Leadership Styles of Sergey Brin and Jeffrey Preston Jeff Bezos - Case Study Example

A Comparison of Leadership Styles of Sergey Brin and Jeffrey Preston "Jeff" Bezos Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Sergey Brin Sergey Brin is a Russian-born American. He was born in 1973 to Jewish parents in Moscow and he is an internet entrepreneur who co-founded Google (Malseed, 2007). It is estimated that his net worth as of 2011 is $16.7 billion. Sergey Brin met Larry Page at Stanford University while pursuing PhD. The suspended their studies PhD studies to start Google in 1998. Partnership between Sergey and Larry ensued when they found out that they both had interest in retrieving information from large data sets. Google went public in 2004. Jeffrey Preston "Jeff" Bezos Jeffrey Preston "Jeff" Bezos is American businessman who founded Amazon.com. he was born in 1964 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. As of September, 2011, Jeffrey Preston "Jeff" Bezos had a net worth of $19.1 billion. He is a graduate of Pi graduate of Princeton University (Bio., 2011). He is a former financial analyst of D.E Shaw & Co. prior to starting Amazon.com in 1994 (Bio., 2011). The company was floated on the stock market in 1997 and it showed its first modest profit in 2001. Currently amazon.com is a multinational e-commerce company which sells books, CDs, DVDs, MP3 downloads, video games, computer software, clothes, electronics, toys, food and furniture (Woopidoo, 2011). Leadership situation For one to be an effective leader he/she ought to be able to influence the behavior of his subordinates. This enables him/her to have followers who will be willing to obey him/her (Bio., 2011). The relationship that exists between the leader and his/her followers is what is referred to as leadership (Suuronen, 2005). For people to be influenced the leader must have power. 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 (Crawford, 2005). Leaders thus need to come up with workable psychological contracts with their subordinates in order to resolve such conflicts effectively. It is argued that Sergey was always a one man show prior to meeting Larry (Malseed, 2007). He is argued to lack the ability to empower his team but i9nstead micromanages people. On the other hand Jeff is said to be a visionary and a man who is on the surface is easy going but keeps his employees on demanding schedules (Bio., 2011). This enables him to influence them. Leadership is argued to be dependent on the situation. This view is supported by very many social scientists. Leadership entails the process of influencing others. It can be defined as the potential or capacity to influence others. Leadership is represented in all aspects of a process that entails the source of influence, the cognitive processes in the source, the kind of interaction which makes the influence possible and the situational context of the influence (Suuronen, 2005). The situational theory proponents have argued that the real causes of effective and ineffective organizational leadership reside in the structural features instead of the characteristics of the people who lead those firms. It is further argued that the traits of leaders are a reflection of the mechanism by which they are selected and that their behavior is constrained by the situations facing them (Bio., 2011). The view that the attributes of the leaders are irrelevant to the firm’s effectiveness has three assumptions: leaders have very limited power; candidates for a certain leadership position will be expected to go through the same selection screen that will drastically curtail their differences; and any remaining differences among individuals will be overpowered by situational demands in the leadership role. Sergey is argued to be a result oriented leader and has technical skills to help in advising his team (Malseed, 2007). Thus his effectiveness lies in the skills he posses and being result oriented. The engineers he deal with most of them have cvarying tasks and coordination is what is required more than controlling the team. Jus like Sergey, Jeff is also result oriented and gives his employees demanding tasks to be completed within specified time (Crawford, 2005). Due to shortcomings of argument that leadership is dependent on situation, contingency theories arose and they incorporate traits of leadership and situational variables (Suuronen, 2005). From Fiedler’s studies, it was established that the relationship motivated leader outperforms the task motivated leader in four of the eight situations but that the reverse was true in the other four situations (Woopidoo, 2011). He therefore concluded that leadership motivation is closely related trait description rather than to a behaviour description (Bio., 2011). This implies that a leader needs to be placed in a situation which is more favourable to his or her style of leadership for him to be effective. Fiedler’s argument has been partly been supported by some studies carried out after his (Suuronen, 2005). Thus Sergey’s success can be attributed to the situation prevailing at Google where he deals with engineers who do not need him to be social but rather be able to provide technical skills advice (Malseed, 2007). On the other hand, the success of Jeff is attributed to his visionary and his easy going. Contingency theory arose shortly after publication of Fiedler and argued that leadership depend on contingency factors such as subordinate characteristics and environmental characteristics (Suuronen, 2005). It argued that when the behaviour of employees are appropriately matched to the situation, job satisfaction is attained, leadership is accepted and there is elevation of effort to performance and performance to reward expectation (Bio., 2011). The characteristics of engineers who are Sergey’s subordinate seems to favour the success of Sergey as a leader since the only demand from him is the ability to provide technical skill advice and setting goals for them (Malseed, 2007). He is also able to encourage career development of his engineers that motivates them. The demanding nature of e-commerce seems to influence Jeff’s treatment of his employees by coercing them to do demanding tasks (Woopidoo, 2011). Leadership approaches Leadership approaches include the great man approach, trait approach, attitudinal approach, situational, transformative and Goleman’s leadership approaches. Attitudinal approach emphasizes attitudes or predispositions towards leader behavior. The great man approach is the earliest view of leadership. Here the attention was directed toward great men and women leaders in history and on their personalities. This approach assumed that the route to becoming an effective leader was via studying the lives of great leaders and emulating them (Suuronen, 2005). However, various leaders across the globe portray varying personal qualities. It is also difficult to emulate such great leaders. In spite its shortcoming; it is still being pursued in the commercial and industrial world. It can be argued that Sergey’s success is based on his brilliance and having met Larry (Crawford, 2005). The ability of Jeff to set tasks for his employees and demand that they accomplish them within a specified time seem to influence his success. Trait approach refers to attempts of linking leadership qualities not with certain individuals but instead listing a number of traits which are believed to relate to effective leadership. It is a set of theories which seeks personal, intellectual or social traits that differentiate leaders from non-leaders (Bio., 2011). The following attributes have been identified as being instrumental for effective leadership. First is the ability to build effective teams (Suuronen, 2005). Sergey is argued to lack the skill of building an effective team due to the fact that he is not a sociable person. However, some people argued that he has matured enough and the situation he finds himself in forces him to be sociable and it is believed that having been given the position of being in charge of product innovation, this skill will be enhanced. On the other hand, Jeff has social skills that enable him to be easy going on the surface but at the same time demand that the employees accomplish the set tasks. Second is the ability to listen (Suuronen, 2005). As stated above Sergey is a one man show is argued to lack the ability to communicate and listen effectively. Contrary to Sergey, Jeff is a good communicator and listener although sometimes when it comes to tasks he demands that they be accomplished as he demands (Malseed, 2007). Next is the capability to make individual decisions. Sergey has technical skills and is result oriented and hence can make independent decisions without consulting his subordinates. Like Sergey, Jeff has technical skills which enable him to assist his employees in terms of advice (Woopidoo, 2011). Moreover, such leaders have the capability of retaining good people. Given that Sergey has a close relation with his engineers and is interested in their career development, he is able to retain talented engineer and attract others from the labor market (Crawford, 2005). The coercive nature of Jeff seems to deny his firm the capability of retaining employees but rather experiences increased turnover. Finally, effective leaders have the ability to surround themselves with good people. As argued above Sergey’s success is partly credited to him having met Larry (Malseed, 2007). This implies that he has the ability to surround himself with good people. The experience that Jeff had on Wall Street and technical background have contributed to his success. In spite this there is no universal set of traits since they vary from situation to situation with changes in the leader, the followers and the situation (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). There are two major dimensions of leader behavior: consideration and initiation structure. Consideration refers to leaders who show concern for members of the team such as giving recognition, developing mutual trust, nurturing self esteem and inviting participation (Suuronen, 2005). Initiation of structure refers to the leader who organizes the group, defines relationships emphasizes the need to hit deadlines and maintain quality, specify the task and how it is to be done and defines lines of responsibility and clarifies roles. Sergey seems follow initiation structure given that he is a result oriented leader who has poor social skills to enable him to follow consideration behavior (Bio., 2011). Like Sergey, Jeff seems to follow initiation structure where he sets goals for his employees and demands that they be accomplished within set limits of time (Malseed, 2007). Situational leadership approach is based on the belief that good leadership skills involve four varying approaches: directing/telling; coaching/selling; supporting/participating; and delegating. Directing/telling is where the leader makes decision without consulting whereas coaching/selling is where the leader makes decisions but takes time to explain his decisions to the team in order to win their support. On the other hand, supporting/participating is where the leader consults the team concerning the situation and considers their view when making decision (Crawford, 2005). Delegation refers to where the leader gives control to the team to make the decisions and provides support and encouragement to the team but takes responsibility if anything goes amiss (Suuronen, 2005). The situational leadership approach argues that a good leader will know the best leadership style to adopt based on the prevailing situation. Sergey seems to apply directing/telling approach where he sets tasks for his team and directs them to complete within specified time (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). Jeff also seems to apply the directing approach. Transformative leadership approach on the other hand argues that good leaders appeals to the emotions of others. It is argued that they are able to do this by increasing awareness of the task and placing value on its importance. They also encourage a focus on organizational or team goals prior to personal interests (Suuronen, 2005). In addition, such leaders activate higher order needs in others which allow them to find ways to encourage self-esteem and self actualization. Sergey cannot be said to be transformative leader since he lacks the skills to inspire his team (Malseed, 2007). The coercive nature of leadership pursued by Jeff does not enable him to be a transformative leader. Goleman’s leadership approach recognizes six unique leadership styles based on the notion of emotional intelligence. These styles include visionary, coaching, affiliative, democratic, pace setting and commanding. Visionary implies that the leaders have the ability to inspire other via their views of the future (Crawford, 2005). Coaching implies that leaders are able to take time to work with individuals and encourage their development. Affiliative implies that the leader fosters cooperation via networking and relationship building. On the other hand, democratic implies that leaders work toward consensus (Suuronen, 2005). Pace setting refers to leaders who set an example to others via enthusiasm and positive work ethic. Finally, commanding implies that leaders take responsibility for decision making where called for. Sergey seems to use commanding approach to make decisions and set tasks for his team and expects them to accomplish it within specified time (Malseed, 2007). Jeff also uses commanding approach to make decisions. Leadership and management styles Four major leadership styles have been established. They include: authoritarian or autocratic, participative or democratic, delegative or free reign and bureaucratic. Most leaders employ all the four leadership styles. Poor or bad leaders often stick to a single leadership style. Whereas Sergey uses democratic style, Jeff uses autocratic leadership style. Autocratic leadership style is characterized by leaders who tell their workers what they want done and how they want it accomplished without seeking any advice from their followers (Crawford, 2005). Research has shown that autocratic leadership can be the most effective style to use in several situations. One of such situations is when employees do not respond to any other leadership style (Suuronen, 2005). Another situation is where employees are new and untrained who are not aware of the tasks they ought to perform or procedures they ought to follow. In addition, autocratic leadership style can be effectively applied in effective supervision which requires detailed orders and instructions. Autocratic leadership is also effective where there are high volume production requirements on a daily basis (Bio., 2011). Other situations where autocratic leadership are effective include areas which were previously poorly managed, the need for coordination of work with another department or organization, where employee challenges the power of the manager and where there is limited time for making decisions (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). However, autocratic leadership style should not be applied in situations where employees become fearful, tense or resentful, employees expect to have a say in decision making process, employees become dependent on managers to make all their decisions and where there is low employee morale, high absenteeism and turnover and work stoppage (Woopidoo, 2011). The need for coordination of tasks at Amazon.com seems to be the driving force behind Jeff utilizing this style of leadership. He expects his employees to obey his orders. The work at the firm also involves detailed orders and instructions and hence this style is suited for Jeff’s situation. Democratic leaders are often involved in developing plans which help employees to evaluate their own performance. The democratic leadership style is most effective in various situations. For instance, this style is effective when the leader wants to inform employees about matters that affect them (Bio., 2011). In addition, it is suited when the leader wants employees to share in problem solving and decision making duties. Furthermore, the style is suitable in situations where the leader wants to provide employees with opportunities for developing a high sense of job satisfaction and personal growth. The style is also effective in situations where there is a complex or a large problem which requires a lot of input to solve. It is also essential when implementing changes or solving problems which affect employees or groups of employees. It is also effective when the leaders are interested in building team spirit and encouraging employee participation. Some situations such as where there is limited to get input from everyone are not suitable for employment of this leadership style. Sergey and his co-founder of google are known to follow democratic style of decision making. The development of products at Google requires shared problem solving and decision making duties and this situation compels Sergey to employ democratic style. In addition, product development at Google requires input from various employees and hence democratic style is bvest suited for the p5revailing situation. Roles of stakeholders Stakeholders under the Harvard model include shareholders, management, employee groups, government and community unions. Under this model stakeholder interest recognize the need for trade offs which can either be explicitly or implicitly between the owners’ interests and the interests of employees and their organizations and the unions. Overall, Google values its employees. As such, since Sergey is not the CEO of the company he is compelled to align his leadership with the company’s culture of being interested in the employees (Malseed, 2007). Employees at the firm are well paid and supported in their work. Sergey is especially known for supporting the engineers he work with in technical skills. It is argued that Google creates one of the most fascinating and relaxing workplace for its employees. The firm offers a variety of perks to employees including free food, laundry cleaning, massages, swimming, electric cars and gym access (Morgeson, 2005). To pursue environmental concern, Google allows its employees to use their electric cars and to do laundry in Google building which are more environmentally friendly. On the other hand at amazon.com employees are expected to work for long, hardworking and be smart and one cannot choose two out of the three attributes. The customers are valued more than employees. Thus employees need to be dedicated to sacrifice and have a passion for working to survive the pressure at the firm. The turnover at the firm is high given the fluctuating employment levels at the firm. Google also exhibit an investor’s view. The firm recently developed new products under the leadership of Sergey when he was the CEO in 2010. It is argued that Sergey seems not to place emphasis on his shareholders as exemplified by his action to remove Google’s operations in China. The firm also monitors its stakeholders such as Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Facebook instead of collaborating with them and treats each of them as a definitive stakeholder. This allows having a competitive advantage over them in the long run (Yukl, 2006). The firm values customers and the investors at the expense of employees. Jeff seems to place the needs of the customers at the forefront and tasks his employees to meet these needs. Increased satisfaction of customers in turn results in increased revenue for the company and hence for shareholders. Nature and performance of the organization Both Google and amazon.com are web based companies. However, the profitability of Google is much higher as compared to that of amazon.com. The performance of Google can be attributed to leadership which values its people while that of amazon.com could be due to low motivation of employees. due to motivation at Google, employees are more innovative and come up with competitive ideas that spar growth and profitability of the firm. Conclusion The leadership employed by Sergey differs to some extent to that employed by Jeff and this seems to depend on the prevailing situations at the two firms. Even though the two leaders have some similarities they differ in the style of leadership. Whereas Jeff uses autocratic leadership, Sergey employs democratic leadership style. References Bio. 2011. Synopsis: Jeff Bezos. Retrieved from http://www.biography.com/people/jeff-bezos-9542209 Crawford, C. J. (2005). Corporate rise the X principles of extreme personal leadership. Santa Clara, CA: XCEO Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A Theory of Team Coaching. Academy of Management Review, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 269-287. Malseed, M. 2007. The Story of Sergey Brin: How the Moscow-born entrepreneur cofounded Google and changed the way the world searches. Retrieved from http://momentmag.com/Exclusive/2007/02/200702-BrinFeature.html Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The External Leadership of Self-Managing Teams: Intervening in the Context of Novel and Disruptive Events. Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 497-508. Suuronen, H. 2005. Leader of the future. Research Paper: The Department of Information Systems. Abo Akademi University. Retrieved from http://www.henricsuuronen.com/portfolio/leaderfuture.pdf Woopidoo. 2011. Bibliography: Jeff Bezos. Retrieved from http://www.woopidoo.com/biography/jeff-bezos/index.htm Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Read More