Leadership and authority

Leadership and authority are considered to be one factor that creates improvements and change in a specific situation and organization. Understanding this, professionals must seek to enhance this potential to provide effective avenues that can contribute to change. Similarly, by looking into the difference between two concepts, each one can maximize their potential and effectively adapt it in particular cases and scenarios. Seeing this, leadership can be identified to be the person’s ability to transcend beyond the boundaries of values and promote effective work outputs among employees.
Moreover, in the issue of problem solving, leadership must transcend on creating opportunities for change. Lastly, the idea must be able to: (1) “regulate the degree of disequilibrium, (2) gives work back to relevant publics, (3) mobilizes them to do adaptive work, (4) instills a discipline of attending the gap between values and reality” (Ki Thought Bridge, 2006, p. 1). On the other hand, the idea of authority dwells in the ability/power of one to spearhead a particular program or objective for any business entity or organization.
With these ideas, it caters to several vital functions including (1) protection, (2) direction, (3) control of conflict, (4) maintenance, and (5) orientation (Ki Thought Bridge, 2006). Each person of authority must recognize their role in the environment they are involved and efficiently balance the rules and regulations norms towards employees/workers. In the end, “the distinguishing difference is that leadership creates dissonance in order for adaptive work to occur whereas authority, because of its definition and function, operates to constrain this level and depth of work” (Ki Thought Bridge, 2006, p.

1). Looking at it, there is a need to differentiate between the concepts because it will help individuals distinguish what is appropriate in a particular level and creates a collective effort among individuals to cooperate and take part in various work processes. There are different advantages in the way leadership can be supplemental to adaptive work. It gives the idea that the designated individual can devise new strategies and programs that can influence work outputs among workers.
By incorporating this thought in the processes, there can be an increased motivation and can cultivate others to perform more effectively and efficiently. One important benefit that can be gained in the process is it encourages and promotes reality testing. This means that a specific company and organization shall not dwell and impart its functions in an ideal manner. Preferably, it will cater to constructing useful outcomes and are accurate in nature (Heifetz, 1994). Another thing that can be gained is its ability to create an evaluation process.
Since this procedure is determining efficiency, the way it is facilitated must be accurate and congruent with what people are experiencing. Seeing this, standards can be created despite the lack of clear outcomes in a selected situation or production (Heifetz, 1999). Lastly, it caters to the understanding of human needs. Leaders must not be coercive in promoting this because it remains to be subjective in nature.
Due to this, leaders must look into this so “flexibility in response and the ideal of will and differing aspects of reality are more readily available to the leader and the community” (Heifetz, 1999, p.2). In the end, adapting this style can enable help increase commitment in bridging the gaps between processes and enables changes to happen along the way. “To meet challenges, to make progress, we must align reality with values, but the values themselves may also have to change” (Heifetz, 1999, p. 2).
References Heifetz, R. A. (1999) Leadership without easy answers. Retrieved November 30, 2008. 1-12. Ki Thought Bridge (2006) Leadership and Authority: A Matter of Adaptive Work. Retrieved November 30, 2008 from, http://www. kithoughtbridge. com/pages/42_leadership_and_authority. cfm