Are followers’ views of a leader’s effectiveness influenced by the level of Agreeableness and Extraversion

Are followers’ views of a leader’s effectiveness influenced by the level of Agreeableness and Extraversion their leader is perceived to display, and how would this affect the leader-follower relationship?

 

Sample Solution

The follower’s personal power includes specific education, knowledge, skills and expertise, as well as the energy to learn, accept undesirable projects, and to take responsibility beyond the boundaries of his job description. Every follower wields the power of relationships by which he can persuade others (including leaders) to move in the right direction. All of these can be valuable resources to the organization when used correctly. The position of a follower in an organization can also provide sources of power. His responsibilities may cause him to interact with many people. A central location provides influence because he is known to many and is directly involved in the work of many

Two very opposing happenings have happened over the previous year. From one viewpoint, distributed research progressively proposes that the exceptional yields on interests in advanced education are negligibly misrepresented and regularly even non-existent (Bryan Caplan’s point in his new The Case Against Education). The private individual increases from school don’t reflect much professionally significant adapting, but instead recognitions tell bosses that beneficiaries are more astute, progressively restrained, increasingly inspired laborers for reasons irrelevant to school expertise obtaining. This examination proposes that we are over-put resources into colleges, and that open appropriations for universities have a moderately low rate of return for the more extensive society.
The second opposing pattern is a developing development to energize participation by making school “free.” States, for example, New York, Oregon and, maybe to some degree shockingly, Tennessee, have grasped the idea of free educational cost for junior college participation. The recently chosen New Jersey representative Phil Murphy has eagerly grasped the thought, first provoked most obviously by Bernie Sanders, to be financed in New Jersey by raising expenses on rich inhabitants, with the best rate on the salary charge going to 10.75% from 8.97%, just as expanding the business charge.
There are some apparently great contentions with the expectation of complimentary junior college – we have free educational cost for eleventh and twelfth grade, why not thirteenth or fourteenth grade (junior college?) The expense of junior college is normally low – far not as much as that at traditional multi year colleges – and frequently even not exactly per student costs at some ludicrously wasteful extensive K-12 school locale. Thusly there is a case for prodding high-hazard understudies with hazardous scholarly records to go to these lower cost schools instead of costly four-year colleges, with simple exchange to the four-year schools if fruitful at the junior college level. There are likewise alluring contentions supporting those wishing to secure abilities like driving long separation trucks or welding, great paying professional employments in much interest.
In any case, there are three issues: the poor scholarly reputation of junior college participants, the conceivably negative monetary development suggestions from financing purported free school, and even some reasonableness issues. The latest National Student Clearinghouse information demonstrate that 47% of junior college enrollees drop out of school, unquestionably more than the 27% who graduate (others are st

This question has been answered.

Get Answer