise Diplomats for their loyalty and support, especially in difficult times. They are great team players that cooperate well with their teammates in accomplishing ministry tasks.Weaknesses. Some people complain that Diplomats are so nice that it’s hard to be angry with them when you need to be-you don’t want to hurt their feelings. Diplomats would benefit by being more proactive and taking the initiative in ministry opportunities.Analyticals(The Conscientious Leadership Style)Context. Analyticals are task-oriented leaders. Thus, they can bring certain complementary, task-oriented abilities to their ministry contexts. They lead well in ministry situations calling for people that are analytical, factual, probing, detail oriented, and that demand high quality. An example is an academic or teaching setting such as a Bible college or seminary classroom. They also function well as lead pastors of churches that emphasize a strong pulpit characterized by deep Bible teaching, the teacher-pastor model.Strengths. Analyticals are conscientious, self disciplined leaders that are self-starters. They are good at evaluating their church and ministry programs and holding churches to their theological moorings. Some people are attracted to Analyticals for their careful, accurate Bible teaching. Analyticals who preach prefer to cover the Bible in depth, using lots of facts and details to support their conclusions.Weaknesses. In their leadership roles, Analyticals attempt to maintain the status quo or even look to the past and tradition for direction. Consequently, they may not see the need to move into the future and consider new ministry approaches. Analyticals have a tendency to be critical of innovative leaders that do ministry differently, and they may even stir up negative feelings toward them. They would benefit much by developing strong relational ministry skills with their staff and congregation.These leadership styles also combine to form at least sixteen different styles. For example, the Director style could have the following combinations: Director-Inspirational, Director-Diplomat, and Director-analytical. Perhaps you noted that you have a combination of two or possibly more styles.。
领导风格英文作文
领导风格英文作文英文：Leadership style is a crucial aspect of any organization. It can determine the success or failure of a company, as well as the satisfaction and productivity ofits employees. There are several different leadership styles, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.One leadership style is autocratic, which involves a leader who makes all the decisions and expects strict obedience from their subordinates. While this style can be effective in certain situations, such as in a crisis, it can also lead to resentment and low morale among employees.Another style is democratic, where the leader involves their subordinates in decision-making and encourages collaboration and participation. This style can lead to higher job satisfaction and creativity among employees, but can also lead to slower decision-making processes.Finally, there is the laissez-faire style, where the leader provides minimal guidance and allows their subordinates to make their own decisions. This style can be effective when working with highly skilled and motivated employees, but can also lead to confusion and lack of direction.Personally, I believe in a combination of democratic and laissez-faire leadership styles. I think it is important to involve employees in decision-making and encourage collaboration, but also to trust and empower them to make their own decisions and take ownership of their work. This can lead to a more positive and productive work environment.中文：领导风格是任何组织的重要方面。
服务性领导英文文献
International Journal of Leadership Studies , Vol. 2 Iss. 1, 2006, pp. 36-51Servant versus Self-Sacrificial Leadership: A Behavioral Comparison of Two Follow-Oriented Leadership TheoriesJeffrey A. MattesonRegent UniversityJustin A. Irving Bethel UniversitySince Greenleaf (1977), research pertaining to servant leadership has carved a unique place in the leadership literature. The last decade has produced focused theory development including instrument development and empirical studies. Similarly, since Burns (1978), this era witnessed increased theoretical and empirical attention on the role of leader self-sacrifice. Recently, Stone, Russell, and Patterson (2004) and Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko (2004) examined the similarities and differences of servant and transformational leadership. This paper employs analogous methods to examine servant and self-sacrificial leadership. The authors suggest that although servant and self-sacrificial leadership share many common characteristics, they differ in several behavioral dimensions. R esearch pertaining to leadership has been dominated over the last quarter century by the study of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978, 2003). This theory represents an important step toward balancing the needs of both leaders and followers as they work toward fulfilling organizational goals. Meanwhile, this same era has produced several other leadership theories which represent a general movement toward follower-oriented models. Two of these models are servant leadership and self-sacrificial leadership.As the original architect behind the contemporary study of servant leadership, Robert K. Greenleaf (1977) captured the essence of servant leadership for a modern audience. Posing the question “Who is the servant-leader?” in his writing, Greenleaf answered by stating:The servant-leader is servant first. . . . It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first . Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first. (p. 27)Since Greenleaf’s initial insistence that a leader should be a servant first, several theories of servant leadership have gradually taken shape, most over the past 15 years. One of the central features of servant leadership which has been clarified in its recent history is that servantleadership is essentially focused on placing the needs of followers before the personal interests of the leader and intentionally working toward raising additional servants. The development of this © 2006 School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Regent UniversityISSN 1554-3145Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 37 view of leadership has several ramifications for organizations, leaders, and followers; not the least of which are the accompanying characteristics, attributes, practices, and outcomes of this behavior (Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999; Laub, 1999; Patterson, 2003, 2004; Russell & Stone, 2002; Spears & Lawrence, 2002).Self-sacrificial leadership occurs when a leader forfeits one or more professional or personal advantages for the sake of followers, the organization, or a mission. One key aim of self-sacrificial leadership is to encourage follower reciprocity (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998, 1999). However, this modeling behavior has the added benefit of potentially moving followers toward an organizational goal; modifying their behavior; or simply persuading them to attribute legitimacy to the leader, thus allowing the leader to gain influence (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998, 1999; De Cremer, 2002; De Cremer, van Djike, & Bos, 2004; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Halverson, Holladay, Kazama, & Quinones, 2004; Javidan & Waldman, 2003; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005; Yorges, Weiss, & Strickland, 1999).In general, leadership theories such as these provide a description of a set of behaviors exhibited by leaders a majority of the time. For example, transformational leaders may still engage in transactional leadership activities in their daily routines. Given this reality, there is often a theoretical overlap of propositions associated with certain leadership models. Additionally, the average experience of organizational followers as they interact with a particular leadership type may vary due to their unique perspective on organizational life. The authors suggest that there is likely a theoretical overlap between servant and self-sacrificial leadership but that a close examination of these theories will reveal several distinct qualities. To date, no theoretical or empirical study has compared these two theories. Therefore, a study is needed that will crystallize our understanding of convergent and divergent aspects of servant and self-sacrificial leadership. Ultimately, this may afford future researchers the opportunity to share a common language of servant and self-sacrificial leadership and lead to useful empirical testing.The purpose of this paper is to describe the chief components of servant and self- sacrificial leadership and to examine the commonalities and distinctions of the two conceptualizations. This study begins by suggesting an integrated model of servant leadership. Subsequent to the delineation of the associated frameworks, the characteristics and attributes of each theory will be laid side by side in an effort to compare the concepts. It is proposed that these two follower-oriented theories share some common characteristics and attributes but differ in significant areas. As a result, a scaffold will be proposed to provide the structure for highlighting the theoretical distinctives of servant and self-sacrificial leadership.Servant LeadershipGreenleaf’s (1977) seminal work on servant leadership—the work attributed with bringing the concept of servant leadership to public discourse in the mid 1970s—has led to a growing body of literature surrounding the construct since the early 1990s. The literature surrounding servant leadership can generally be categorized into two main areas: theoretical and empirical. A majority of the works are theoretical in nature: Blanchard (1998); Buchen (1998); Cerff (2004); Farling et al. (1999); Graham (1991); Hale (2004); Irving and McIntosh (2006), Jennings and Stahl-Wert (2003); Laub (2004); Ndoria (2004); Page (2004); Parolini (2004); Patterson (2003); Patterson and Stone (2004); Quay (1997); Rude (2003); Russell (2001, 2003); Russell and Stone (2002); Sendjaya and Sarros (2002); Smith et al. (2004); Spears (1995, 1998); Spears and Lawrence (2002); Stone, Russell, and Patterson (2003, 2004); Wolford-UlrichINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 38 (2004); Winston (2003); Winston and Hartsfield (2004); and Wong and Page (2003). An increasing number of empirical studies such as Dennis (2004), Dennis and Winston (2003), Drury (2004), Hebert (2003, 2004), Helland (2004), Irving (2004, 2005a, 2005b), Irving and Longbotham (2006), Laub (1999, 2003), Ledbetter (2003), Sendjaya (2003), and Winston (2004) have emerged as well.As the construct of servant leadership has developed over the last 15 years, it has been operationalized in several different forms. For instance, discussion has focused on the inspirational and moral dimensions of servant leadership (Graham, 1991); the dimensions of self-identity, capacity for reciprocity, relationship building, and a preoccupation with the future (Buchen, 1998); vision, influence, credibility, trust, and service (Farling et al., 1999); along with Russell’s (2001) discussion which focused on vision, credibility, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment. Of the theoretical discussions of servant leadership that have become dominant in the field, Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) have been frequently cited. The model of servant leadership that is advanced in this paper is constructed largely as a composite of these three theoretical approaches and is aimed at providing framework for further research in servant leadership studies.Because the model of servant leadership advanced in this paper fuses the Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) conceptualizations of servant leadership; it is important to begin our examination of servant leadership by briefly highlighting each at this time. Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics of servant leadership have been identified as an outgrowth of Greenleaf’s (1977) discussion of servant leadership. Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics of servant leadership are (a) listening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) awareness, (e) persuasion, (f) conceptualization, (g) foresight, (h) stewardship, (i) commitment, and (j) community building. Spears (1998) argued that servant leadership is tied to the character exhibited by leaders in their essential traits. Spears’ (1998) focus on the character of the leader will be an important consideration as we consider an integrated model of servant leadership. Essential to the formation of servant leaders, Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics provide a practical starting point for leaders interested in developing as servant leaders.Laub (1999) provided the second core conceptualization of servant leadership that will be utilized in this paper. Laub (1999) defined the essence of servant leadership in this manner: “Servant leadership is an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader” (p. 81). But, in what manner do servant leaders place “the good of those led over” themselves? For Laub (1999), this is answered by the results of his Delphi study. In the Delphi process, 60 characteristics of servant leaders were identified and eventually clustered into six key areas: (a) valuing people, (b) developing people, (c) building community, (d) displaying authenticity, (e) providing leadership, and (f) sharing leadership. For Laub (1999), these are the essential behaviors that characterize what servant leaders do and are the answer to how servant leaders place the good of those led over their own self-interest.The final base conceptualization of servant leadership is offered by Patterson (2003). As a theory-building dissertation, Patterson (2003) presented servant leadership theory as an extension of transformational leadership theory. This extension was based primarily on Patterson’s (2003) observation that transformational theory was not addressing the phenomena of love, humility, altruism, and casting vision for followers. Because of this, Patterson’s (2003) model of servant leadership includes the following dimensions as the essential characteristics of servant leadership: (a) agapáo love, (b) humility, (c) altruism, (d) vision, (e) trust, (f) empowerment, and (g) service. While Spears’ (1998) model of servant leadership focusesMatteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 39 primarily on the character exhibited by servant leaders and Laub’s (1999) model focuses primarily on the behaviors of servant leaders, Patterson’s (2003) model provides a bridge between the dimensions of character and behavior.Though each of these models provides significant insight into servant leadership, the divergent emphases in each of these models point to the need to consider an integrative model. Toward this end, we propose the following three-fold framework for conceptualizing an integrative model that is inclusive of the wide range of theoretical factors contained in the Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) models: (a) being—the servant leader’s ontological character traits; (b) thinking—the servant leader’s attitudinal mindset; and (c) doing—the servant leader’s behavioral actions. Table 1 provides an overview of these three dimensions of servant leadership and the associated factors in the integrative model. This proposed three-fold framework provides a logical approach to assimilating the range of factors in the Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) models as well both a linear and circular approach to conceptualizing servant leadership.In the linear approach, we argue that one’s ontological character provides the basis for the attitudinal mindset with which a leader approaches leadership scenarios out of their cognitive-affective framework. Furthermore, we argue that one’s attitudinal mindset provides the basis for servant leadership behaviors (see Figure 1). Thus, this three-fold model may be conceptualized as a linear progression from leader being, to leader thinking, to leader doing; or, to put it in other terms, it is a progression from the ontological, to the attitudinal, to the behavioral.Understood as a circular approach, leader ontology, attitude, and behavior may be seen as regularly reinforcing one another in a circular or spiraling process in which a servant leader’s being (ontological) reinforces servant-oriented thinking (attitudinal) which reinforces servant leadership doing (behavioral) which reinforces servant leader being (ontological); and, the circular reinforcement continues (see Figure 2). Though the notion of circular or spiraling models in servant leadership studies is not new (i.e., Farling et al., 1999), understanding this circular process in light of servant leader ontology, attitude, and behavior is an important addition to the literature.Self-Sacrificial LeadershipThe contemporary origins of the study of self-sacrificial leadership are found in the writings of Burns (1978) and Bass (1985). These transformational leadership theorists suggested that leader self-sacrifice is a tool which great leaders use to motivate followers. Following their lead, current charismatic leadership theorists have perceived self-sacrifice in leadership to be a tactic which a leader could employ to influence follower attributions of charisma (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; House & Shamir, 1993; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Out of this movement, Choi and Mai-Dalton (1998) proposed a model of follower responses to self-sacrificial leadership. From these theoretical underpinnings, empirical studies have been undertaken to test the validity of this model along with a variety of additional variables which may be associated with self-sacrificial leadership.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 40Table 1The Three Dimensions of Servant LeadershipDimensions Servant Leadership Factors LoveHumility Authenticity Self-AwarenessOntological Dimensions of Servant Leadership Self-Differentiation LoveOther-CenterednessOriented toward altruismValuing peopleCommitment to the growth of peopleVisionary Orientation toward trust Orientation toward listeningOrientation toward empathyLeadership mindsetOrientation toward persuasionCapacity for conceptualizationAttitudinal Dimensions of Servant Leadership Foresight LoveListeningEmpathyHealingStewardship Developing people Building communityProviding leadershipSharing leadershipEmpowering followersBehavioral Dimensions of Servant Leadership Serving followersNote. As the foundation of servant leadership (Patterson, 2003), love may be categorized in each of the dimensions of servant leadership.Figure 1. The three dimensions of servant leadership, a linear model.Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 41Figure 2. The three dimensions of servant leadership, a circular model.The empirical studies associated with self-sacrificial leadership have focused primarily on the outcomes of the sacrificial behavior on the perceptions of followers. Several of these studies found that self-sacrificing leaders were attributed charisma by followers and were perceived to be more influential, legitimate, and effective (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; De Cremer, 2002; De Cremer et al., 2004; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005; Yorges et al., 1999). Follower attributions of charisma were particularly pronounced during a period of organizational crisis or when the organization faced a social dilemma which required cooperation (De Cremer, 2002; Halverson et al., 2004).Self-sacrificial leadership has produced additional responses from followers beyond cooperative effort. Followers of self-sacrificial leaders intended to reciprocate the self-sacrificing behaviors (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999), were more committed to their organization (De Cremer et al., 2004), and performed at a higher level (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The main effects of self-sacrificial leadership have been found to be moderated by leader self-confidence, the leader’s group-orientedness, distributive justice, and when leaders were not pushing their opinions on subordinates (De Cremer, 2006; De Cremer et al., 2004; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). The results of these initial empirical tests hint at a phenomenon, which encompasses a much larger portion of leadership theory than initially proposed. In fact, Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) suggested that self-sacrificial leadership plays a role in all three organizational processes of production, distribution, and consumption.The proposition of a broad influence of leader self-sacrifice led Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) to define self-sacrificial leadership as “the total/partial abandonment, and/or permanent/temporary postponement of personal interests, privileges, and welfare in the (a) division of labor, (b) distribution of rewards, and/or (c) exercise of power” (p. 399). The authors explained that self-sacrifice in the division of labor “involves volunteering for more risky and/orINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 42arduous actions, tasks, turns, or segments of work” (p. 399). They proffer that self-sacrifice in the distribution of rewards “involves giving up or postponing one’s fair and legitimate share of organizational rewards” (p. 399). Self-sacrifice in the exercise of power is described in their research as “voluntarily giving up or refraining from exercising or using the position power, privileges, and/or personal resources one already has in his/her hand” (p. 399). Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) drew a distinction between self-sacrifice in the distribution of rewards and in the exercise of power by noting that the former involves giving up claiming privileges and the latter involves consuming the privileges.The economic aspects of leader self-sacrifice, while supported both theoretically andempirically, should not be considered the final boundaries of the self-sacrificial leadership construct. Other theorists have noted that leader self-sacrifice includes the loss of status, credibility, and promotion (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Javidan & Waldman, 2003). This is a small glimpse at the motivational aspects that lay the foundation of self-sacrificial behavior, which may have origins beyond the simple desire to influence followers. After all, if a leader loses his or her status or credibility or is demoted rather than promoted, it would be difficult to impossible to influence followers. Alternatively, leaders may sacrifice to demonstrate courage and conviction in the mission while serving as a role model (Shamir et al., 1993); maintainpersonal beliefs and values (Yorges et al., 1999); and exhibit commitment to the cause (Avolio & Locke, 2002) or, simply, for the good of the company (Halverson et al., 2004). Therefore, it can be stated that the motivational foundation for self-sacrificial leadership may be directly related to the outcome of the behavior.To date, the published theoretical models of self-sacrificial leadership do not address all three dimensions of leader ontology, attitude, and behavior. Instead, current models present the impact of sacrificing behavior on followers along with various moderating variables (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1999; De Cremer, 2006; Yorges et al., 1999). While a gap in the literature regarding self-sacrificial leader ontology and attitude exists, enough research exists to present behaviors associated with self-sacrificial leaders. Table 2 offers a preliminary look at these self-sacrificial leadership behaviors.Table 2The Behavioral Dimensions of Self-Sacrificial LeadershipDimension Self-Sacrificial Leadership Factors AltruismTakes initiativeEmpathyRole modelingProvides justiceDeveloping peopleBuilding communityProviding leadershipLinks followers to shared visionEmpowering followersServing followersBehavioral Dimensions of Self-Sacrificial Leadership Yields status, privileges, powerMatteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 43Theoretical ComparisonWhile we propose the three-fold circular model of ontology, attitude, and behavior as an integrative answer to the divergent approaches to conceptualizing servant leadership, for the purpose of our comparison with self-sacrificial leadership, we will limit our analysis to the behavioral level. As identified in the literature review surrounding self-sacrificial leadership, the rationale for this is largely due to the relatively focused literature surrounding self-sacrificial leadership on the consequence of the behavior rather than its motivational origins. Certain attitudinal aspects of self-sacrificial leadership can be inferred from the research, but the authors do not support drawing conclusions from these secondary assumptions. While we recommend future explorations into the ontological and attitudinal dimensions of self-sacrificial leadership, the current agenda solely offers self-sacrificial research focused on the behavioral dimension.This section of the paper highlights the similarities and differences of servant and self-sacrificial leadership. In keeping with two previous attempts to compare servant leadership with another leadership theory, the authors have created a matrix to compare the two theories. Stone et al. (2004) and Smith et al. (2004) previously compared servant and transformational leadership, and their graphic representations informed this current effort. In addition to Spears’ (1998) and Laub’s (1999) lists of characteristics which were included in these prior analyses, this paper extends the servant leadership portion by including Patterson’s (2003) attributes in the comparison with self-sacrificial leadership. Recall that in this study, these three theories are presented as an integrated model of servant leadership.In Table 3, the integrated servant leadership behavioral characteristics of Spears (1998), Laub (1999), and Patterson (2003) are listed next to the self-sacrificial leadership factors. The three dimensions of leader ontology, attitude, and behavioral characteristics are listed for servant leadership in an effort to comprehensively present the integrated model. Self-sacrificial leadership attitudinal factors are listed in gray to signify their role as inferred characteristics which will not be used for drawing conclusions. The behavioral factors associated with self-sacrificial leaders as they compare to servant leadership are the primary focus of this study.It is immediately evident that servant and self-sacrificial leadership share several characteristics. The characteristics of empathy, developing people, building community, providing leadership, empowering followers, and serving followers represent overlapping categories. Empathy appears in the self-sacrificial leadership literature through its connection with altruism (De Cremer, 2002). The assumption of an empathy-altruism link, and its support in 25 empirical studies (Batson, Ahmad, Lishner, & Tsang, 2002), sustains this correlation between servant and self-sacrificial leadership. The modeling behaviors found in the self-sacrificial leadership literature shore up the additional characteristics found in both leadership theories. By sacrificing their power, self-sacrificial leaders empower followers. However, this empowerment is likely a product of sacrificing behavior. The shared commitment to service may be explained when self-sacrifice is understood as an extreme act of service. This comparison would evidently indicate that servant and self-sacrificial leaders may view followers in a similar fashion but may choose to interact with them in a slightly different manner.In general terms, it may be stated that both servant and self-sacrificial leaders hold followers in very high esteem but deviate in several core behaviors. First, there is little concrete theoretical or empirical research pertaining to leader self-sacrifice which supports the thought that self-sacrificial leaders share power. Second, it could be argued that the role modeling and altruistic behaviors of self-sacrificial leaders are loving acts and, thus, would compare favorablyINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES 44with servant leadership. However, there are other motivations associated with role modeling and altruistic activities which may have very little to do with love (Avolio & Locke, 2002).Table 3The Three Dimensional Comparisons of Servant and Self-Sacrificial LeadershipDimensions Servant Leadership Factors Self-Sacrificial Leadership Factors LoveHumility Authenticity Self-AwarenessOntological Dimensions Self-Differentiation LoveOther-Centeredness Other-CenterednessOriented toward altruism Orientation toward altruismValuing people Valuing peopleCommitment to the growth of people Commitment to the growth ofpeopleVisionary Visionary Orientation toward trustOrientation toward listeningOrientation toward empathy Orientation toward empathyLeadership mindsetOrientation toward persuasion Self-ConfidentCapacity for conceptualization NonautocraticAttitudinalDimensions Foresight Foresight Love AltruismListening Takes initiativeEmpathy EmpathyHealing Role modelingStewardship Provides justiceDeveloping people Developing people Building community Building communityProviding leadership Providing leadershipSharing leadership Links followers to shared visionEmpowering followers Empowering followersServing followers Serving followersBehavioralDimensions Yields status, privileges, powerListening, healing, and stewardship are currently missing from the self-sacrificialleadership literature. The case can be made that listening is a necessary feature of empathy and that healing is closely aligned with providing justice. Yet, these are unsupported assumptions.Matteson & Irving / SERVANT VERSUS SELF-SACRIFICIAL LEADERSHIP 45 Stewardship is a different matter. In a sense, some self-sacrificial leaders are poor stewards of resources; since by definition, this type of leader may intentionally dispose of resources in orderto achieve an overall goal. Since self-sacrificial leadership theory development is still in relative infancy, the authors feel much more confident in the shared characteristic list and remaincautious in drawing firm conclusions on all of the dissimilar factors. That being said, viewingthese follower-oriented theories through the three dimensions of leader ontology, attitude, and behavior can further delineate both phenomena.Although these two leadership theories share several characteristics, the provisional conclusions stated lead to the understanding that servant and self-sacrificial leadership aresimilar but distinct theories. Since the examination of the behavioral characteristics of these two theories is not capable of revealing a comprehensive understanding of this difference, the authors propose a broader look at servant and self-sacrificial leadership. This effort may bring furtherclarity to this evaluation. An opportunity for an expanded investigation may originate in the previously mentioned work of Stone et al. (2004) and Smith et al. (2004) who offered details regarding the focus, motivation, context, and outcomes of servant and transformational leadership. These four overarching categories can be employed to scrutinize servant and self-sacrificial leadership with the goal of founding an additional baseline for future scholarly discussion. The authors present this brief theoretical comparison in an attempt to launch such a conversation. Table 4 places servant and self-sacrificial leadership in the four categoriesdiscussed in the previous leadership theory comparison. The determination of the focus, motivation, context, and outcome of self-sacrificial leadership is drawn from published research pertaining to this phenomenon. The authors have consulted existing research and selectedgeneral terms to describe each category as succinctly as possible. In other words, an attempt was made to get at the heart or direction of the research to date. For example, since earlier researchhas noted that self-sacrificial leaders may demonstrate courage and conviction in the missionwhile serving as a role model (Shamir et al., 1993), maintain personal beliefs and values (Yorgeset al., 1999), or exhibit commitment to the cause (Avolio & Locke, 2002); the authors haveplaced these activities under the umbrella of ethical self-transcendence in the broad category of focus. Additionally, since self-sacrificial leaders may be motivated by the greater good of the organization (Halverson et al., 2004), the ethical focus underpinning this motivation led theauthors to conclude that self-sacrificial leaders are provoked to serve the greater good.Table 4The Focus, Motivation, Context, and Outcome of Servant and Self-Sacrificial Leadership Focus Motivation ContextOutcomeSelf-sacrificial leadership Ethical self-transcendenceServing the greater good:doing what is morally andethically right, no matterthe sacrificeOrganizational orenvironmentalcrisisDynamicspiritualgenerativecultureServant leadership Followers Serving the good of thefollower: doing what isbest for the followersStableenvironmentSpiritualgenerativeculture。
俞敏洪领导风格的分析英文
Efficient communication
Enough ability to influence others
Professional ability
Personal charm and confidence The ability of choose and employ persons
indomitable courage after the trembling;
By doctors rescue come over after the tore heart crack lung of cry, after crying to gain power.
In failure and setbacks, looking for a more brilliant life!
Master career with spiritual power——Yuminhong
Contents
1
2 3 4
Leances Characters Impacts
Leadership ship
Democratic style
Experiences
Three times college entrance examination(1978-1980)
Filled with ideal color sense of mission
Build a non-profit private university, rural children can accept the firstclass university education.
Determined and right decisions
Oriental did not broke
女性领导风格英文作文
女性领导风格英文作文英文：When it comes to leadership styles, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. However, as a female leader, I believe that it is important to have a balance between assertiveness and empathy.Assertiveness is crucial in ensuring that tasks are completed efficiently and effectively. As a leader, it is important to set clear expectations and hold team members accountable for their actions. However, it is equally important to be empathetic towards team members' needs and concerns. By showing empathy, a leader can build trust and create a positive work environment.One example of how I balance assertiveness and empathy is through performance evaluations. During evaluations, I provide constructive feedback and set clear goals for improvement. However, I also take the time to listen to myteam members' perspectives and understand their challenges. This allows me to tailor my leadership approach to each individual and help them reach their full potential.Overall, I believe that a successful female leader is one who is assertive yet empathetic, and who takes the time to understand and support her team members.中文：在领导风格方面，没有一种通用的方法。
领导艺术的英文作文
领导艺术的英文作文Leadership Art。
Leadership art is the ability to inspire and guide others towards a common goal. A leader has to possess certain qualities to be able to lead effectively. These qualities include vision, communication skills, empathy, integrity, and the ability to make decisions.A leader with vision has a clear idea of what they want to achieve and how to get there. They are able to communicate this vision to their team and inspire them to work towards it. Communication skills are also importantfor a leader. They should be able to clearly articulate their ideas and listen to feedback from their team.Empathy is another important quality for a leader. They should be able to understand the needs and concerns oftheir team members and address them accordingly. This helps to build trust and loyalty among team members.Integrity is also crucial for a leader. They should be honest, transparent, and ethical in their actions. This sets a good example for their team and helps to build a culture of trust and respect.Finally, a leader should be able to make decisions confidently and effectively. They should be able to weigh the pros and cons of different options and make a decision that is in the best interest of the team and the organization.In addition to these qualities, there are also certain leadership styles that a leader can adopt. These include autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. Autocratic leaders make decisions on their own without consulting their team. Democratic leaders involve their team in the decision-making process. Laissez-faire leaders give their team members a lot of freedom to make decisions on their own.Each leadership style has its own advantages anddisadvantages. It is up to the leader to choose the style that best suits their team and the situation at hand.In conclusion, leadership art is an essential skill for anyone who wants to lead effectively. A good leader should possess certain qualities such as vision, communication skills, empathy, integrity, and the ability to make decisions. They should also be able to adopt the leadership style that best suits their team and the situation at hand. With these skills and qualities, a leader can inspire and guide their team towards success.。
一个好的领导者应具备条件英文作文
一个好的领导者应具备条件英文作文A good leader is essential for the success and growth of any team or organization. A good leader is someone who possesses certain qualities and skills that enable them to effectively lead and motivate others. In this essay, we will discuss the key qualities and characteristics that a good leader should possess.First and foremost, a good leader should have strong communication skills. Effective communication is crucial for conveying a vision, goals, and expectations to team members. A good leader should be able to communicate clearly and concisely, listen actively to others, and provide feedback in a constructive manner.In addition to communication skills, a good leader should also have strong interpersonal skills. A good leader should be able to build strong relationships with team members, demonstrate empathy and understanding towards others, and resolve conflicts in a peaceful and constructive manner.Furthermore, a good leader should have a clear vision and sense of direction. A good leader should be able to set goals, make decisions, and lead the team towards the achievement ofthose goals. A good leader should also be adaptable and open to change, as the business environment is constantly evolving.Moreover, a good leader should possess strongproblem-solving skills. A good leader should be able to analyze problems, identify solutions, and make decisions that are in the best interest of the team or organization.In addition to the above qualities, a good leader should also be trustworthy, resilient, and inspiring. A good leader should lead by example, demonstrate integrity and honesty, and motivate others to perform at their best.In conclusion, a good leader should possess a combination of communication skills, interpersonal skills, vision,problem-solving skills, and inspirational qualities. By possessing these qualities, a good leader can effectively lead and motivate their team towards success and growth.。
好的领导者的品质英语作文
好的领导者的品质英语作文英文回答：A good leader possesses many admirable qualities that inspire, motivate, and guide others. Here are some of the most essential traits:Vision and Strategic Thinking: Leaders have a clear vision for the future and strategic foresight to anticipate challenges and opportunities. They set ambitious goals and develop plans to achieve them, inspiring their teams to strive for excellence.Communication and Interpersonal Skills: Leaders are effective communicators who can convey their vision, motivate others, and build strong relationships. Theylisten attentively to feedback, foster open dialogue, and create a positive and inclusive work environment.Integrity and Authenticity: Good leaders aretrustworthy, ethical, and true to their values. They act with integrity and inspire confidence in their followers by consistently living their principles. Authenticity allows them to connect with others on a genuine level and build trust.Empathy and Compassion: Leaders show empathy for their team members and understand their perspectives. They care about their well-being and prioritize their growth and development. Compassion drives them to support their followers during challenging times and celebrate their successes.Courage and Resilience: Leaders are courageous and resilient, embracing challenges and setbacks as opportunities for growth. They make difficult decisions when necessary and inspire their teams to overcome obstacles. Their unwavering spirit motivates others to stay the course amidst adversity.Adaptability and Innovation: In today's rapidly changing world, good leaders are adaptable and innovative.They embrace new ideas, challenge conventional thinking, and are eager to experiment and find better ways of doing things. This innovation drives progress and keeps their organizations ahead of the curve.Mentoring and Leadership Development: Good leaders are committed to mentoring and developing future leaders. They invest in their team members' growth, provide opportunities for professional development, and empower them to take on leadership roles. This investment ensures continuity of strong leadership and organizational success.Humility and Self-Awareness: True leaders are humble and self-aware. They recognize their strengths and weaknesses, listen to constructive criticism, and are open to learning and improving. Their humility fosters apositive and inclusive work environment where others feel valued and respected.中文回答：优秀的领导者品质。
领导理论的英文作文
领导理论的英文作文英文：Leadership is a crucial aspect of any organization or team. It is the ability to inspire, guide, and motivate others towards a common goal. There are various leadership theories that have been developed over time, each with its own unique approach to leadership.One of the most well-known leadership theories is the trait theory. This theory suggests that certain innate qualities, such as intelligence, charisma, and confidence, are essential for effective leadership. While this theory has been criticized for oversimplifying the complexities of leadership, it still holds some truth. For example, a leader who possesses strong communication skills may be more effective in motivating their team than one who lacks this trait.Another popular theory is the situational theory, whichsuggests that effective leadership depends on the situation at hand. This theory emphasizes the importance of adapting one's leadership style to fit the needs of the situation and the individuals involved. For example, a leader may need to be more directive when dealing with a new and inexperienced team, but may need to be more democratic when working with a team of experienced professionals.Personally, I believe that a combination of different leadership theories is necessary for effective leadership. As a leader myself, I have found that being adaptable and open to different approaches is crucial. For example, I may use a more directive approach when dealing with a team that needs clear guidance, but may switch to a more democratic approach when seeking input and ideas from my team.In addition to theories, I have also found that certain qualities are essential for effective leadership. These include empathy, integrity, and a willingness to learn and grow. By showing empathy towards my team members, I am able to better understand their needs and concerns, and work towards solutions that benefit everyone. By maintainingintegrity, I am able to earn the trust and respect of my team. And by being willing to learn and grow, I am able to continuously improve my leadership skills and adapt to new situations.中文：领导是任何组织或团队的关键方面。
likert’s four styles of leadership
likert’s four styles of leadership“likert’s four styles of leadership”中文翻译：莱克特的四种领导风格。
莱克特的四种领导风格是指将Rensis Likert提出的关于领导风格的理论从其原始语言翻译成其他语言的过程。
Rensis Likert是一位美国心理学家和管理理论家，他提出了一个理论，描述了管理者用来有效领导团队的四种不同的领导风格。
这些风格包括：1. 剥削型权威（系统1）：这种风格特征是高度集中的权力结构，决策由高层管理人员做出，下属在决策过程中几乎没有发言权。
沟通只从上到下流动，管理者与员工之间的互动极少。
这种风格被认为是长期组织成功的无效方式，因为它导致员工士气低落、工作满意度低，并且可能导致高员工流失率。
2. 仁慈型权威（系统2）：这种风格与系统1相似，但管理者对员工有更多的个人关怀。
虽然决策仍然是由高层管理人员做出的，但他们可能会考虑员工的意见和福祉。
这种风格比系统1更有效，但仍存在沟通不足和员工参与度低的问题。
3. 协商式（系统3）：在协商式领导风格中，管理者与员工之间的沟通更加双向。
决策过程中会征求员工的意见，并且鼓励员工参与决策。
这种风格提高了员工的参与度和满意度，有助于提高组织效率。
4. 员工中心化（系统4）：这是最有效的领导风格，特征是高度的员工参与和民主化的决策过程。
管理者和员工之间有广泛的沟通和互动，员工在决策过程中有很大的影响力。
这种风格促进了团队合作、创新和组织承诺，通常与高绩效相关联。
莱克特的四种领导风格理论强调了不同领导风格对组织绩效的影响，并认为系统4是最理想的领导风格，因为它能够激发员工的潜力并促进组织的整体成功。
Leadership-Why Gender And Culture Matter 领导风格
LeadershipWhy Gender and Culture MatterRoya Ayman Illinois Institute of TechnologyKaren Korabik University ofGuelphFor decades,understanding of leadership has been largely based on the results of studies carried out on White men in the United States.We review major theories and models of leadership as they pertain to either gender or culture.We focus on3approaches to leadership:trait(including lead-ership categorization or implicit leadership theory),behav-ioral(including the two-factor,transformational–transac-tional leadership,and leader–member exchange models), and contingency(i.e.,contingency model of leadership effectiveness and normative decision making).We discuss how dynamics related to either culture or gender(e.g., stereotypes and schemas,ingroup–outgroup interaction, role expectations,power and status differentials)can have an important impact on many aspects of leadership. Keywords:leadership,gender,culture,diversity,ethnicity A lmost two decades have passed since the Ameri-can Psychologist highlighted the importance ofdiversity in leadership(e.g.,Hollander&Offer-mann,1990;Morrison&Von Glinow,1990).However, although interest in the role of diversity in leadership persists,the nature of the issues has changed since then.For example,during the1990s the glass ceiling was a wide-spread metaphor used to explain why women and ethnocul-tural minorities often lacked access to leadership roles. Today,women and ethnocultural minorities still confront many leadership-related challenges.However,Eagly and Carli(2007)characterized these as taking the form of a labyrinth or maze consisting of many barriers that they must negotiate.The articles in the recent special issue on leadership in the American Psychologist(Sternberg,2007),although rec-ognizing the contributions of individual men and women leaders from various cultural backgrounds,were largely founded on the assumption that leadership and its effec-tiveness are universal.Although for the most part the authors acknowledged the general importance of situational contingencies(Vroom&Jago,2007;Zaccaro,2007)and culture(Avolio,2007)as contextual circumstances in de-termining leadership,they presented leadership as a phe-nomenon that is primarily gender and culture neutral.Thus, their focus was on the similarities,rather than the differ-ences,among the situations faced by men and women leaders and leaders from various cultures and ethnic back-grounds.Taking this stance,however,fails to acknowledge that additional factors related to the labyrinth(e.g.,stereo-types and schemas,ingroup–outgroup dynamics,role ex-pectations,power and status differentials,and differential attributions made about and rewards given for similar be-havior)can have an important impact on many aspects of leadership.Moreover,because these factors privilege those in majority groups,they can create obstacles that women and ethnocultural minorities need to overcome if they are to attain positions of leadership or be successful once they have done so.We contend that studying leadership without the spe-cific inclusion of the role of gender and culture limits the scope of knowledge in this area.At a practical level,a lack of attention to these factors and the dynamics that they produce can create problems(Chin&Sanchez-Hucles, 2007)in the development of the leaders of tomorrow.If leaders are to be effective in a diverse society,they need to understand their own preferred style and behaviors and how these may differ from those preferred by others.Oth-erwise,their interactions with others are likely to be fraught with misattributions,misunderstandings,and misinterpre-tations.At a basic scientific level,failure to include diverse groups in research limits the validity and generalizability of findings and the inclusivity of theories.By contrast,cul-turally inclusive research has many benefits,including ex-panding on theories,increasing the range of variables, unconfounding variables,and understanding the context in which behavior occurs(Triandis&Brislin,1984).The purpose of this article is to illustrate why gender and culture matter in our understanding of leadership.We first briefly define each concept.We then review the major mainstream theoretical approaches to the study of leader-ship,presenting the keyfindings pertaining to gender and culture.We acknowledge that gender and culture coexist in a symbiotic relationship.In addition,we argue that gender and culture have parallel dynamics in relation to leadership. However,because in the leadership literature very few studies have examined their joint effects,we discuss gender and culture separately.Roya Ayman,Institute of Psychology,Illinois Institute of Technology; Karen Korabik,Department of Psychology,University of Guelph, Guelph,Ontario,Canada.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Roya Ayman,Institute of Psychology,Illinois Institute of Technology,3101 South Dearborn,Life Science Building,Room252,Chicago,IL60616. E-mail:ayman@DefinitionsCultureMany have debated the definition of culture(Triandis, 1996).Overall,most agree with Kluckhohn’s(1951)defi-nition that culture is an acquired and transmitted pattern of shared meaning,feeling,and behavior that constitutes a distinctive human group.There are two reasons why it is necessary to distinguish among the definitions of culture, ethnicity,and gender.First,different leadership researchers have used different definitions when referring to these concepts.Second,leaders in a diverse and multicultural society need to become aware of these distinctions.Although phenomenological discussions continue, culture primarily can be operationalized in two different ways,based on existing leadership research.Thefirst is by means of characteristics that are visible and on the surface, such as country boundaries(House,Wright,&Aditya, 1997)or individuals’physical characteristics(e.g.,skin color,hair texture,eye shape).These visible characteristics allow for categorization of people into social groups(e.g., by country or nationality).The second operationalization is in terms of more invisible and deeper differences among people(e.g.,their values and personalities).For example,Hofstede(2001) identified four cultural values that can define cultural cat-egories at the country level(i.e.,individualism–collectiv-ism,power distance,uncertainty avoidance,and masculinity–femininity).The underlying assumption tying together these two operationalizations of culture is that people who look alike,have similar languages,or live within the same geo-graphic boundaries will have similar cultural values.In to-day’s global village,however,this is not always the case.In a diverse and pluralistic society,many groups of people live together.These groups may vary in their appearance,in their cultural values,or in both—as do members of various ethnic groups.Connerley and Pedersen(2005)proposed a more in-tegrated definition of culture.They considered it to be a complex(multidimensional and multilevel)and dynamic phenomenon consisting of both visible and invisible char-acteristics that may influence leadership.Their categories of culture include demographic characteristics(e.g.,place of residence and physical gender),status characteristics (e.g.,economic and educational variables),ethnographic characteristics(e.g.,nationality,ethnicity,and language), and affiliations.These cultural categories are socially con-structed and become imbued with meaning.Therefore, people who differ from one another on these categories can “experience the world in different ways whether those differences are based on internal differences,external dif-ferences in the way they are treated by others,or a com-bination of the two”(Connerley&Pedersen,2005,p.4).In leadership research,cultural differences are often studied with either a single visible or invisible cultural marker.Among these markers,national boundary,gender, and ethnicity are the subsets of culture that have been examined most often.In this article we include the research pertaining to national boundary,ethnicity,and cultural values in the section on culture.Because there is a large volume of research that has been directed specifically at gender and leadership,we have chosen to dedicate a sep-arate section to gender.GenderSince the1970s researchers have noted the need to differ-entiate between gender and sex(Bem,1974;Spence,Helm-reich,&Stapp,1975),and they have defined gender(i.e., whether someone is a woman or man)as pertaining to the psychosocial ramifications of biological sex(i.e.,whether they are female or male;Unger,1979).Most often re-searchers operationalize gender by either observing the behavior of men and women or by asking them to self-report whether they are male or female.In this article we use the term sociodemographic gender to refer to this aspect of gender.Gender,however,consists of much more than socio-demographic gender.Gender is a multidimensional and multilevel phenomenon with many different facets (Korabik,1999).These include intrapsychic aspects such as gender schemas and stereotypes;gender-role identity; and gender-role traits,attitudes,and values(Bem,1993). They also include the manner in which men and women interact with one another(Deaux&Major,1987)and the social roles that they are expected to,and frequently do, enact in a society(Eagly,1987).Moreover,gender is an ascribed status characteristic.Men’s higher social status means that they have more access to power and resources than women do and,consequently,they are accorded greater privilege(Ridgeway,1992).Thus,gender is both“a hierarchical structure of opportunity and oppression as well as an affective structure of identity and cohesion”(Ferree, 1995,p.125). Roya AymanGender,Culture,and LeadershipA direct parallel exists between the dynamics that are due to culture and those that are due to gender.Both culture and gender have physical (visible)and value (invisible)com-ponents.Both affect identity and group cohesion,interper-sonal interactions,and access to power and resources.The cultural and ethnic values that people hold are learned intrapsychic beliefs in the same way that gender-role be-liefs and attitudes are.The physical characteristics that differentiate people into different cultural and ethnic groups act as markers of status that prime stereotypes and endow privilege in the same manner that gender does.We now present an overview of how these dynamics operate in a leadership context,with gender as an example.Similar dynamics would be expected to occur for culture.Perspectives on gender and leadership.When one examines research on gender and leadership,it is important to distinguish between the manner in which the research has been carried out and the manner in which it has been interpreted.Most research on gender and leader-ship has been carried out by applying the sociodemo-graphic definition of gender.Thus,a plethora of studies have been conducted examining how men and women differ from one another in their leadership style,behavior,and effectiveness.The authors of some of these studies did not specify a theory about why gender is expected to have an impact on leadership,whereas those of the remainder drew upon a number of different theoretical perspectives when interpreting their findings.These include androgyny theory (Bem,1974),social role theory (Eagly,1987),ex-pectation states theory (Berger,Wagner,&Zelditch,1985),and status characteristics theory (Ridgeway,1992).To bring some conceptual clarity to the literature,Korabik and Ayman (2007)have delineated three of the most common theoretical positions that underlie the study of gender and leadership.These are the intrapsychic perspective,the so-cial structural perspective,and the interpersonal perspec-tive,respectively.Research done from the intrapsychic perspective fo-cuses primarily on the internal intrapsychic characteristics of the leader.Here gender encompasses such things as gender schema;gender identity;and gender-role traits,attitudes,and values that are acquired through gender-role socialization.According to the intrapsychic perspective,the leader’s intrapsychic gender-role characteristics (e.g.,instrumentality/masculinity/agency and expressivity/femi-ninity/communion)matter because they affect the leader’s preferred style,behavior,and outcomes regardless of whether the leader is a man or a woman.Research done from this perspective might,for example,examine the impact that a leader’s gender-role orientation (i.e.,instru-mentality,expressivity,or androgyny)has on his or her behavior and the outcomes achieved.Some theorists who have adopted the social structural perspective focus on the different social roles that men and women are expected to play in society (Eagly,1987).According to this formulation,the qualitative differences in men’s and women’s normative roles affect their leadership behavior and outcomes.Here,gender is important because the perception that men’s roles are more congruent with the leadership role than are those of women can result in prejudice against women leaders (Eagly &Karau,2002).Other theorists who have adopted the social structural perspective have emphasized the status differences be-tween men and women (Ridgeway,1992).They have viewed sociodemographic gender as a visible status marker that affects others’perceptions,observations,and evalua-tions of leaders.According to the social structural perspective,differ-ent outcomes will be attained by men and women leaders under certain conditions.This is because men are attributed higher status and privilege,and they are more likely to be in leadership roles that are congruent with their sociode-mographic gender.In contrast,women are perceived as having lower status and less privilege,and the leadership role is seen as being incongruent with their sociodemo-graphic gender.Meta-analytic findings support this per-spective by indicating that women leaders are viewed as being less effective when they are in male-dominated set-tings or leadership roles that are defined as more masculine (Eagly,Karau,&Makhijani,1995).The interpersonal interaction perspective focuses on how leaders interact with their superiors,coworkers,and subordinates.This approach incorporates aspects of both the intrapsychic and social structural perspectives because interactions are viewed as a function of both sociodemo-graphic gender cues,which are more visible and overt,and gender-related beliefs and expectations both about the self (schemas)and about others (stereotypes),which are less visible and more covert.In addition,these processes are influenced by situational cues (e.g.,gender-typed tasks,skewed gender ratios in groups)that make gender more or less salient and induce priming.According to theinterper-Karen Korabiksonal interaction perspective,gender makes a difference because men and women leaders will have different types of social interactions with their men and women supervi-sors,peers,and subordinates,and these interactions will influence the outcomes experienced by each party(Ayman, 1993;Korabik&Ayman,2007).Korabik and Ayman(2007)proposed an integrative model of gender and leadership that combines elements from each of these three perspectives.Here leadership is seen as a social interaction between leaders and their su-pervisors,peers,and subordinates.The nature of this inter-action is influenced by intrapsychic processes(e.g.,gender-role orientation,gender-role attitudes and values)in all of the parties.However,these processes are not as salient and observable as is someone’s sociodemographic gender. Therefore,sociodemographic gender acts as a marker of status and privilege,as well as of expectations about pre-scribed role behaviors.As such it is a cue that activates stereotypes and attributions that affect initial judgments and evaluations.These processes are moderated by a vari-ety of contextual cues(e.g.,gender-typed tasks,skewed gender ratios in groups).The literature on gender and leadership supports this model by demonstrating that the following play an important part in the leadership process: gender-role socialization;gender-role beliefs,attitudes,and expectations;gender stereotypes;gender-based status dif-ferentials;group gender composition;and the gendered nature of tasks.Culture and leadership.In a diverse work-force,people from different cultural or social groups must constantly interact with each other.In such settings,peo-ple’s own cultural identities and their assumptions about and perceptions of others from different social groups(e.g., White and African American,Latino and Asian)relate to ingroup–outgroup dynamics,and these assumptions and perceptions may have an impact on the leadership experi-ence(Ayman,2004a).In these types of situations,the composition of dyads or work groups based on their gender or culture matters because it can affect a leader’s ability to be successful.For example,in an experiment in which a Japanese leader behaved either as an American leader would or as a Japanese leader would,his American follow-ers did not consider him to be as trustworthy when he was behaving like an American leader compared with when he behaved like a Japanese leader(Thomas&Ravlin,1995).Moreover,the increasing diversity in today’s work-force means that to be effective,leaders need to develop a multicultural perspective and an understanding of the points of view of those who differ from themselves(Con-nerley&Pedersen,2005).Doing so involves two things: (a)eliminating ethnocentrism(i.e.,the belief that one’s cultural values are the same as everyone else’s,regardless of the evidence)and(b)increasing isomorphic attributions or the extent that people from culturally diverse social groups are able to reach a similar assessment of a given situation or action(Triandis,1995).The elimination of ethnocentrism,by reducing the imposition of one’s frame of reference on others,can result in less hostile judgments toward those in outgroups(Duckitt,Callaghan,&Wagner,2005).In addition,by reducing the ethnocentrism present in leadership research,leadership models can become more inclusive of other cultures and representative of all social groups.Gender,culture,and leadership.To de-velop more inclusive theories of leadership,both emic and etic perspectives(Berry,1997;Gelfand,Raver,&Ehrhart, 2002)need to be included.The emic approach means studying leadership from within a culture or a social group, whereas the etic approach allows for validation of theories and models of leadership across genders and cultural set-tings.A version of the etic approach,imposed etic,is when a theory or a measure developed within one social group is validated in another.In leadership,most theories have been developed in North America and embody a primarily eth-nocentric viewpoint.One of the effects of this situation is that the theory can privilege certain types of scientific knowledge and marginalize other viewpoints(McIntosh, 2003).Leadership researchers rarely have done cross-cul-tural studies to learn the limitations of their theories.More-over,when validating their theories on other groups or in other countries,they rely on an imposed etic approach. Their interest has not been to understand how the theories worked,but only in seeing that they worked.To form an allocentric theory,as Triandis(1995)advised,researchers need a more inclusive effort where scholars from various countries using differing methods come together to share and gradually put together the pieces of the puzzle.Furthermore,it is important to examine whether ex-isting leadership constructs have similar equivalence of meaning across gender and cultures,as well as across sources(e.g.,leader’s self-report and subordinates’re-ports).As Raju,Laffitte,and Byrne(2002,p.517)said,“Without measurement equivalence,it is difficult to inter-pret observed mean score differences meaningfully.”Find-ings from meta-analyses on gender or cultural differences in leadership,therefore,can be construed as representing true between-groups mean differences only once equiva-lence of meaning(i.e.,measurement equivalence)has been established for these groups.Gender and Culture in Leadership ResearchBoth culture and leadership and gender and leadership have been studied using an emic approach.For example,Misumi (1985)and Sinha(1984)have approached leadership from Japanese and Indian perspectives,respectively.Moreover, feminist researchers have explored women’s leadership experiences(see Chin,Lott,Rice,&Sanchez-Hucles, 2007).These studies have addressed the issue of whether women or people from different ethnocultural groups have unique ways of leading.In this article,however,we focus on the imposed etic approach to leadership as it pertains to gender and culture.We do so because we wish to address a different question:To what extent do North American models,which have been developed primarily by men and mostly validated on men leaders,apply to women and people from other cultures?Furthermore,we made thischoice because these theories are currently the focal ap-proaches to leadership infields such as psychology,man-agement,political science,and education.In addition,these theories served as the framework for the2007special issue on leadership in the American Psychologist(Sternberg, 2007).Our intention in this article is to highlight the role of gender and culture in the research that has been done within these paradigms,something that was lacking in the previ-ous special issue.Before doing so,however,it is important to acknowl-edge some previous leadership theorists(e.g.,Ayman, 1993;Chemers,1997;House,Hanges,Javidan,Dorfman, &Gupta,2004)who have emphasized the important role that gender and culture specifically play in the leadership experience.Ayman(1993)did so by drawing from the cross-cultural approach and methodology.She argued that because leaders’and subordinates’gender or culture influ-ences their frame of reference,these factors affect how leaders’behaviors are described and evaluated.Chemers’s(1997)integrative model of leadership ex-plicitly acknowledged a role for culture and gender.In his model,gender and culture influence the leadership relation-ship in multiple ways(e.g.,through social norms and the leader’s and subordinates’interpretation of the situation). Both of these scholars have viewed gender and culture as leadership contingencies that are omnipresent in a diverse society and that cannot be ignored when leadership is studied.The primary focus of the62-country GLOBE research project(House et al.,2004)has been on establishing a universal model of leadership.Although specificfindings about the interface of culture,gender,and leadership are still emerging,the picture that has been painted thus far is very complex.While some universals(such as value-based charismatic leadership)have been found,there is also ex-tensive evidence that these universals are manifested in different ways in each region of the world.It may be that, as Graen(2006)has suggested,the research questions and approach used by GLOBE were too limited to portray a global picture of leadership.In support of this,van Em-merik,Euwema,and Wendt(2008)reviewed other research that indicates that certain leadership behaviors(e.g.,the use of superiority,power,and close supervision)vary as a function of culture.In the latest edition of Bass&Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership,Bass(1991)mentioned that leadership has many definitions.In this article we do not put forth a particular definition but rather acknowledge the variety of approaches to the way that leadership has been studied through existing theories and models.The main theories and models that we review include the following:trait approach(including leadership categorization or implicit leadership theory),behavior approaches(including the two-factor,transformational leadership,and leader–mem-ber exchange models),and contingency approaches(i.e., the contingency model of leadership effectiveness and the normative decision-making model).For each theoretical approach to leadership,we provide examples from the literature that illustrate why culture and gender matter.In any discussion of the intersection of gender or culture with leadership it is particularly important to rec-ognize that just because someone holds a leadership posi-tion,it does not imply that they are an effective leader. Likewise,the absence of individuals from certain groups (e.g.,women or people of color)in leadership positions does not mean that they would be ineffectual leaders.It is also critical to point out that many of the studies on gender and leadership in the workplace have examined a selected group of women leaders who have attained leadership positions by meeting the expectations of the majority.The results of that research may not be generalizable to women in general.Similarly,because most cultural studies have examined people functioning in their own culture,we do not know how they would perform in cross-cultural situa-tions.The Trait ApproachIn the interest of brevity we do not review the historical evolution of the trait approach,the oldest domain of inves-tigation in leadership research(see Zaccaro,2007;Zaccaro, Kemp,&Bader,2004).Likewise,we do not deal with the many traits that have been associated with leadership emer-gence or effectiveness(see Judge,Bono,Ilies,&Gerhart, 2002).Instead,we discuss only those traits that are both important to leadership and relevant to gender or culture.Implicit leadership theory.To understand the traits associated with leaders,wefirst examine the literature on implicit leadership theory or leadership categorization. Implicit leadership theory examines the layperson’s under-standing of leadership.Overall,the results of studies in this area have demonstrated strong context effects.That is,the traits associated with leadership vary depending on whether the leader is,for example,a manager,military officer,or politician(Lord,Brown,Harvey,&Hall,2001).Studies of culture and implicit leadership are limited,but those that do exist show a variation in the content of implicit leadership across cultures(Ayman&Bassari,2009;Gerstner&Day, 1994;Ling,Chia,&Fang,2000).Much research has dem-onstrated that across raters’age,work experience,and culture,the image of a leader is strongly associated with men and masculinity(Ayman-Nolley&Ayman,2005; Heilman,2001;Leffler,Ayman,&Ayman-Nolley,2006; Schein,2002).Furthermore,research shows that this ste-reotyped image develops as early as kindergarten(e.g., Ayman-Nolley&Ayman,2005).However,these studies also have indicated that girls and women are not as likely to hold this masculine image of a leader as are boys and men.By and large,the fact that these stereotypes exist is detrimental to women’s ascent into leadership positions (Korabik,1997).Cultural intelligence(CQ).Recently scholars have focused on the relationship between CQ and leader-ship.CQ is related to enhanced effectiveness in dealing with both those from foreign cultures and those from dif-ferent subcultures within one’s own culture(Ang&Van Dyne,2008).Thus,it helps individuals meet the challenges of managing both globalization and workforce diversity. CQ has been shown to contribute to team,leadership,andmanagerial effectiveness in a number of settings(Ang& Van Dyne,2008).Among the specific traits and competen-cies associated with CQ are self-monitoring,holding non-ethnocentric attitudes(Abbe,Gulick,&Herman,2008), and being open to experience(Ang&Van Dyne,2008),all of which are discussed individually below.Self-monitoring.One trait that has been related to both leadership emergence and effectiveness is self-monitoring(Day,Schleicher,Unckless,&Hiller,2002). Self-monitoring is the extent to which individuals regulate their self-presentation to achieve a desired public appear-ance(Gangestad&Snyder,2000).In leadership research, self-monitoring is seen as an indicator offlexibility and responsiveness to social situations.Day et al.’s(2002) meta-analysis showed that self-monitoring was related to leadership ability by demonstrating that high self-monitors are promoted most often.Day et al.also reported,however, that women scored lower on self-monitoring than men. Based on thisfinding,it appears that women may have less chance of attaining leadership positions than do men.The results of a small group experiment supported this concept by demonstrating that self-monitoring was positively asso-ciated with leadership emergence more for men than for women(Ellis&Cronshaw,1992).Further research on gender,leadership,and self-monitoring is needed to ex-plore this explanation and to establish whether interven-tions aimed at enhancing women’s level of self-monitoring could help them overcome the barriers they face in achiev-ing leadership positions.Because we know little about self-monitoring cross-culturally or across ethnic groups, more research on culture and self-monitoring is also war-ranted.Moreover,the measurement equivalence for gender or culture for self-monitoring,to the best of our knowledge, still needs to be established.The Big Five.The Big Five(neuroticism,extra-version,openness to experience,agreeableness,and con-scientiousness;Hofstede&McCrae,2004)are considered to be superordinate,universal personality traits(Marsella, Dubanoski,Hamada,&Morse,2000).Costa,Terracciano, and McCrae(2001),using studies from several countries across several years,whilefinding some similarities,did find some gender and cultural differences on the Big Five. Overall,the results pertaining to gender and culture(i.e., defined by country or cultural values)do not indicate conclusive evidence for the universality of the Big Five (Marsella et al.,2000).In a meta-analysis of the relation-ship of the Big Five to leadership,Judge et al.(2002)found that extraversion,conscientiousness,and openness to ex-perience had significant relationships with leadership ef-fectiveness and emergence.Agreeableness was related to leadership effectiveness but not emergence.However,this meta-analysis did not include culture or gender as moder-ators.Nonetheless,Eagly and Carli(2007),using Costa et al.’s(2001)findings,demonstrated that men and women differed on some of the facets that make up the Big Five traits.For example,women scored lower than men on the assertiveness aspect of extraversion,but they scored higher than men on the warmth and positive emotion aspects of extraversion.Gender and leadership emergence.Two lines of research have been conducted on gender and leadership emergence.The most prominent one looks at the sociodemographic gender of the person who is cho-sen as the leader.The results of a meta-analysis of studies in this area(Eagly&Karau,1991)are consistent with Eagly and Carli’s(2007)findings regarding extra-version and showed that men and women tended to emerge as leaders in situations that were congruent with their social roles.The implication of this for women is that their leadership may be constrained to more stereo-typically feminine areas.A smaller,yet very significant,line of research has demonstrated that gender-role orientation,more than socio-demographic gender,matters in terms of who emerges as a leader.For example,a meta-analysis found that along with intelligence,agentic traits such as masculinity and domi-nance were most characteristic of those who emerged as leaders(Lord,De Vader,&Alliger,1986).Similarly,other research has indicated that a masculine(i.e.,high instru-mentality,low expressivity)gender-role orientation was most related to leadership emergence(Goktepe&Schneier, 1989).In contrast,in more recent studies,where group gender composition and the nature of the task were incor-porated as variables,there is more evidence that androgyny (i.e.,high instrumentality,high expressivity)is important for leader emergence.For example,one study demon-strated that in groups composed of women,those who were intelligent and androgynous were more likely to emerge as leaders(Gershenoff&Foti,2003).But,in groups of mixed sociodemographic gender,the results are not as clear and seem to depend on the nature of the task.Overall,a trend has been observed in which androgynous individuals have the same chance as masculine individuals to be identified as leaders(Kent&Moss,1994;Moss&Kent,1996).These findings are encouraging for women’s leadership prospects. Androgyny may offer women a way out of the double bind they are put in when they are expected to have the instru-mental qualities that are associated with leadership ability but also the expressive qualities associated with their pre-scribed gender role.Thus,adopting an androgynous lead-ership style may help women to negotiate their way through the labyrinth.Summary.As the research cited indicates,the traits related to leadership are not culturally universal. Moreover,because traits have an impact on the way that men and women are perceived as leaders,gender can affect access to leadership positions.This is important because competency modeling is frequently used for the selection of managers.This approach relies heavily on inferences about which leadership traits and skills are the most effec-tive.These inferences are susceptible to being influenced by implicit leadership stereotypes.Moreover,these traits and skills are assumed to function similarly for people regardless of their culture and gender.However,much more empirical evidence is necessary to validate this as-sumption.。
论领导英译汉佳作赏析
论领导英译汉佳作赏析论领导英译汉佳作赏析What is leadership?Its qualities are difficult to define。
But they are not so difficult to identify。
Leaders don ＇ t force other people to go along with them。
They bring them along。
Leaders get commitment from others by giving it themselves，by building an environment that encourages creativity， and by operating with honesty and fairness。
Good leaders aren＇ t"lone rangers。
"They recognize that an organization＇ s strategies for success require the combined talents and efforts of many people。
Leadership is the catalyst for transforming those talents into results。
Successful leaders are emotionally and intellectually oriented to the future--not wedded to the past。
They have a hunger to take responsibility， to innovate， andto initiate。
They are not content with merely taking care of what＇ s already there。
领导艺术作文
领导艺术作文（中英文版）英文文档内容：Leadership is an art that involves the ability to inspire, motivate, and guide others towards a common goal.It is not simply a matter of giving orders, but rather a skill that requires a deep understanding of human behavior, communication, and the ability to create a positive work environment.A good leader is able to see the big picture and develop a clear vision for the future.They are able to communicate this vision to their team and inspire them to work towards it.They also have the ability to make decisions quickly and effectively, even in difficult or uncertain situations.One of the most important aspects of leadership is the ability to empower others.A good leader is able to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their team members and assign tasks accordingly.They trust their team to complete tasks and give them the freedom to do so in their own way.This not only increases productivity but also fosters a sense of ownership and pride in the team members.Another key aspect of leadership is the ability to listen and communicate effectively.A good leader is always accessible to their team members and willing to listen to their concerns and suggestions.They provide clear and constructive feedback and are able to handle conflictsor issues that may arise in the team.Lastly, a good leader is someone who is able to lead by example.They demonstrate qualities such as integrity, dedication, and hard work, which inspires their team members to follow suit.They are also not afraid to take responsibility for their mistakes and learn from them.In conclusion, leadership is an art that requires a combination of skills, qualities, and attributes.A good leader is able to inspire and motivate their team, communicate effectively, make decisions quickly, empower others, and lead by example.With practice and experience, anyone can develop these skills and become an effective leader.中文文档内容：领导艺术是一种涉及激励、激励和引导他人共同实现目标的能力。
俞敏洪领导风格的分析英文综述
By doctors rescue come over after the tore heart crack lung of cry, after crying to gain power.
Efficient communication
Enough ability to influence others
Professional ability Personal charm and confidence The ability of choose and employ persons
The English training to make a national brand.
Share remuneration
• "Our salary, bonus, attendance system will be more than the same industry, or is in the lead forever."
Master career with spiritual power——Yuminhong
Contents
1
Leadership ship
2
Experiences
3
Characters
4
Imபைடு நூலகம்acts
Leadership ship
Democratic style
Experiences
Three times college entrance examination(1978-1980) Five years of college, and then as a foreign language teacher
领导文化作文英语模板
领导文化作文英语模板英文回答：Leadership Culture。
Leadership culture refers to the shared values, beliefs, and practices that govern the way leaders behave within an organization. It sets the tone for how decisions are made, how teams interact, and how the organization interacts with its stakeholders. A strong leadership culture can create a positive and productive work environment, while a weak leadership culture can lead to conflict, confusion, and low morale.There are many different models of leadership culture, but some of the most common include:Autocratic leadership culture: In this type of culture, the leader has all the power and makes all the decisions. Employees are expected to follow orders without question.Democratic leadership culture: In this type of culture, the leader shares power with their team and makes decisions based on consensus. Employees are encouraged to participate in the decision-making process.Laissez-faire leadership culture: In this type of culture, the leader gives their team a lot of freedom and autonomy. Employees are expected to self-manage and make their own decisions.Transactional leadership culture: In this type of culture, the leader focuses on rewarding employees for good performance and punishing them for poor performance.Transformational leadership culture: In this type of culture, the leader inspires and motivates employees to achieve their full potential.The best type of leadership culture for an organization will depend on its size, industry, and goals. However,there are some general principles that can be applied toany leadership culture:Clarity: The leadership culture should be clear and concise. Employees should know what is expected of them and how they will be evaluated.Consistency: The leadership culture should beconsistent across the organization. All leaders should behave in accordance with the same values and beliefs.Accountability: Leaders should be held accountable for their actions. They should be willing to takeresponsibility for mistakes and to learn from them.Transparency: The leadership culture should be transparent. Employees should be able to see how decisions are made and how the organization is run.Respect: Leaders should respect their employees. They should listen to their concerns and treat them with dignity.A strong leadership culture can create a positive andproductive work environment. It can help organizations to achieve their goals and to attract and retain top talent.中文回答：领导文化。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
领导风格外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)原文:1. IntroductionThe leadership in organizing a government so far has tended to be only one leadership style for all employees’ abilities, namely instruction leadership style, so it has impacted and caused low-level service performance, [1]. An ofiicer’s leadership is no more than as a power figure, who is highly chained by formal rules. So, there is no possibility for appreciations to occur. The implication which occurs toward human resources of employees is that there is a strong tie with formal rules, so there is no room for employees to take initiatives, innovative actions, and to make significant development. Therefore, the time has come for the single-style bureaucratic leadership style orientation to change into the situational leadership style, a style based on situations and conditions of the subordinate/employees’ abilities.Besides the leadership style, the officer’s motivation also plays an important role in achieving high performance because it is related with :1) the officer’s working morale and commitment to his organization, which means that he is willing to use all the abilities that he has for the sake of his organization by utilizing the available opportunit ies to accomplish his organization’s mission; 2) not yet all unit leaders have high working motivation and organization commitment with which he is willing to use all his abilities for the sake of his organization by utilizing the available opportunities to accomplish his organization mission; 3) the employees are not motivated to develop their creativity and innovations. This is partly in line with the concern of the Office of the Secretary, West Sulawesi Province, regarding the working motivation of the officers and employees in the Office of the Secretary, West Sulawesi Province, and also regarding the strict punishment in line with the Government Regulations Number 53 the year of 2010 concerning the Civil Servants’ Discipline to achieve their su ccess.In line with the first observation conducted by the Government of West Sulawesi, there are symptoms and phenomena of employees’ low motivation. This can be seen from the indiscipline behaviors of the employees, for example: 1) coming late to work, 2) being late to start work, 3) not using the working time appropriately, 4) going home early before the working hours end, 5) the high rate of absenteeism. (Biro Ortala & Kepegawaian Setda Provinsi Sulbar, Pebruari, 2013 the Organization and Personnel Division of the Office of the Secretary, West Sulawesi Province).Those behaviors occur because the leaders still use one leadership style for all levels of employees’abilities, namely instructive leadership style. This can be observed i n the leaders’behaviors in terms of giving the same orders and instructions to the different employees having different levels of abilities. This is the thing that becomes the basis of conducting the research regarding situational leadership.Meanwhile, the reasons why it is important to do the research in the leadership style issue are because: 1)the leadership style is very crucial and really determines the life of every nation, because the forward or backward movements of the society and the success and failure of the nation are determined by the leaders, [2], 2)leadership is the primary element in an organization, because the good and bad behaviors of subordinates depend on the leaders in guiding their subordinates[3]; 3), states that there is no bad task force, there is only a bad leader[4]; 4) Courtoris reveals that a task force without a leadership is like a human body without the head; it is easy to go astray, to be chaotic, and even anarchistic[5].Leadership StyleStyle is a habit inherent in a person in performing leadership duties. Leadership style according to Hersey and Blanchard (1982:152) in Pasolong, (2008:37), is a consistent pattern of behavior that is employed in working with and through others as perceived by people, the patterns that arise in people when they begin to respond in he same way in similar circumstances, the pattern forming habits of action that can be expected at least for those who work with the leader.From the opinion of the experts mentioned above, it can be concluded that leadership style is a way used by someone or a leader in influencing, directing, encouraging, and controlling his subordinates in order to achieve organizational goals efficiently and effectively.Blanchard Hersey Situational Leadership Style (1982)Diagnostic ability of a leader cannot be ignored. According to Edgar H. Schein[6], a successful leader must be good at diagnosing. If the capabilities and motives of subordinates are highly variable, the leader must have the diagnostic skills and sensitivity to respect those differences[7].The leader must be able to identify phenomena in the environment. However, with a good diagnostic ability, the leaders are still not effective unless they can adapt their leadership sty le to meet the demands of theirenvironment. Leader should have the personal flexibility and range of capabilities required to vary their own behavior. If the needs and motives of different subordinates, they should be treated differently as well.Stonerstates that the theory of situational leadership (situational leadership theory) is the Hersey Blanchard approach by describing how leaders must adapt their sty le in response to desires to succeed in work, experience, and their ability and willingness are constantly changing[8].The assumption used in this theory is that no one leadership style is right for every leader in all conditions. Because of this, situational leadership style will apply a specific style based on considerations or factors such as leader, follower, and the situation in the sense of duty, the map of power, and group dynamics.The leadership style divided into four styles are as follows[9]:1)Instructive leadership style: that is applied to subordinates who have a low level of ability. In this case the subordinates who are unable and unwilling to take responsibility for carrying out the task. In many cases the result of the unwillingness of subordinates is insecurity or lack of experience and lack of knowledge with regardto duties. Thus style is clear and specific guidance that is suitable to be applied by the leader. In this directive leadership style behaviors included high and low task relationships. So the Instructive leadership style is specific and tightened supervision. Its indicators: a) prepare with clear and detailed, what, when, where and how to carry out tasks clearly and as well as possible, b) explain the role of each; c) prioritize one-way communication; d) T ighten supervision and accountability; e) provide additional instructions to clarify; f) are simple and make something special (keep it simple and specific = KISS).2)Consultative leadership style: that is applied to subordinates who havea low to moderate level of ability. In this case the subordinates who are unable but willing to take responsibility, who have confidence but lack knowledge and skills. Thus the Consultative leadership style provides direct interaction, because they are less able, also provides support to strengthen the capacity and enthusiasm, thus appropriate interaction is applied based upon the subordinate's ability level. Behavioral consultation referred to as almost the entire briefing was conducted by the leader. Through two-way communication and explanations, leaders are involved in giving advice and solving problems. This two-way communication helps in maintaining a high level of motivation at the same time responsibility and control over decision -making remains in the leadership. This style of behavior included high task and high relationship. So the Consultative leadership style, that is: prepare a clear and detailed plan with the who, what, when, where, and how to carry out the task as well as possible. Its indicators: a) explain the decision and give the opportunity for clarification;b) do two-way communication (dialogue); c) leaders make decisions; d) explain the role of each; e) ask your followers to know the level of his ability; f) encouragement to improve performance.3)Participative leadership style: that is applied to subordinates who have high levels of moderate to high ability. Subordinates at the developmental level, have the ability but do not have the will to perform a given task. Unwillingness is often due to a lack of confidence. However, if they believe in their ability but do not want to, then their reluctance to carry out the task is more a matter of motivation than security issues. In this case the leader needs to open two-way communication and active listening and supports efforts to use the ability of subordinates who have owned. Thus behaviors that support, without the direct participation, have high success rate to be applied for subordinates with such a maturity level. This force is due to theparticipation of leaders and followers exchange of ideas in performing the task, the main role of the leader of providing facilities and communicate. This style involves the behavior of high employment and low task-oriented behavior. This style includes the relationship of high and low behavioral tasks. The Participative style is the leader of the input received. Its indicators: a) be an active listener, b) subordinates are involved in decision making c) two-way communication and are involved; d) support subordinates in taking risks; e) give the credit for the success of subordinate tasks; f) build the confidence of the subordinates.4)Delegative leadership style: that is applied to the subordinate who has a high level of capabilities. In terms of the ability of subordinates at a level like this, they are capable and willing, or have confidence to take responsibility. Thus the Delegative style, the low profile that gives a little guidance or support, has the most effective level possible with subordinates in a high level of ability like this. Even if the leader is able to identify the problem, the responsibility for implementing the plan given to subordinates who are capable of this. Subordinatesare allowed to implement their own affairs and decide on how, when and where to do the work. At the same time, they are psychologically able;therefore,do not require a lot of two-way communication or behavioral support. This style involves the behavior of low employment relationship and low-level behavior on the job.MotivationMotivation comes from the Latin word meaning movere impetus or driving force. Motivation is important because the motivation of every individual is his willingness to work hard and enthusiastically to achieve high productivity. People who have high achievement motivation assume that the success or failure has the same opportunities, then there is an optimum opportunity to experience the feelings of achievement and satisfaction for their efforts.Achievement and satisfaction according McClelland is based on several types of human needs[11], namely:1. Need for achievement. The need for achievement is the driving force that motivates the spirit of one's work. Therefore, the need for achievement would encourage someone to develop creativity and skills as well as direct all its energy in order to achieve optimal performance. An employee will be providedwiththe high enthusiasm to excel when given the chance. With the high performance, he will earn a large income so as to meet their own needs.2. The need for power. The need for power is the desire to haveimpact, influence, andtocontrol others. Individuals with a high need for power enjoy to be burdened, struggle to be able to influence others, prefer to be placed in a competitive situation and status -oriented, and tend to be more concerned about the prestige and to gain influence over others with effective performance. The need for power is the driving force that motivates employee’smorale[12]. Therefore, the need for power to stimulate andmotivate morale and to direct all one's ability to achieve the best power or position in the organization.3.Need for Affiliation. McClelland and the researchers conclude that people who have a basic desire to establish and maintain interpersonal relationships are important, positive, and lasting. People who have a high need for affiliation can spend more time to maintain social relationships, join groups, and always want to be loved[13].Performance ConceptThere are various opinions about the performance, as suggested by Rue & Byars[14]. It is said that the performance is a result of the level of achievement. Performance is related to the operations, activities, programs and mission of the organization[15]. The performance is the quality of task-oriented behavior or work[16]. Ndraha says that the performance is a populist manifestation of the relationship between society and government[17]. While Widodo says that the performance is an activity and perfected in accordance with its responsibilities with the results as expected[18]. According to Institute of Public Administration of the Republic of Indonesia abbreviated as RI LAN, the performance is to formulate an idea of the level of achievement of the implementation of an activity, program, wisdom in realizing the goals, objectives, mission, and vision of the organization[19].Research Hypothesisa. The Directive leadership style affects employee performance, both directly and indirectly throughmotivation within the Office of Secretary, W est Sulawesi Province.b. The Consultative leadership style affects employee performance, both directly and indirectlythrough motivation within the Office of Secretary, W est Sulawesi Province.c. The Participative leadership style affects the performance of the employee's participation, eitherdirectly or indirectly through motivation within the Office of Secretary, West Sulawesi Province.d. The Delegative leadership style affects employee performance, both directly and indirectly throughmotivation within the Office of Secretary, West Sulawesi Province.1.ObjectivesThis research aims to generally describe and analyze the influences of leadership style and motivation to the employee’s performance in the Office of the Secretary in West Sulawesi Province. The main objectives of the research are:1. To analyze how big the influence of instructive leadership style to employee’s performance e ither directly or indirectly through motivation in the Office of the Secretary in West Sulawesi Province.2. To analyze how how big the influence of consultative leadership style to employee’s performance either directly or indirectly through mot ivation in the Office of the Secretary in West Sulawesi Province.3. To analyze how big the influence of participative leadership style to employee’s performance either directly or indirectly through motivation in the Office of the Secretary in West Sulawesi Province.4. To analyze how big the influence of delegative leadership style to employee’s performance either directly or indirectly through motivation in the Office of the Secretary in West Sulawesi Province.2. Research methodsThis type of research is survey research using a quantitative approach and the Office of Secretary, of the study sites in West Sulawesi Province. The population is all employees in West Sulawesi Provincial Office of Secretary, as many as 322 people. This study uses a random sample (Stratified Random sampling). While thetechnique of determining the number of samples uses the formula of Slovin[20]. Then the minimum number of samples (n) is obtained proportionally: 76 people. Analysis of research data uses two analytical techniques,namely the descriptive analysis and inferential analysis. For the purposes of inferential analysis, the approach that will be used is Multiple Regression and Path analysis.Based on the decomposition calculation in the Table 1 above, then itis possible to interpret the data by making a more exact estimation, that is by calculating employee performance variation proportion (Z) that can be predicted through instructive leadership style (X1), consultative leadership style (X2), participative leadership style (X3), delegative leadership style (X4), and motivation (Y). According to Winharsunu, to find out how big theinfluence of every free variable to tied variable is possible by calculating the multiplication of path coefficient (beta coefficient) with correlative coefficient of product moment[21].The amount of effective contribution can be found through the multiplication of path coefficient ( ) with the product moment coefficien t (r) for a certain variable. The effective contribution of the influencing varaible (exogen), i.e. instructive leadership style (X1), consultative leadership style (X2), participative leadership style (X3), delegative leadership style (X4), and motivation (Y) to the influenced variable (endogen) either directly or indirectly, with the whole effective contribution, with the following specification:1. The effective contribution of instructive leadership style (X1) directly to employee performance is 0.041 and the indirect influence through motivation variable (Y) is 0.299 with the total influence of 0.340 or 11.56%.2. The effective contribution of consultative leadership style (X2) directly to employee performance is -0.002; and the indirect influence through motivation variable (Y) is 0.508 with the total influence of 0.506 or 25.60%.3. The effective contribution of participative leadership style (X3) directly to employee performance is 0.054; and the indirect influence through motivation variable (Y) is 0.066 with the total influence of -0.012 or 1,2 %.4. The effective contribution of delegative leadership style (X4) directly to employee performance is 0.143; and the indirect influence through motivation variable (Y) is -0.106 with the total influence of 0.037 or 13,69%.3.DisscussionIn line with the hypothesis test, it turned out that three of the four path hypotheses proposed in this research were significant paths, while the other path was not significant and can be seen in the appendix. The significant paths were: 1) The effects of consultative leadership style through motivation with the coefficient of 0.714; 2) The effects of instructive leadership style through motivation with the coefficient of 0.420; 3) Motivation toward the employeeperformance with the coefficient of 0.712. First, based on the data analysis, The effects of instructive leadership style had the closeness of direct effects on employee performance and indirect effects through motivation with the correlation coefficient of 0.420 (close) and the determination coefficient of 0.34 or 11.56%.Therefore, it can be concluded that instructive leadership style had larger effects through motivation; yet, in order to increase the management’s support toward the employee performance, the target of accomplishing all activities needed to be noticed, including the enhancement of experience, insights, and the ability to manage the organization which was felt to be still inadequate. This was expected to better increase the management’s motivation both the work motivation and the commitment in the organization. Another thing that needed to be done was the giving of appreciation and reward to employees for their performance achievement.Instructive leadership style had indirect effects through motivation but it could direct all of the employee potential to give the best contribution to the organization, including the career development of all the employees. The motivation could be a mutual agreement between the management and employees in order to make the organization’s strategic decision. This was e xpected to better increase the work motivation and commitment to the organization. Theoretically, it can be explained that instructive leadership style indirectly affects through motivation and directly affects employee performance. To achieve performance and satisfaction is based on several types of human’s needs, namely the for achievement, power and affiliation. With his skills and abilities in solving problems, a leader has a desire to have good achievement. From the aspect of the need for power[22], Kreitner and Kinicki state that the need for power drives someone to influence, guide, and teach other people to achieve a good performance. From the aspect of need for high affiliation, it can take a lot of opportunities to maintain social relationships[23].The results of this research also support the research conducted by Riswanti Rini who concludes that there is a close effect between leadership and motivation[24]. Further, the results of this research also support fhis research also support the research conducted by Basuki[25] and Sanapiah[26] who conclude that there is a close and positive effect between leadershipand motivation. The better role of the management can only be achieved through the increase of leadership competence.Evidents of various sources support the premise that the effective leadership is closely related to higher performance[27], for example, a number of studies relate leadership commitment with leadership skills with better outcomes for example.Gabris, Golembiewski and Lhrkefound out that the performance of the US local governments related to the credilbilty of their executive leaders[28]. Similarly in the United Kingdom, studied how leadership qualities of an executive leader was instrumental in recovering the local government’s bad performance to become the loca government with the best performance. On the contrary, Andrews, Boyne, and Enticott found out that failure and bad performance in public sectors seemed to result from “the weak leadership in mobilizing performance improvement rather than the weakness of organizational structures and their processes”[29].Second, based on the data analysis, the effect of consultative leadership style directly affected employee performance as much as -0.002, and indirectly affected through motivation as much as 0.508 with the total effect of 0.506 or 25.60%. This showed that leadership style through motivation very strongly affected employee performance.Empirically, the results of this research explain that there were direct effects of consultative leadership style on employee performance and indirect effects through motivation in the Office of the Secretary, West Sulawesi Province, where the employees’ willingness to work with high motivation and to the best of their capabilities could be expected if they felt that their living needs were fulfilled, physically and non-physically, and if they felt suitable with the work being their job task and responsibilities. This motivated high performance with the time that had been allocated. The success achieved gave a satisfaction to them as employees. Meanwhile, from the dimension of consultative leadership style, the leader also made two-way communication (dialogs) to employees; which was to be enhanced and there was the feeling of togetherness, especially the leader could explain the role of every employee in doing the work collectively.The results of this research also support the research conducted previously. The results of this research show that consultative leadershipstyle had increased the emplo yee’s effectiveness and performance[30]. The study of leadership style was intended to notice the employees’ working spirit and morale. In the research of human relationships, among others to be traced is in Hawthorne, a study which was conducted in the factory of Western Electric in Cicero City of Illinois, USA.In the organization context, this study produced a premise that social and psychological factors could play an important role in determining employees’ work effectiveness and productivity.Third,based on the data analysis, the effects of participative leadership style directly affected employee performance and the indirect effects through motivation was -0.066, so the achieved total effects of participative leadership style on employee performance was 0.012 or 1,2 %.Empirically, the results of this research explain that from the dimension of participative leadership style, the leader only became an active listener. Besides that, the leader also gave authority to the subordinates to make decisions based on a mutual agreement. Therefore, all employees could communicate in two ways with the leader in line with the time that had been determined and in line with the needs and effiient use of resources. The thing to be improved was the involvement of subordinates in the programs and activities existing in every work unit of employees, and how the leader supported the subordinates in taking risks in order to create a more conducive atmosphere and a pride for every work unit of employees. This was intended to give praises for the success of the employee’s work to achieve the amount and cost of output as planned, including an achievement of better quality o f output. As part of accountability, the employee’s work performance and result should have been reported periodcally and punctually.The result of this research also support the research conducted by Robbins, stating that employees need to be involved in work so that it can bind themselves with their work to participate in it actively and to consider their performance important for their self-esteem[31]. The results of this research showed that the high work involvement proved to be related to the high level of presence, giving the employees an opportunity to participate in order to be able to contribute to some decisions that affect them, such as the determination of work objectives, solving performance problems, that could increase their work performance and satisfaction.Giving recognition to an employee is very important as suggested by Adair, in that giving recognition often becomes a much greater motivator. The nature of recognition-hunger is universal in nature. For talented people, this equals the desire for fame and victory[32].A leader must give recognition and show appreciation in several ways. Sincere words such as “very good” or “thank you” can elevate an employee’s morale. Y et, the similarly important thing is to create a climate of mutual respect for contributions among employees. Because the leader’s recognition coming from co-workers and colleagues is more valuable than the praise coming from the leader alone. Employees as social beings are hungry for appreciation coming from other people. Every employee will propose brilliant and more ideas if his effort is appreciated by other employees and the leader.In the review made by Hersey &Blanchard, they did a participative study in relation to situational leadership that showed some interesting things regarding the appropriate implementation of participation. Situational leadership shows that the higher the capabilities which someone has, the higher the possibility to participate, that will become effective leadership technology; and the lower the capabilities which someone has, the lower the possibility to participate[33].Fourth, the result of the direct effect of leadership style through motivation was -0.149, while the effect of delegative leadership style on employee performance through motivation was -0.106, so the result of the totaleffect of delegative leadership style on employee performance was 0.037 or 13,69%.From the dimension of delegative leadership style, the leader keeps giving rights to a subordinate to make decisions and to concentrate on his career to get to the top achievement. Besides that, decision making is also based on a mutual agreement. Therefore, all employees can work in line with subordinates’ activities and at the time that has been detemined in line with the efficient use of resources, that has to be increased to give morale and spirit to achieve the goal, so that it is possible to create a more condusive work atmosphere that becomes the pride of work unit for the achieved performance.。