TEXT

      Hundreds of studies have assessed leadership styles, mainly by having employees report on how their managers typically behave. Researchers have also collected information on how effective managers are. After large numbers of such studies became available, reviewers aggregated them quantitatively to discover what kinds of leadership are effective.

      One conclusion that has emerged based on the research of the past 30 years is that a hybrid style known as transformational leadership is highly effective in most contemporary organizational contexts.

      A transformational leader acts as an inspirational role model, motivates others to go beyond the confines of their job descriptions, encourages creativity and innovation, fosters good human relationships, and develops the skills of followers. This type of leadership is effective because it fosters strong interpersonal bonds based on a leader’s charisma and consideration of others. These bonds enable leaders to promote high-quality performance by encouraging workers rather than threatening them, thus motivating them to exceed basic expectations.

      By bringing out the best in others, transformational leaders enhance the performance of groups and organizations.

      Transformational leadership is androgynous because it incorporates culturally masculine and feminine behaviors. This androgynous mixing of the masculine and feminine means that skill in this contemporary way of leading does not necessarily come naturally. It may require some effort and thought.

      Men often have to work on their social skills and women on being assertive enough to inspire others. It is nonetheless clear that both women and men can adapt to the demands of leadership in the transformational mode.

      One of the surprises of research on transformational leadership is that female managers are somewhat more transformational than male managers. In particular, they exceed men in their attention to human relationships. Also, in delivering incentives, women lean toward a more positive, reward-based approach and men toward a more negative and less effective, threat-based approach. In these respects, women appear to be better leaders than men, despite the double standard that can close women out of these roles.

      Why are women leaders more transformational when they are less likely to become leaders in the first place? One reason is that the double standard that slows women’s rise would work against mediocre women while allowing mediocre men to rise. As a consequence, the women who attain leadership roles really are better than the men on average.

      It is also true women generally avoid more domineering, “command and control” behavior because of the backlash they receive if they lead in this way. Men can often get away with autocratic behavior that is roundly disliked in women. Ironically, this backlash against domineering women may foster good leadership because the androgynous middle ground is more likely to bring success. Leaders gain less from ordering others about than from forming teams of smart, motivated collaborators who together figure out how to solve problems and get work done.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2013/03/20  

TEXT

      Hundreds of studies have assessed leadership styles, mainly by having employees report on how their managers typically behave. Researchers have also collected information on how effective managers are. After large numbers of such studies became available, reviewers aggregated them quantitatively to discover what kinds of leadership are effective.

      One conclusion that has emerged based on the research of the past 30 years is that a hybrid style known as transformational leadership is highly effective in most contemporary organizational contexts.

      A transformational leader acts as an inspirational role model, motivates others to go beyond the confines of their job descriptions, encourages creativity and innovation, fosters good human relationships, and develops the skills of followers. This type of leadership is effective because it fosters strong interpersonal bonds based on a leader’s charisma and consideration of others. These bonds enable leaders to promote high-quality performance by encouraging workers rather than threatening them, thus motivating them to exceed basic expectations.

      By bringing out the best in others, transformational leaders enhance the performance of groups and organizations.

      Transformational leadership is androgynous because it incorporates culturally masculine and feminine behaviors. This androgynous mixing of the masculine and feminine means that skill in this contemporary way of leading does not necessarily come naturally. It may require some effort and thought.

      Men often have to work on their social skills and women on being assertive enough to inspire others. It is nonetheless clear that both women and men can adapt to the demands of leadership in the transformational mode.

      One of the surprises of research on transformational leadership is that female managers are somewhat more transformational than male managers. In particular, they exceed men in their attention to human relationships. Also, in delivering incentives, women lean toward a more positive, reward-based approach and men toward a more negative and less effective, threat-based approach. In these respects, women appear to be better leaders than men, despite the double standard that can close women out of these roles.

      Why are women leaders more transformational when they are less likely to become leaders in the first place? One reason is that the double standard that slows women’s rise would work against mediocre women while allowing mediocre men to rise. As a consequence, the women who attain leadership roles really are better than the men on average.

      It is also true women generally avoid more domineering, “command and control” behavior because of the backlash they receive if they lead in this way. Men can often get away with autocratic behavior that is roundly disliked in women. Ironically, this backlash against domineering women may foster good leadership because the androgynous middle ground is more likely to bring success. Leaders gain less from ordering others about than from forming teams of smart, motivated collaborators who together figure out how to solve problems and get work done.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2013/03/20  

TEXT

      Hundreds of studies have assessed leadership styles, mainly by having employees report on how their managers typically behave. Researchers have also collected information on how effective managers are. After large numbers of such studies became available, reviewers aggregated them quantitatively to discover what kinds of leadership are effective.

      One conclusion that has emerged based on the research of the past 30 years is that a hybrid style known as transformational leadership is highly effective in most contemporary organizational contexts.

      A transformational leader acts as an inspirational role model, motivates others to go beyond the confines of their job descriptions, encourages creativity and innovation, fosters good human relationships, and develops the skills of followers. This type of leadership is effective because it fosters strong interpersonal bonds based on a leader’s charisma and consideration of others. These bonds enable leaders to promote high-quality performance by encouraging workers rather than threatening them, thus motivating them to exceed basic expectations.

      By bringing out the best in others, transformational leaders enhance the performance of groups and organizations.

      Transformational leadership is androgynous because it incorporates culturally masculine and feminine behaviors. This androgynous mixing of the masculine and feminine means that skill in this contemporary way of leading does not necessarily come naturally. It may require some effort and thought.

      Men often have to work on their social skills and women on being assertive enough to inspire others. It is nonetheless clear that both women and men can adapt to the demands of leadership in the transformational mode.

      One of the surprises of research on transformational leadership is that female managers are somewhat more transformational than male managers. In particular, they exceed men in their attention to human relationships. Also, in delivering incentives, women lean toward a more positive, reward-based approach and men toward a more negative and less effective, threat-based approach. In these respects, women appear to be better leaders than men, despite the double standard that can close women out of these roles.

      Why are women leaders more transformational when they are less likely to become leaders in the first place? One reason is that the double standard that slows women’s rise would work against mediocre women while allowing mediocre men to rise. As a consequence, the women who attain leadership roles really are better than the men on average.

      It is also true women generally avoid more domineering, “command and control” behavior because of the backlash they receive if they lead in this way. Men can often get away with autocratic behavior that is roundly disliked in women. Ironically, this backlash against domineering women may foster good leadership because the androgynous middle ground is more likely to bring success. Leaders gain less from ordering others about than from forming teams of smart, motivated collaborators who together figure out how to solve problems and get work done.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2013/03/20  

TEXT

      Hundreds of studies have assessed leadership styles, mainly by having employees report on how their managers typically behave. Researchers have also collected information on how effective managers are. After large numbers of such studies became available, reviewers aggregated them quantitatively to discover what kinds of leadership are effective.

      One conclusion that has emerged based on the research of the past 30 years is that a hybrid style known as transformational leadership is highly effective in most contemporary organizational contexts.

      A transformational leader acts as an inspirational role model, motivates others to go beyond the confines of their job descriptions, encourages creativity and innovation, fosters good human relationships, and develops the skills of followers. This type of leadership is effective because it fosters strong interpersonal bonds based on a leader’s charisma and consideration of others. These bonds enable leaders to promote high-quality performance by encouraging workers rather than threatening them, thus motivating them to exceed basic expectations.

      By bringing out the best in others, transformational leaders enhance the performance of groups and organizations.

      Transformational leadership is androgynous because it incorporates culturally masculine and feminine behaviors. This androgynous mixing of the masculine and feminine means that skill in this contemporary way of leading does not necessarily come naturally. It may require some effort and thought.

      Men often have to work on their social skills and women on being assertive enough to inspire others. It is nonetheless clear that both women and men can adapt to the demands of leadership in the transformational mode.

      One of the surprises of research on transformational leadership is that female managers are somewhat more transformational than male managers. In particular, they exceed men in their attention to human relationships. Also, in delivering incentives, women lean toward a more positive, reward-based approach and men toward a more negative and less effective, threat-based approach. In these respects, women appear to be better leaders than men, despite the double standard that can close women out of these roles.

      Why are women leaders more transformational when they are less likely to become leaders in the first place? One reason is that the double standard that slows women’s rise would work against mediocre women while allowing mediocre men to rise. As a consequence, the women who attain leadership roles really are better than the men on average.

      It is also true women generally avoid more domineering, “command and control” behavior because of the backlash they receive if they lead in this way. Men can often get away with autocratic behavior that is roundly disliked in women. Ironically, this backlash against domineering women may foster good leadership because the androgynous middle ground is more likely to bring success. Leaders gain less from ordering others about than from forming teams of smart, motivated collaborators who together figure out how to solve problems and get work done.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2013/03/20  

TEXT

      Hundreds of studies have assessed leadership styles, mainly by having employees report on how their managers typically behave. Researchers have also collected information on how effective managers are. After large numbers of such studies became available, reviewers aggregated them quantitatively to discover what kinds of leadership are effective.

      One conclusion that has emerged based on the research of the past 30 years is that a hybrid style known as transformational leadership is highly effective in most contemporary organizational contexts.

      A transformational leader acts as an inspirational role model, motivates others to go beyond the confines of their job descriptions, encourages creativity and innovation, fosters good human relationships, and develops the skills of followers. This type of leadership is effective because it fosters strong interpersonal bonds based on a leader’s charisma and consideration of others. These bonds enable leaders to promote high-quality performance by encouraging workers rather than threatening them, thus motivating them to exceed basic expectations.

      By bringing out the best in others, transformational leaders enhance the performance of groups and organizations.

      Transformational leadership is androgynous because it incorporates culturally masculine and feminine behaviors. This androgynous mixing of the masculine and feminine means that skill in this contemporary way of leading does not necessarily come naturally. It may require some effort and thought.

      Men often have to work on their social skills and women on being assertive enough to inspire others. It is nonetheless clear that both women and men can adapt to the demands of leadership in the transformational mode.

      One of the surprises of research on transformational leadership is that female managers are somewhat more transformational than male managers. In particular, they exceed men in their attention to human relationships. Also, in delivering incentives, women lean toward a more positive, reward-based approach and men toward a more negative and less effective, threat-based approach. In these respects, women appear to be better leaders than men, despite the double standard that can close women out of these roles.

      Why are women leaders more transformational when they are less likely to become leaders in the first place? One reason is that the double standard that slows women’s rise would work against mediocre women while allowing mediocre men to rise. As a consequence, the women who attain leadership roles really are better than the men on average.

      It is also true women generally avoid more domineering, “command and control” behavior because of the backlash they receive if they lead in this way. Men can often get away with autocratic behavior that is roundly disliked in women. Ironically, this backlash against domineering women may foster good leadership because the androgynous middle ground is more likely to bring success. Leaders gain less from ordering others about than from forming teams of smart, motivated collaborators who together figure out how to solve problems and get work done.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/ 2013/03/20  

Brazil wants to count trees in the Amazon rainforest

By Channtal Fleischfresser

February 11, 2013

Photo: Flickr/Nico Crisafulli

          Brazil is home to roughly 60 percent of the Amazon, about half of what remains of the world’s tropical rainforests. And now, the country has plans to count its trees. A vast undertaking, the new National Forest Inventory hopes to gain “a broad panorama of the quality and the conditions in the forest cover”, according to Brazil’s Forestry Minister Antonio Carlos Hummel.

       The census, set to take place over the next four years, will scour 3,288,000 square miles, sampling 20,000 points at 20 kilometer intervals and registering the number, height, diameter, and species of the trees, among other data.

         The initiative, aimed to better allocate resources to the country’s forests, is part of a large-scale turnaround in Brazil’s relationship to its forests. While it once had one of the worst rates of deforestation in the world, last year only 1,797 square miles of the Amazon were destroyed – a reduction of nearly 80% compared to 2004.

(www.smartplanet.com. Adaptado.)

Brazil wants to count trees in the Amazon rainforest

By Channtal Fleischfresser

February 11, 2013

Photo: Flickr/Nico Crisafulli

          Brazil is home to roughly 60 percent of the Amazon, about half of what remains of the world’s tropical rainforests. And now, the country has plans to count its trees. A vast undertaking, the new National Forest Inventory hopes to gain “a broad panorama of the quality and the conditions in the forest cover”, according to Brazil’s Forestry Minister Antonio Carlos Hummel.

       The census, set to take place over the next four years, will scour 3,288,000 square miles, sampling 20,000 points at 20 kilometer intervals and registering the number, height, diameter, and species of the trees, among other data.

         The initiative, aimed to better allocate resources to the country’s forests, is part of a large-scale turnaround in Brazil’s relationship to its forests. While it once had one of the worst rates of deforestation in the world, last year only 1,797 square miles of the Amazon were destroyed – a reduction of nearly 80% compared to 2004.

(www.smartplanet.com. Adaptado.)

Brazil wants to count trees in the Amazon rainforest

By Channtal Fleischfresser

February 11, 2013

Photo: Flickr/Nico Crisafulli

          Brazil is home to roughly 60 percent of the Amazon, about half of what remains of the world’s tropical rainforests. And now, the country has plans to count its trees. A vast undertaking, the new National Forest Inventory hopes to gain “a broad panorama of the quality and the conditions in the forest cover”, according to Brazil’s Forestry Minister Antonio Carlos Hummel.

       The census, set to take place over the next four years, will scour 3,288,000 square miles, sampling 20,000 points at 20 kilometer intervals and registering the number, height, diameter, and species of the trees, among other data.

         The initiative, aimed to better allocate resources to the country’s forests, is part of a large-scale turnaround in Brazil’s relationship to its forests. While it once had one of the worst rates of deforestation in the world, last year only 1,797 square miles of the Amazon were destroyed – a reduction of nearly 80% compared to 2004.

(www.smartplanet.com. Adaptado.)

Brazil wants to count trees in the Amazon rainforest

By Channtal Fleischfresser

February 11, 2013

Photo: Flickr/Nico Crisafulli

          Brazil is home to roughly 60 percent of the Amazon, about half of what remains of the world’s tropical rainforests. And now, the country has plans to count its trees. A vast undertaking, the new National Forest Inventory hopes to gain “a broad panorama of the quality and the conditions in the forest cover”, according to Brazil’s Forestry Minister Antonio Carlos Hummel.

       The census, set to take place over the next four years, will scour 3,288,000 square miles, sampling 20,000 points at 20 kilometer intervals and registering the number, height, diameter, and species of the trees, among other data.

         The initiative, aimed to better allocate resources to the country’s forests, is part of a large-scale turnaround in Brazil’s relationship to its forests. While it once had one of the worst rates of deforestation in the world, last year only 1,797 square miles of the Amazon were destroyed – a reduction of nearly 80% compared to 2004.

(www.smartplanet.com. Adaptado.)