Is Political Intelligence a Powerful Form of a Leader - Research Paper Example

 Journal Article Analysis: The great intimidators Introduction There are different managerial styles that managers use whenever managing human resource in their organizations. With time, the management theory has evolved over time. While every managerial style has its own advantages, it has its own disadvantages. These form the advantages or disadvantages, which prompt managers to use a particular managerial style or not. Intimidation in the recent past has become a popular managerial style, one that is widely used by successful corporate managers. While it aims at instilling fear by scaring subordinates to perform, it has had significant outcomes. Discussing the effectiveness of intimidation, this essay will critically analyze Kramer’s article, the “The great intimidators.” Additionally, it will look at the effectiveness of using intimidation by a business leader in an effort to achieve results. Discussion of the topic Intimidation, being a common managerial style among current business managers is gaining popularity among the corporate world. According to Kramer (2006), although subordinates find intimidating leaders rather tough and hard to deal with, these leaders, and managers find the style rather effective in managing their subordinates. Intimidation involves a number of elements, which prompts subordinates to work according to the desire of the managers. Subsequently, the managers in the organization decide on the most effective way of handling their employees. The bottom-line of this research’s argument; leaders have to be intimidating and equally tough in order to achieve results. However, achieving intimidation for a leader does not happen automatically in an organization. The manager has to show readiness and willingness to coarse a number of individuals in order to achieve results. How effective then is this managerial style to a manager? The fact that subordinates are responsive its application is the main reason why the author believes ion its efficiency. Addressing managers, the author argues that the most effective method that managers can use to achieve results is the use of political style of leadership. Without any form of compromise, a manager can get subordinates to achieve results whenever he wishes. For instance, in an organization whose subordinates show unwillingness to handle their work, the manager can effectively use this style of management in order to achieve results. Results, Findings, Conclusions Kramer (2006) points out that it is only through intimidation that subordinates can work in order to achieve results. He conducts research on the effects of intimidation by managers and leaders of different corporations. By conducting an analysis of different corporation managers, Kramer concludes that intimidation is an important management style for different managers. He observes that for the transformation of the Motorola Company, which is far from complete, took the efforts of an intimidating leader, Ed Zander, who forced subordinates to strive in order to achieve results. Harvey Weinstein, is yet another leader whose success is vested in his abrasiveness and readiness to rough shoulders with the subordinates. According to Kramer (2006), these leaders are not averse in causing ruckus. In fact, they are ready to use a few public whippings in order to make workers achieve results. With the limited time, these individuals use draconian rules in order to achieve results from their subordinates. Although some of the workers believe that the main influence of their actions is ego, the reality is not true; vision motivates them to behave in the manner they do. However, this method does not function automatically without a particular well-established strategy. Political style of leadership is one of the effective leadership styles in an organizational setting (Troutwine, 2006). Political intimidation takes the form of social intelligence, which mainly focuses on a leader’s interpersonal skills. Although social leaders and political leaders are different, they still share a number of characteristics. Both have keen and discriminating eyes. On the other hand, they act differently based on their divergent perceptions. Further, Kramer (2006) observes that politically intelligent leaders appreciate the power caused by fear, and its close connection with anxiety, reasoning that in some instances, fear does the work of reason. As a strategy, the great intimidators use force in order to review how strongly they feel about an issue. With the understanding of the importance of intimidation in the success of an organization, Kramer makes an analysis of the most effective tactics used by intimidators in achieving their results. Getting up close and personal with their subordinates and using the power of language influences the employees in a particular way. Being angry, keeping the employees guessing and possessing the know-it all attitude helps in achieving results. Kramer concludes that it is by tramping on people’s feelings that managers achieve results through their subordinates (2006). Analysis and implications of the results In the current competitive business environment, managers seek for the most effective ways of achieving results through their employees. With the increase in globalization of the world economy, there has been an increase in the number of businesses competing for the same market. Achieving a competitive advantage for these corporations involve more than just the coordination of organizational resources. Striving to influence organizational workers, who are the most important resource in the organization to achieve results, is the most effective method of gaining a competitive advantage over other organizations. With this understanding therefore, it is important for an individual manager to apply intimidating form of organizational management and leadership in order to achieve results. Otherwise, with other managers using this style of leadership, it is important for a manager to use the same managerial style in order to achieve results. Conceptual integration Employees do not like leaders who use a political form of leadership. With the level of intimidation that corporate managers show whenever they use political style of leadership in their organization, not only does it spark emotions among the subordinates, it leads to rebellion of some of the employees (Argenti, 2013). As Kramer (2006) points out, whenever a manager uses intimidation, employees associate this with ego. However, just like political leaders conduct their activities with vision, corporate managers too use vision in order to coarse their employees to strive and achieve results. Implications for professional development Personally, I believe that the research helps me develop into a better manager, and organizational leader. While we rebuke managers who rule their institutions with a draconian leadership style, I now realize why these individuals are successful in their positions. Taking an example of Ed Zander, I would practice being tough, coercive and intimidating ion order to achieve organizational success. As I have realized, being a soft leader does not contribute to any organizational success, but instead leads to subordinates laxity. Conclusion Conclusively, intimidation is an important management tool that managers use in order to achieve results. Although the employees are opposed to this form of leadership, managers understand that for the sake of organizational performance, intimidation is mandatory. References Argenti, P. A. (2013). Corporate communication. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Kramer, R. M. (2006). The great intimidators.(leadership styles). Harvard Business Review, (2), 88. Troutwine, R. (2006). Ruling by Fear and Intimidation. T+D, 60(1), 14. Read More