The Cycle of Leadership - Assignment Example

 Discussion Q 1 Participants should not make decisions but must allow such responsibilities to be carried out by leaders for several reasons. Executives do many things in addition to making decisions but only they make decisions, which is the first managerial skill. They are trained in the art of making them effectively, and must be held responsible at all times, regardless of the desires and inclinations of participants (Drucker 1974). Participants as the term aptly describe should however be vetted for their opinions before the decisions are made, so that when the choices are made, they will feel a part of the process, and cooperate more readily with their managers. There are times when the wrong decisions are made and the question of accountability comes into the equation. This is when leaders have to explain how and why they were made, and what recourse has to be made to recuperate losses as well as corporate images. Circumstances that pose immediate danger to life, property, sales revenues however, may lead to other leaders arising from lower level in the ranks to take charge. A building on fire or a company vehicle tied up in an accident traffic accidents and workers are indecisive as top what to do, are also typical examples of situations where participants will be require to make quick decisions. However, in the design of a product, choosing the most economical distribution routes, the location of the best manufacturing sites, as well as who to employ to fill certain positions, require considering alternatives, as well as others, and has to be done by trained and experienced executives. Leaders may also from time reject suggestions that do not conform to their expectations, but may suffer from a lack of cooperation when time comes for execution of the strategic decision that was un-democratically made. Decision making according to Drucker, should rest always with executives or leaders who should strive to maximize the inputs of their respective teams as much as possible. During such process they should make it known that the final responsibility for the decision rests with them, but they value the contribution of every participant, and will consider all options before deciding (Drucker 1974). Question Q 2 Power according to Etzioni, can be either coercive, utilitarian or normative (Tichy & Candwell 2002). The first type of leader uses force to get the job done, while the second uses incentives, especially in a working environment to achieve the same objective. Normative Power occurs when values are employed to appeal to the inner constitution of people to generate commitment and a sense of purpose. The kind of power that I can identify is the normative one, where people are treated with respect, and their opinions valued in any business or social operation. By constantly communicating those attributes people who are so treated, will feel a part of my team and will go the extra mile to help achieve the mutually established goals and objectives. In addition, at times I will employ the utilitarian source of power along with the normative to help my teams motivated. This is because although they will feel important, at times rewards will serve to reinforce those values that have been communicated to them. Having these two sources at my disposal will always lead to people become loyal, committed, disciplined and very flexible in a knowledge base economy that is subjected to changing conditions at times. These are the values that I may be able upon in times of crisis, when team support and innovations becomes extremely important to the maintenance of competitive edge. Discussion Q 3 My favorite and least favorite bosses were on opposite ends of a continuum, due to the leadership traits that they portrayed. The relationship between my most favored boss and me was an excellent one, and it made the work flow easy, even though at time some of the tasks were challenging. The fact that he was approachable, had an open door policy and facilitated discussions as to how best to approach the task at hand, made the work more satisfying. My favorite boss had no need to use his power in a coercive manner to intimidate anyone, because the goals and objectives established by the company’s Board of Directors were constantly met. However, my least favorite boss was misery to work with, in that although the work was structured, he lacked the level of technical expertise required for the job, and as a result acted as if he was insecure. Our relationship deteriorated further from the day he misrepresented the facts concerning an issue at the plant. His actions led to a breakdown in the level of trust between us, and because of this, he often used his authority in a coercive manner, to show that he was in charge, and I was just a subordinate. My most favored boss was superior in that his normative attitude made the workers feel important, and they in turn cooperated with him to get the job done effectively. In terms of categorizing each of these two bosses, my least favored boss could be classified as a low LPC leader because he is inclined to constantly support a value-attitude relationship, while my most favored boss could be described as a high LPC. This is because of how he used his good relationship to generate commitment to the task at hand on a daily basis. The two leaders had the desire to complete the task at hand as efficiently as possible, but their personalities and leadership styles propelled them to approach it differently. Their leadership styles fall appropriately within the Least Preferred Coworker Contingency model (LPC) as advocated by Fields (1964. 1967), where the situation motivates the relationship between leadership effectiveness and the traits they exhibit. Discussion Q 4 The leadership style exhibited by Alan in the two case studies fits perfectly with the Path Goal Theory of Leadership. House and Dessler (1994) purports rightly that a leader’s behavior will be viewed as acceptable to subordinates, to the extent that the subordinates see such behavior as an immediate source of satisfaction or as instrumental to future satisfaction. The nature of the task was that they were well structured. Each mechanic had an area of specialty and even the younger workers that were under Alan’s guidance had their work well differentiated. Alan’s strategy of assigning these tasks to each worker and allowing them to work at their own pace, using their specific skill, were acceptable to the team, and it became to them a source of present and future satisfaction. This is so, because each day they would look forward to coming to work, and to the jobs they liked, under the astute easy going leadership of Alan. Overall, they accepted their positions as subordinates because Alan made them feel important, especially when he regularly asked them for the suggestions as to how certain problems could be resolved. Alan created an environment of mutual trust in that he does not tell them how to complete certain tasks, but he made suggestions how they can be done or how he would do it if he were in their position. Team spirit also perpetrated the atmosphere where Alan joins any of his mechanics, and begins to work along with them in repairing certain cars that were posing specific problems that were challenging to their skill. Alan’s leadership style with respect to the nature of the task, the employees accepting their roles as subordinates, and the prevailing climate, fits perfectly in to the Path Goal Leadership Theory advocated by Evans (1971) and reformed by others including House and Dessler (1974). Alan’s typical style of leadership also seems to be dependent on the nature of the task and the effect of the environment. In a new scenario when the environment had change with the impending threat of the flood and the consequential damage expected to the cars, Alan changes his style to reflect this, but the message met resistance, in that the mechanics were not accustomed to this new authoritative approach, and thought he was not serious. Alan did not move away from the Path Goal Style but kept the pressure on, until they realized he was serious, and complied to move the cars and tools out of the path of the incoming flood. The mechanics changed their attitude because they viewed the new behavior of Alan as acceptable in light of the imminent danger. It was critical that in communicating to them, Alan let them know that they could decide who was wrong later, but his word in the situation was what all should obey, to avert the damage. Discussion Q 5 Nelson Mandela the former President of South Africa is a great leader because of certain leadership traits that he exhibited while in prison and after his release. According to Nelson Mandela Foundation, Mandela impressed his peers with his disciplined work and consistent effort, was later elected the ANC League Secretary in 1948. (Nelson Mandela Foundation 2011) He painstakingly worked campaigning at the grass roots levels and through the Iyaniso (Truth) Magazine was able to galvanize support for the ANC. His use Path Goal Theory allowed him to demonstrate traits such as being disciplined, hardworking in campaigning gained acceptance from the black South African followers and led to him becoming the head of the ANC. After leaving prison in 1994 he was elected President of South Africa. He led the change process by sacrificing himself, to the extent of endangering his life, and was able to generate support for the freedom of the people from oppression (Nelson Mandela Foundation 2011). A critical example of his leadership quality was when he began talks with the apartheid regime in 1985. He said, “there are times when a leader must move out ahead of the flock, go off in a new direction, confront that he is leading his people in the right direction” (Nelson Mandela Foundation, 2011). Discussion Q 6 Team performance depends on factors such as the nature of the task, the leadership style of the leader, the operating environment, satisfaction levels of the subordinates (both intrinsically and extrinsically) and the levels of motivation present. A leader, who makes the task simple and easy to follow, allows his subordinates to participate in decision making, allows some form of autonomy, becomes facilitator rather a coercive director, provides timely feedback t his team regarding outcomes, shows recognition verbally and financially, and celebrates milestones; he will often generate highly efficient self managed teams. They will enhance the cohesiveness of the team when they provide all the resources the team needs, set challenging goals and then remove themselves from the environment so that they can become their own bosses and be responsible for their own outcomes. Discussion Q 7 In the case study under consideration in the text, Alan the garage boss had to use two different approaches to get different types of jobs done. On a normal day he would assign each mechanic, based on his skill level different repair work or customer car that had been left for servicing. He would tell them what to do and leave them to complete the assignments. However on the day when there was a threat of flood, the atmosphere changed dramatically, as well the structured lay out of the task to be done. Alan had to then exert his authority aggressively by commanding all his subordinates to do exactly what he said immediately in order to prevent the flood from damaging the cars and other equipment that were on the property. Initially the mechanics did not take him seriously and began laughing but when they realized he was not joking they changed their minds and complied. Had the workers not made the change their perceptions by the persistence of Alan, the task may not have been accomplished, and significant damage may have occurred. References 1. Drucker, Peter F. (1974) Management Task Responsibilities, Practices. Harper & Row Publishers Inc, New York, NY (1974) p.465. 2. Tichy, Noel M., Candwell, Nancy (2002), The Cycle of Leadership. Harper Collins Publishers New York, NY pp. 132-147. 3. Nelson Mandela Foundation (2011). Biography. www.NelsonMandela.org/index.php/memory/view/biography /03/05/11. Read More