Leadership Problems - Case Study Example

Executive Summary This report is a detailed examination of the case study of an automobile dealership. In the first section, it highlights the problems that the firm faced and the low level of production due to the in capabilities of the supervisor. He lacked the basic leadership traits and had a ‘Laissez-faire’ leadership style. The employees were not evenly empowered which created problems in the leadership. Lastly one of the major reasons of a problematic leadership was lack of motivation. The second section of the report points out the environmental factors that the new supervisor has to consider before assuming the role of a leader. He has to understand the team and be a transformational leader himself. He also has to modify his own behaviour incorporating the behavioural theory in his leadership style. He also has to use transactional style of leadership to reward and punish the employees appropriately. Also, he has to keep in mind that these employees have been working in this firm for a long time and have good relations with the owner which could work negatively for him. In the last section of the report it is illustrated how power can influence leadership. The right kind of power has to be given to the right person so that leadership can be healthy and meaningful. If powers are wrongly distributed or used then it would hamper leadership instead of helping it. Table of Contents Introduction 3 Leadership problems 3 Environmental factors affecting leadership 6 Powers influencing leadership 9 Conclusion 11 References 12 Introduction The right kind of leadership is essential for productivity of the firm. The employees cannot work appropriately in an environment where the leadership is sloppy. The employees need direction and goals and someone who binds them together making them into a team. This can only be done by a good leader who has leadership qualities and who knows just how to distribute powers and motivates the employees. Any imbalance in the above would cause misuse of powers by the employees and the leader himself which would inturn produce dissatisfaction among the employees affecting the production directly (Torbert 2004). Leadership problems The main problem of leadership in this situation is the lack of leadership qualities in the leader. He lacked the competencies of a good leader. This is the reason why the employees were unable to work in a team. He was not able to make them work together. Instead they became divided into two broad groups and worked on their own with no one to monitor their work and productivity, the previous supervisor was not bothered and concerned as he himself was not motivated about the productivity and deadlines of work (Coleman, 2004, pp. 297-319). According to Howell & Costly (2001), the leader lacked the basic leadership traits of a successful leader. For instance he was not ambitious and achievement oriented and thus he could not pass these traits on to the team. He was neither assertive nor had decision making qualities and was also not dominant to be able to take over the whole team and make them work towards the desired goals. His lack of energy, willingness to assume responsibility and persistence was the reason that the employees worked independently and never felt part of a team (Torbert 2004). As Torbert ( 2004) says, according to the Leadership Grid Theory, this supervisor falls under Impoverished management or the Laissez-faire leadership where he leader has very little care about production by the team and he takes the extreme path of indifference without any extra effort doing work just about enough to get by. This is the reason why the employees have least interest in their work and are not motivated to improve their work and perform better (Weiss 2002). The employees were not ‘empowered’ earlier and thus they did not have a sense of belonging and care for the work they did. They had no control over deadline, coordination, quality of work and thus they could not develop a sense of ownership towards their work. Some of the employees who are subdued were in a worse condition as only the other 4 had all the powers who were not made to realise that this power has to be equally shared between all the employees (Weiss 2002). Since there was a lack in the motivation in the leader himself, the employees are also disinterested and de-motivated and thus there was the absence of the motivational theory. As per the study of Howell & Costly (2001), the leader failed to use motivational tools to keep the employees motivated. He kept working in this indifferent style and the result is that the employees are used to working in this way. The employees have become divided into two groups where 4 work and do what they are required to do and the other 4 are the ones who are the more energetic ones who want a motivation and be more efficient (Yukl 1994). However, since there was a lack of a powerful leadership, their energies are not given the right direction and they are perceived as the trouble making group. As Torbert (2004), says, the leader did not use the cognitive resources theory where he had to coordinate his intelligence and experience to maximize employee productivity. It was the incapability of the previous supervisor who had left his employees to do what they felt like doing. There was no deadline and keeping a tab on the productivity and achievements of the employees. It was immaterial if the employees made extra efforts or if they did not work at all. Thus since the leader was unable to establish a healthy relationship between the employees and make them into a real team, this affected the productivity of the employees who did not have any sense of direction or achievement in their work. This inability on the part of the supervisor also divided the team into a superior and inferior lot which served to further de-motivate the employees (Coleman, 2004, pp. 299-304). . As per Weiss (2002), the leadership failed as there was a lack of action centered leadership and the supervisor could not coordinate the task, team and the individual. The employees were not aware of the importance of their tasks as the tasks were not assigned by their leader and thus there was no concept of meeting deadlines. According to Howell & Costly (2001), there was a lack of communication and the environment was not right for work. Thus the employees were unable to work together as a team as they were not delegated work and had no need to work in coordination inter-depending on one another. This infested a feeling of de-motivation as individuals did not have a sense of achievement and they were dissatisfied at work because they did not have a sense of achievement (Yukl 1994). Environmental factors affecting leadership According to Weiss (2002), Ted has to realise that he has a difficult task of transforming sloppy workers into efficient employees even with the presence of active troublemaking team mates. As the new supervisor, Ted has to assess the environmental factors very well before assuming his duties and taking a course of action to lead his employees. He has to study and understand the environment that he is exposed to before he can device a strategy to supervise this team in a productive manner as any manipulation of these employees would prove troublesome for Ted. He has to firstly understand that this team is used to working in a laid back fashion and has never really been dictated and worked in conjunction with a real supervisor who tells them what to do and how to conduct their job within a deadline. According to Torbert (2004), they do not have the drive and passion to work and their motivation to work has vanished. Ted has to be a transformational leader for them setting examples for them to follow and look up to him. He has to give them a vision so that they can work with dedication. He has to modify his own behaviour according to the Behavioral Theory and behave like a leader by showing concern for the team and the work, participate in the work himself and also give directions to the team as a whole(Warneka 2006). For a stranger like Ted to walk in one day and ‘tell them what to do’ could back fire for him and unless he knows exactly how to handle them by first understanding their nature and knowing them as individuals (Coleman, 2004, pp. 298). Secondly Ted also has to understand that this work group is old and has good relations with the management and dealers. Chances are that the management would get rid of Ted instead of firing anyone of these team-mates if Ted suggests that. This is because the management believes that this team can work well under good supervision (Warneka 2006). Also, the team has a leader already who is the troublemaker of the team and all the employees do as he says. This employee is also the key skills person and the company cannot get rid of him and therefore Ted has to be in his good books and be able to control him before he can supervise the whole team. At the same time he also has to make sure that this employee doesn’t use his skilfulness to his advantage like he currently does (Torbert 2004). According to Warneka (2006), Ted also has to consider that half the employees are with the troublemaker but the other half is docile and dormant. They do not participate in any troublemaking and just do their work. 4 employees are different and the other four are just the opposite. Keeping this in mind he has to handle the troublemakers differently giving them a different kind of motivation and the dormant workers have to be handled in a different style. At the same time he also has to be unbiased and treat everyone in such a way that they don’t think that the supervisor takes sides (Yukl 1994). To be able to do that he should use transactional leadership where he rewards and punishes the employees as motivation to enable them to be productive. He should reward those employees who work without making trouble and reach their target and punish those who create difficulties in the work environment and everyone should have well defined work assignments. Ted also has to keep a tab daily, weekly and monthly productivity of the team as a whole and the productivity of individuals and keep the management posted on all the progress so that the management is aware as this was never done by the previous supervisor (Warneka 2006). Powers influencing leadership According to Coleman (2004), Ted is the supervisor i.e. above all the employees. He has been given the legitimate power to be above the employees and monitor their work and productivity. This power can obviously help Ted tremendously if he uses it appropriately. He can dictate the employees and keep an eye on their day-to-day productivity and monitor their output in the long run. He can tell them what to do and what not to do and direct the team in such a way that they are most productive. As Warneka (2006) claims, this is something that the earlier supervisor did not do and thus there were sloppy work habits and a bad work environment. Also, with this power Ted can invigorate a sense of motivation and willingness to work within the employees by coordinating them and communicating with them and developing a healthy relationship amongst them. Thus Ted will be able to lead the group better if he utilizes his powers skillfully. According to the study of Howell & Costly (2001), Ted also has Reward and Coercive power which means that he has the ability to reward any employee who performs up to the mark or may be above the mark. When the employees will get a reward and appreciation for their better performance they will be motivated to work efficiently. The troublemaking employees who also distract other employees making the environment difficult to work can be controlled with coercive powers by punishing them whenever they try to create problems. This can be in terms of monitory punishment or working extra hours so that the employees realize that their boisterous behavior will cost them. At the same time to calm these employees Ted should have a proper method of lodging complaints and addressing problems in the work environment instead of creating a hue and cry (Torbert, 2004). The employee who is the troublemaker is also the only employee knowing the inventory system. He uses his Expert power to his advantage and deters other employees from work and makes things difficult at work by creating trouble. He has already made a team with 3 other employees and thus they have become a nuisance for the whole firm yet this troublemaker cannot be fired due to his expertise. As Howell & Costly (2001) say, this power makes things difficult for Ted as the overall team has become sloppy and has low productivity. Ted cannot dictate terms to him as this employee may outright reject to do as told without fear as he knows that the firm cannot fire him. He is making the work environment difficult to work in and at the same time has made the employees slow and bad workers. This power of the employee negatively works for the firm and Ted and is making things difficult for Ted. This is the major issue of the problems at this workplace (Coleman, 2004, pp. 299-315). The employees are not united in troublemaking which is something good for Ted as at least half of the employees would be willing to listen to Ted and would not participate in problem creation. Using this to his advantage, Ted can have the power to divide the employees and work on them accordingly. Had all the employees been united in troublemaking, Ted’s job would have been a lot more difficult (Howell & Costly 2001). . All employees know the owner well and have been with the firm for a long time. This power can work negatively for Ted. As per the study of Torbert (2004), if he is too harsh on them then the employees could team together and ask the owner to fire Ted as he is making things difficult for them. Ted has to be very careful how e handles the team and should not go overboard in his style of supervision of he could lose his job. Conclusion Leadership is an important element for an organization. It is essential that the leader has the right kind of traits and have the ability to direct the team and make them work together towards a directional goal and achieve it. If the leadership is flawed then the productivity of the employees is gravely affected and a lot of effort has to be put in by the new leader to instil a feeling of belonging and ownership in the employees. As per Coleman (2004), for a productive team the leader has to be assertive and dictating and should be strong enough to control the employees. At the same time he should be ale to empower the employees in a balanced way so that every employee willingly works and is content at the workplace and maximises productivity. References   Coleman, P 2004, Implicit Theories of Organizational Power and Priming Effects on Managerial Power Sharing Decisions: An Experimental Study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 297-321. Howell, J & Costley, D 2001, Understanding Behaviors for Effective Leadership. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River. Howell & Costly (2001) Torbert, W 2004, Action Inquiry: the Secret of Timely and Transforming Leadership. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA. Warneka, T 2006, Leading People the Black Belt Way: Conquering the Five Core Problems Facing Leaders Today. Asogomi Publications Intl. Cleveland, Ohio. Weiss, W 2002, Building and Managing Teams. SuperVision, vol.63, no. 11, pp.19-21. Yukl, G 1994, Leadership in Organizations. Third Edition. Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Read More