Creating a Successful Leadership Style - Assignment Example

MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES, DGL INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDY By student’s Name Instructor’s Name Course Name College Date Introduction Management is one of the most important practices in small businesses, government institutions, and non-governmental organizations. Private companies as well as corporate companies show practice visionary leadership styles, underpinned on the organizational goals and objectives. The organizational management is ideally influenced and spearheaded by those at the helm of top leadership positions. Usually, management’s main objective is to design, coordinate and maintain an ambient organization’s working environment for the eventual accomplishment of the outlined goals and objectives. Many scholars have documented several leadership styles and theories which can effectively be applied by different leaders for the purpose of managing human resource services and the general wellbeing of the organizational functional structures. Question One Arnold and Ukpere (2014, p. 721) argues that the “existence of authoritative, autocratic, participative/democratic, transactional, laissez-Faire and transformational leadership” styles among others. Typically, there is no universally accepted leadership style subject for use by all managers. This is because each and every person in leadership position has his/her management principles. Hence, the provided case of John Terrill’s leadership approach (es) is basically an example to justify leadership styles. The DGL International, one of the internally reputed manufacturers of refinery equipment is apparently at the verge of poor performance, especially from technical engineering department. Therefore, the company’s top leadership stakeholders have therefore recruited John Terrill to the managerial to help improve the performance of the company’s technical department. John Terrill has been “charged with the management of twenty engineers who are apparently smiling all the way to the bank” for hefty payment despite their perceived poor performances (Samson & Daft 2012, p. 57). Mr John is therefore instructed to ensure the department picks up and averts from its previous poor performance so that the company can realize high productivity. Tactically, Mr. John Terrill calls an immediate meeting with the 20 engineers to fact file the reasons behind the inexplicable poor returns in the department despite high payment. Although the new department manager was impressed by the team’s level of cooperation during the meeting, he was perturbed by the raging complaints engineering team levelled against the company’s top leadership (Samson & Daft 2012). Consequently, Mr. John Terrill was forced to clarify his on the future working relationship with not only the engineering team, but top management as well. He ordered for the paradigm change in the manner in which daily, weekly and even monthly technical department reports are handled. The engineering team had put forth the allegation that they were indeed not carrying duties they had expected but had become pencil pushers. This implied that the company was barely implementing recommendations put forth by the technical department to improve productivity. Therefore, Mr. John realised that state of company’s challenges could only be solved by conducting situational analysis of the issues at hand. The technical manager thus opted to use no specific leadership style but rather wanted to handle issues as they emerged (Yoong 2010). This can particularly be shown by his first initiative to call an impromptu fact filing meeting, after which he deliberated on based on his leadership principles. Arguably, Mr. John Terrill had used participative leadership style immediately he had held the meeting. This is because he decided to involve each and every person irrespective of one’s leadership echelon in the company (Rausch & Anderson 2011). However, Mr. John Terrill channelled more effort where he had apparently seen weaknesses. Besides his participative skilful approach to issues affecting technical management, Mr. John Terrill had both the company’s poor state of performance and workers’ welfare at heart. Therefore, Mr. Jon knew very well the advantages and the shortcomings of embracing participative style of leadership. This can be shown by his authoritative principle of leadership also. Apparently, the new manager only held the meeting to find out where the problems could be based after which he deliberated rather than soliciting for the final decision from technical team members. Ideally, the company recruited Mr. John Terrill mainly because the situation had already been identified and marked in red. So there was no way he could have solicited for the employees’ final decision (Morse & Babcock 2013). Instead, he became authoritative and ordered for the paradigm shift in how daily reports were being handled. Insightfully, Mr. John Terrill wanted to confirm whether the department was failing as a result of employees fault as had been alleged. However, the “tactful manager later found out that the top management bored the greatest responsibility” for not having the company goals and objectives at heart (Samson & Daft 2012, p. 57). Mr. John Terrill brought this in broad daylight when the company secretary called for the usual end month meetings. The technical manager was surprised and baffled that no single person, not even the top management asked for even one of the technical reports over the previous three weeks. The technical team seemed relieved and cheered their manager when he dragged a stack of report to the meeting to bring the point home. Therefore, the departmental manager, Mr. John Terrill had the powers to order for the change, especially when it came to matters concerning the company’s goals and objectives. Seemingly, the company’s other departments, including the financial watchdog were less concerned with the goings in the departments under whose dockets did not fall. Mr John Terrill was particularly annoyed when the secretary only called to request for the departmental expenses over the last one month. According to Terrill, he had expected the secretary, like any other stakeholder with the company’s goals at heart to come over, take and read the reports (Koontz & Weihrich 2010). Moreover, Mr. John Terri derived his immense powers from the top executive owing to the fact that he had been instructed to turn around the technical department’s poor performance. Question Two Yes, based on the situational leadership analysis in DGL International, Mr. John Terrill should have embraced a task behaviour structured leadership model. Mujtaba and Sungkhawan (2011, p. 4) apparently “confirm that there is no singly universally accepted leadership style”. Therefore, situational leadership is particularly helpful to the managers in conducting what could otherwise be referred to as diagnosis of the situation. The model is pinned on the direction of task behaviour and the magnitude of various socio-emotional supports, also known as relationship behaviour (Daft 2007). A good leader should basically act depending on the situation as might have been revealed from the model hence the readiness emanating from the followers. On the other hand, task behaviour and relationship behaviour explicitly address two dimensional strategies of management. On one side, the leader adopts autocratic and democratic styles of leadership whereas on another side the leader applies employee and production minded strategies. Ideally, Mr. John Terrill should have participated more on task behaviour structured leadership owing to the fact he was new in the company. Despite Mr. John Terrill made a commendable step in convening the meeting to establish the root cause of the problem, he could have recognised the main reason of his recruitment; turning around technical department performance. The company Chief executive officer had categorically instructed John to not only make changes in technical department, but also demanded a productive department (Hymowitz 2008). Therefore, it would have been more imperative if john had initiated task behaviour structured management strategy. This is because task behaviour strategy would have enhanced DGL International engineering employees’ willingness and readiness of accomplishing the outlined goals and objectives. Mr John would have taken the bull by the horns and explained what need to be effected in technical department. According to Yoong (2010, p. 3), the “employees’ ability and ease of accomplishing company goals and objectives partly depend on effective communication from leadership”. Therefore, Mr. John ought to have not only expressing employees’ welfare on the first attempt to rectify the situation. It can also be argued that the new manger should have taken time to think on which leadership to adopt rather than participating with employees whose welfare he barely knew of. Prior to relevant instructional direction on how and when to carry out technical reforms agenda, the manager would not have adopted full participative leadership style. New leaders basically need to reduce socio-emotional support to employees who have previously performed poorly or failed to readily and willingly take up responsibilities. The employees could easily brand the incoming leader soft and take that as weakness thus continue with the usual merry making in the name of charging the expected responsibilities. The situation has been clearly portrayed when the 20 engineers cheered Mr. John, especially when he was seen pulling the stack of reports (Samson & Daft 2012). They must have thought that their newly recruited manager was in one or another supporting them. In fact, the company CEO and top managers were seriously bewildered when they learned that John had just placed the stack on the table and banged it. In situational leadership, new leaders are advised to reduce extreme relationships with employees lest the company performs poorly. Instead, “low relationship/ high task situational leadership model” should be adopted as a new leader slowly adjusts to the working environment (Mujtaba & Sungkhawan 2011, p. 10). This is because people have varying degree of readiness and willingness to undertake specific tasks depending on the function or objective of leader’s motive behind an attempt to push for the completion of the tasks. Consequently, four main task and behavioural oriented have been identified in the situational leadership model namely high risk/low relationship leader; high-task/higher relationship; low-relationship/low task oriented; and high-relationship/low-task oriented situational leaders. The four should critically be analysed and applied depending on the company needs, objectives, and goals on the ground. According to Bonnici (2011, p. 20), one must identify the appropriate readiness and level of maturity of different people charged with responsibilities. Leaders therefore have the role to establish the level of maturity, willing and readiness of each and follower. After the appropriate level has been established, the leader steps forward to determine, preferably by drawing continuum sowing maturity level against the leadership style. The four maturity levels and preferred situational leadership model are usually denoted by M1, M2, M3, M4 and S, S2, S3 S4 respectively. Each maturity level is matched with the corresponding situational leadership style model (Yoong 2010). For instance, M1 goes hand in hand with S1 denoting low maturity thus telling/directing leadership style. Question Three Arguably, John Terrill tried his best leadership styles and theories despite critiques emanating from the situational leadership model. John Terrill attempted to analyse workers situations against company’s expectations (Samson & Daft 2012). He finally made frantic call on technical department employees comprising 20 engineers to establish the root cause of the problem. In fact John openly asked his followers what dragging their feet from effectively performing to accomplish company goals and objectives. Consequently, John was made to believe that top management was particularly not interested in the daily reports delivered to his office. Though hastily, John came to the conclusion that the company CEO and stakeholders at the helm of management squarely responsible. According to situational leadership model, John is however criticized owing to his hastily approach of making concluding remarks on the root cause of failure in technical department. Therefore, had I been personally contracted by DGL International as the new technical department manager to help improve performance, I would have mainly used transformational leadership style (Ahmed & Meehan 2011). This is because the employees should be put to account for hefty remunerations apparently being offered by the company. The employees who feel dissatisfied with the company’ production strategies should always register their sentiments in the monthly and annual general meetings. They should call for immediate paradigm for total overhaul or relevant changes in poorly performing departments. The transformational leadership would enhance openness between the leader and the employees. Transformational “leadership boosts subordinate staffs’ passion about the organisation’s goals and objectives” (Hymowitz 2008, p. 3). Apparently, transformational leadership has a lot of benefits which can effectively be tapped. Particularly, this kind of leadership should be adopted for companies at the verge of transition or paradigm shift. The principles allow for purposeful motivation through effective cooperation thereby bringing each and every employee on board. The manager initiates strategic and visionary plans of the company’s long term goals and objectives. The manager becomes inspirational to all his/her employees, but not at the expense of the company’s future goals and objectives. Transformational leader would strive to make grow and develop each and every individual employee who is ready and willing to cooperate (Bonnici 2011). The employees consequently become enlightened by the constant transformational attempts on both their lives and the company wellbeing. In conclusion, the success or failure of any organisational group, private or corporate company is squarely at the helm of managers. Therefore, managers need to keenly analyse and rule on the type(s) of leadership style(s), relevant to the situation at that particular place and time. Basically this requires open mindedness, focus and determination to achieve specific goals and objectives. Moreover, the manager should be flexible when dealing with issues affecting and/or people who are directly or indirectly the organisation. Consequently, the DGL international’s John Terrill attempted his best as leader despite hinges in the overall top management of the company. He particularly effected changes that would have positively impacted on the company technical department’s performance. However, the company’s top management seemed to doubt his noble begging in the new position. Reference List Ahmed, T. H. & Meehan, N. 2011, Advanced reservoir management and engineering. Oxford: Gulf Professional. Arnold, N. H., & Ukpere, W. I. 2014, Proposed leadership approach for solidarity trade union. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(2), 721. Bonnici, C. A. 2011, Creating a successful leadership style: Principles of personal strategic planning. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Education. Daft, R. L. 2007, New era of management. Mason, Ohio, Thomson South-Western. Hymowitz, C. 2008, Effective management remains an Art steeped in good relationship. The Wall Street Journal, 1(2): 1-4, August. Koontz, h., & Weihrich, H. 2010, Essentials of management. New Delhi [u.a.], McGraw-Hill. Morse, L. C. & Babcock, D. L. 2013, Managing engineering and technology. New York, NY: Pearson Education. Mujtaba, B. G., & Sungkhawan, J. 2011, Situational leadership and diversity management coaching skills. Journal of Diversity Management (JDM), 4(1), 1-12. Rausch, E., & Anderson, C. (2011). Enhancing decisions with criteria for quality. Management Decision, 49(5), 722-733. Samson, D & Daft, RL 2012, Management: Fourth Asia Pacific Edition, Cengage Learning: Australia, p587. Yoong, W. S. 2010, Hersey Blanchard leadership theory. Sunway College Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 1(2): 1-6, August. Read More