[Essay] Would you mind taking a look at the essay below and assess my average performance?

[paveltashkinov]

Text 1
The ‘Affiliative Style’ revolves around people – its proponents value individuals and their emotions more than tasks and goals. The affiliative leader strives to keep employees happy and to create harmony among them, building strong emotional bonds and then reaping the benefits of such an approach, commanding fierce loyalty.
There is a markedly positive effect on communication, and flexibility also rises because the affiliative leader gives people the freedom to do their job in the way they think is most effective. However, this style can allow poor performance to go uncorrected and, since affiliative leaders rarely offer advice, employees can be left in a quandary.
Text 2
The ‘Pacesetting Style’ focuses on tasks and goals, with the leader setting extremely high performance standards and exemplifying them personally. Underachievers are swiftly identified and more demanded of them – if they don’t rise to the occasion, they are replaced. Employees tend to feel overwhelmed by the pacesetter’s demands for excellence, and morale drops. Guidelines for working may be clear in the leader’s head, but are often not stated clearly. People feel that the pacesetter doesn’t trust them to take any initiative. Flexibility and responsibility evaporate; commitment dwindles because people have no sense of how their personal efforts fit into the big picture.

Both texts shed a light on the two ways of exerting leadership. Text 1 highlights the benefits of the ‘Affiliative style’, with an approachable leader who enables his/her subordinates to act in the way that appears to them most, albeit it’s not a paragon of management, leaving a room for poor performance and having employees baffled with inexplicable or abstruse tasks they might encounter during their work. Text 2 is dedicated to the ‘Pacesetting Style’, when an authoritative leader shows an exemplary behaviour to his/her employees, thus motivating them to outperform. Even though it might be efficient, it’s worth remembering that under these conditions responsibilities and standards to be met are usually tacitly implied in the leader’s head, rather than unambiguously expressed in any other way. Additionally, employees might feel that there is no room for improvement. As a consequence, they might abandon their attempts of being initiative and, eventually, lose their motivation, given that their leaders will not accept such behaviour.
In my opinion, there is a grain of truth within Text 1. There is tangible evidence that once employees feel psychologically comfortable during their work, they are more alacritous and thus can attain the otherwise unattainable goals. It’s also true, though, that sometimes they have to tackle their problems on their own, without any help from above. A touch of verisimilitude can also be found within Text 2. When a leader sets an example, it does wonders with performance, albeit at the expense of initiative and responsibility. That approach can lead to the detriment of employees and, consequently, a whole company.

 

[teechar]

Both texts shed light on the two ways of [STRIKE]exerting[/STRIKE] exercising leadership. Text 1 highlights the benefits of the ‘Affiliative style’, with an approachable leader who enables his/her subordinates to act in the way that appeals to them the most. Nevertheless, [STRIKE]albeit it’s not a paragon of[/STRIKE] it is not necessarily the ideal style of management, leaving room for poor performance and having employees baffled with inexplicable or abstruse tasks they might encounter during their work. Text 2 is dedicated to the ‘Pacesetting Style’, when an authoritative leader [STRIKE]shows an[/STRIKE] models exemplary behaviour to his/her employees, thus motivating them to outperform. Even though it might be efficient, it’s worth remembering that [STRIKE]under these conditions[/STRIKE] with this style responsibilities and standards [STRIKE]to be met are usually tacitly implied[/STRIKE] are often only clear in the leader’s mind, [STRIKE]head,[/STRIKE] rather than unambiguously expressed otherwise. [STRIKE]in any other way.[/STRIKE] Additionally, employees might feel that there is no room for improvement under this management style. As a consequence, they might abandon their attempts of [STRIKE]being[/STRIKE] showing initiative and, eventually, lose their motivation, given that their leaders will not accept such behaviour.
In my opinion, Text 1 presents some justified arguments. [STRIKE]there is a grain of truth within Text 1.[/STRIKE] There is tangible evidence that once employees feel psychologically comfortable [STRIKE]during[/STRIKE] in their work, they are more likely to be focused and productive [STRIKE]alacritous[/STRIKE] and thus can attain [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] otherwise unattainable goals. It’s also true, though, that sometimes they have to tackle their problems on their own, without any help from above. [STRIKE]A touch of verisimilitude can also be found within Text 2.[/STRIKE] Hence, Text2 also has valid points. When a leader sets an example, it does wonders to [STRIKE]with[/STRIKE] performance, albeit at the expense of initiative and responsibility. [STRIKE]That approach can lead to the detriment of employees and, consequently, a whole company.[/STRIKE]