Paul's Leadership Situation in terms of His Sources of Power - Assignment Example

1. Why did Paul have problems making changes and maintaining discipline when he was first promoted to a position that required leadership? Most efforts to bring changes in a firm are always unsuccessful. The disruption brought about by change and its scariness often makes people to resist change. In some instances changes initiated in firms don’t last long and hence people often go back to old ways of transacting activities. Various reasons have been documented to be responsible for resistance to change in firms. Some of these includes no finding enough justification to undergo change, unknown outcome that may result from adoption of new methods of conducting business, concern over personal loss, believing that the change initiated is not the interest of the firm and little tolerance for change (Robinson et al. 192). It seems that Paul encountered problems in making changes because people in his organization did not see the need for it and believed that it was unnecessary. Such views and beliefs are often based on powerful mental maps, simplistic views of the past, present and future. We are told that Paul had established strong relationship with fellow employees who seem to have created powerful mental maps within them. This could have led to the attitudes of employees of not taking Paul serious when he was elevated to leadership role and tried to initiate some changes at the firm. The mental maps that were created when Paul was still a junior employee seem to have made employees to desire to maintain the previous status quo and hence Paul could not succeed in his initiatives (Garrett 18). The mental maps created earlier on in the relationship between Paul and fellow employees while still a subordinate employee could not allow the employees to think of and treat Paul as a leader but rather encouraged them to see him as an equal employee. This could have contributed to Paul’s failure to maintain discipline among his employees. In addition, since Paul used to relate with other employees in a simplistic way prior to becoming a leader, the employees could have extended this to present time when Paul was elevated. This could have made the employees to feel that there was no need of doing things the way Paul wanted since what they were used to had been working. Thus the employees did not see any difference between Paul’s past status as an employee and the present state as a leader (Robinson et al. 192). Paul failure could also be attributed to his fear of loosing prior friendship relationships with fellow employees (Garrett 21). Paul had previously invested much effort in cultivating friendship with fellow employees and thus he feared losing such relations if he employed some leadership types such as autocratic. In addition, since Paul had established himself as a performer, he feared consulting his seniors because he thought they will think of him as a failure. As a consequence of this, he failed to instil discipline among employees since he could not punish the employees who failed to follow his directives (Robinson et al. 193). His failure could also be attributed to employees’ perception of him and his perception. It seems employees perceived Paul as any other employee and hence did not offer him the respect that he desires in the present status. Paul’s perception that consultation implies failure could also have contributed to his failure because he could not consult and thus could not punish those who violated his directives (Robinson et al. 223). 2. Analyze Paul's leadership situation in terms of his sources of power. Are there types of power he couldn't or shouldn't use? What types of power could he draw on, and how could he use those types to greatest effect? For one to be an effective leader he/she ought to be able to influence the behaviour of his subordinates. This enables him/her to have followers who will be willing to obey him/her. The relationship that exists between the leader and his/her followers is what is referred to as leadership. For people to be influenced the leader must have power (Garrett 23). Thus power is an essential dimension of leadership that one need to have for him/her to be an influential leader. Leaders often encounter conflicts in their day to day interaction with their subordinates. Leaders thus need to come up with workable psychological contracts with their subordinates in order to resolve such conflicts effectively. Paul is unable to influence the behaviour of his subordinates. Thus they do not obey or follow whatever he directs them to do. Paul seems unable to influence his subordinates owing to lack of referent power. Even though he has interacted with them before being promoted to leadership status he seems not to know their motives, values, preferences and interests. He has not invested in building relationships by use of shared goals, motives and interests. In addition, Paul seems to be concerned more with his status rather than relating with people equally (Huczynski and Buchanan 710-711). In spite the situation that Paul has found himself in; he should not use coercion power and authoritative power. This is because such power will make other employees see him as a dictator and he will loose his strong relationship that he has build over time with current employees. This is true as seen in the case when Paul tried to use authoritative power he lost m any of his friends and they still didn’t obey his directives. However, Paul can employ other forms of power such as reward power, referent power and expert power expert power to influence his subordinates (French and Raven 607-623). Paul can use reward power by complimenting his employees and using symbolic gestures of praise while interacting with his employees. In addition Paul can employ referent power by sharing information and building common interest among his juniors in order to build team work and shared values. Expert power can also be employed by Paul since he is well versed with knowledge and skills needed for better performance of the firm. This should be used to help others when solicited and should be given freely. However, Paul should not offer unsolicited expertise or withhold expertise when needed. Paul can also use group power by collectively solving problems and resolving conflicts via discussion. However, Paul should not allow a few individuals to dominate such discussions since this will make others feel inferior and hence become uncooperative in whatever resolutions are devised in such discussions (Huczynski and Buchanan, 710-711). 3. Which traits, skills and behaviours associated with successful leaders does Paul possess? Cite specific examples in support of your answer. As defined before a leader is a person has the power to influence other and who has managerial authority. From trait theories of leadership, a leader ought to possess traits such as self confidence, bravery, strength, decisiveness, intelligence, enthusiasm and integrity. There are seven traits which have been identified to be consistent among many leaders. The first trait is the drive. It has been established that leaders have a high effort level. They often have a high craving for achievement and are usually ambitious and posses lots of energy. They are usually tirelessly persistent in their activities and they show initiative. Paul has the drive trait. From the case we are told he worked tirelessly and accomplished his tasks on time in addition to helping others finish their. He was ambitious to become a leader and he worked hard to attain it. We see Paul trying to initiate new methods of working at his firm although he is faced with resistance. Desire to lead is another trait that is possessed by most leaders. Studies have shown that leaders have the desire to influence and lead others in addition to demonstrating the willingness to be responsible. Paul has this desire to lead others but it seems he does not know how to do it. We see that when he finds out that many employees are not obeying his orders he tries to use authoritative means to influence them. Self-confidence is another trait that is almost universally possessed by leaders. This trait seems to be lacking in Paul since he does not make his followers to know the need to employ new methods of carrying out their duties. In addition, leaders are usually intelligent and hence are involved in gathering, synthesizing and interpreting vast amounts of data and are able to make correct decision, create visions and solve problems. This is another trait that Paul seems to lack. He is unable to make decisions and solve problems facing the firm. Job relevant knowledge is another trait that seems to run across all leaders. Leaders are known to have a high degree of knowledge concerning the industry, the firm and technical matters. Such knowledge enables leaders to make well informed decisions. Paul has this trait since we are told he acted as consultant when problems arose between the firm’s clients he was the one called upon to handle such situations. He has technical knowledge and he even won several recognitions at the firm. Finally, leaders have an extraversion trait. They are usually lively and energetic people who are sociable, rarely silent and assertive. As indicated in the case Paul is sociable and almost all employees at the firm in technical section liked him. Thus Paul has extraversion trait (Robinson et al. 296-297) Leaders need skills such as active listening, provision of feedback, ability to delegate, negotiate and manage conflict. Paul seems to be an active listener since we are told he had good communication skills and active listening is part of this. However, it seems Paul lacks skills delegate, negotiate and manage conflict (Robinson et al. 360) There are two types of leadership behaviour: employee oriented and production oriented. Paul seems to be employee oriented because he values his relationship with his employees and thus does not emphasize task aspects of the job. (Robinson et al. 300) 4. How could Paul improve his leadership effectiveness in his new position? Apply relevant leadership theory/theories to answer the question. In order for Paul to improve his leadership effectiveness in his new position he need to be production oriented rather than employee oriented. This is because technical job at the firm is not group oriented. According to Fiedler contingency theory, an individual’s leadership style is usually fixed and its effectiveness can only be improved in two ways. First is by bringing in a new leader whose style better fit the situation (Garrett 91). For instance, Fiedler proposes that where group situation is highly unfavourable and people are being led by relationship oriented leader then in order to improve the performance of the group the leader ought to be replaced by a task oriented leader. Fiedler provides another alternative in such situation where he proposes that the situation ought to be changed to fit the leader. Since, Paul is in a situation which requires a task oriented leader but he is a relationship oriented leader, the situation need to be changed to enable Paul to become a task oriented leader. Fiedler suggest that the situation can be changed by either restructuring tasks or by increasing or decreasing the power that the leader had over factors such as promotions, salary increases and disciplinary actions or through improvement of the leader-member relations. Thus Paul could increase his influence over his subordinates by asking the manager to empower him to have a say in matters such as promotions, salary increases and disciplinary actions to enable him become a task oriented leader. Paul can also try to restructure the tasks at the firm to allow group work so that he can continue using his relationship oriented leadership (Robinson et al. 302-303) Paul can also use situational leadership theory to improve his leadership. From the case, employees at the firm are able but are unwilling to do what Paul wants (Palestini and Moyer 71). We are told that the employees have been competent but when there is changeover of leadership from previous leader to Paul, they do not want to do what they are directed by Paul. From situational leadership theory, it is proposed that under such situation leaders need to employ participative leadership style in order to gain support. Participative leadership requires leaders to share in decision making. Thus, Paul can improve his leadership by allowing his employees to participate in any decisions that he makes by facilitating and communicating with them. This will allow Paul to involve his employees when devising new effective ways of carrying out their tasks. As a result employees will feel part of such decisions and thus they will work hard to implement them rather than what is happening now where he devised the methods alone. This has led them to feel that Paul is trying to impose such methods on them and hence they are uncooperative (Robinson et al. 303-304) Works Cited Garrett, Steve. Leadership Strategies: Strategies That Will Make You a Better Leader in Your Business, Your Community, and Your Family. London: Steve Garrett & Associates, Incorporated, 2006. Palestini Robert, and Moyer Jamie. Practical Leadership Strategies: Lessons from the World of Professional Baseball, 3rd Ed. London: R&L Education Read More