The following case study investigates the leadership strategies that have been implemented in Cromwell electronics in the form of aggressive and effective leadership where favoritism has been a main part of the leadership style, followed by Ed Corelli, the new marketing vice president of the company. The case study is therefore based on the analysis of the leadership style from the perspective of different employees. In the following case, one of the employees has given positive and appreciable feedback while the other employee has completely given a different picture of leadership of Ed. Further analysis of the case study has been presented here.
The Laissez-Faire approach of leadership is the theory of leadership styles where it is assumed that the involvement of the leader in the activities should be less for the better performance and development of the employees (Bryman, 2013). In the case study, for instance, Katie seemed to hand off, due to which Pat grabbed the opportunity and developed himself to get betters. Another theory that can be applied to the leader of Ed is the classic approach which assumes that the workers perform better when they are rewarded for their better performances. This strategy is also used by the leader to motivate the employees, and therefore Ed has been using this strategy to motivate the workers to show better performance.
In the perspective of Katie, it can be analyzed that Ed is not empathetic to the new employees and is not willing to help them or to appropriately adapt the messages for them. While Katie and the other new employees have been looking for development and training that can be used by them for adjusting to the new environment and to understand what is needed by them. Ed, on the other hand, does not recognize that they are the new employees and therefore does not empathize with them. In contradiction to that, Pat’s interpretation indicates that Ed is doing an effective and superior job which is a source of motivation for Pat. In addition to that, Ed also feels free to solve his problems and fix his problems by learning from his mistakes which Pat really enjoys. In the light of these perceptions, it can be comprehended that based on the Laissez-faire approach of leadership as implemented by Ed, he tries to interfere less in the matters of the employee, and even after monitoring their performances, he does not realize the needs of training and development for the employees who are not working effectively (the new employees mostly). The effective part of Ed’s leadership, on the other hand, is that way he provides full support and motivation to that the employees who are working better and according to the expectation of the organization.
Now when Dan has the perspective of Ed and two of his subordinates, he needs to develop his skills of Ed according to the perception he got from different people. Being a Laissez-faire leader, Ed does need to stay away from the tasks and assignments of the employees, but on the other hand, he should also understand the reason why the new employees are unable to work efficiently (Bryman, 2013). The advice that Dan can give to Ed is to make him realize the importance of training and development for all the employees. By doing this, he can make Ed understand the need for empathy with the new employees to increase the effectiveness of their performance.
In light of the arguments presented, it is comprehended that the leaders need to understand the problems and potential of the employees so that the performance of the employees is developed and all the employees get an equal chance of showing their skills.
American Financial Corp Case
The following case study is based on an argument between the human resource manager and her subsidiary, who was supposed to submit a report by Wednesday, but as Betty was on holiday and did not monitor the activities, the report got delayed. The case study is therefore based on conflict resolution and employee management concepts.
Before going on vacation, Betty should have taken some time out to sort out and schedule the activities with Don in order to make sure that all he has all the required resources for the completion of the report and that the report does not get delayed because of any interruption (Deanne & Paul, 2013). By doing this, Betty would have been able to advise Don about how the time and the tasks can be managed. Also, by doing this, Betty would have found him some help in reviewing the reports. Secondly, Betty should have taken some time out in 6 weeks to get the updates about the progress and the problems faced by Don to make sure that everything was going smoothly. If she had done this, she would have had the idea about the progress and the hindrance seen by Don to help him figure out to solve the problems.
In the meeting, Betty made some mistakes. The very first thing was that she did not remain calm and professional, knowing the fact that she had not kept any check on Don, which was the major reason for the delay. In addition to that, while she was arguing with Don, she did not have enough information about his performance and lacked arguments to counter Don’s excuses. As she did not have any check on Don and also did not respond to his message, the fault was mostly on her part too.
Therefore, instead of yelling and arguing with Don, she could have stayed calm and listened to the problems faced by Don. The very important thing in dealing with such kind of situations is to figure how out how they can solve the issue instead of crying over the split milk. In the meeting, however, not for once did Betty propose her help or guidance for solving the issue, which made her look like a completely terrible person. In addition to that, being a supervisor, Betty needs to work with Don as a team member and keep a check on his performance instead of completely imposing everything on him and yelling at him at the end of the deadline. The most important thing is to build and maintain an effective open in communication that can help both parties to be more efficient in trusting each other with the problems faced and offering solutions in the form of help and advice to deal with those problems.
To be more effective, the very first thing that Don must have done would be to communicate any problem that he faced in the completion of the report to Betty. By doing this, his argument for the delay of the report would have been more effective (Bryman, 2013). In addition to that, if he believed that he needed help with the completion of the reports, he must have acknowledged Betty through any sort of communication, either call or text, so that Betty could arrange something while she was away. Further, checking the resource data before starting the report is the most crucial and important thing. Finally, admitting the mistake and presenting a logical justification would have been a better and more effective approach instead of blaming other situations. The lack of communication is the one and only reason for this small crisis, and the only way to solve it would be through communication. Therefore, instead of presenting excuses that are of no use, Don must have asked for help and guidance to complete the task in a polite way to get Betty’s empathy.
In short, it can be concluded that the communication gap between the teams can lead to a lot of issues and problems that can be very problematic for the whole team. Therefore, while working in teams, it is very crucial to communicate the issues and problems faced to the next person so that those issues can be resolved efficiently.
South Engineering Services
The case study indicates the importance and impact of different types of leadership styles on organizational activities. The leadership style that has been implemented in South Engineering Services by Ron has been a combination of autocratic and delegative leadership styles. The case study is overall based on the analysis of the effectiveness of these two leadership approaches used.
There are two different types of leadership styles that Ron developed himself to influence his team. These leadership styles are autocratic and delegative styles. In autocratic leadership, the leader holds power and control over all the activities of the employees and develops strict guidelines for everyone to follow (Bolden, 2011). If someone breaks those rules, the consequences of the action can be severe. In the leadership approach as used by Ron, the use of the autocratic style is based on him having a direct and final authority for the decision made in the organization and also the ability to impose strict guidelines for the effective performance of the project. This leadership style helped in the accomplishment of the goals for the project undertaken before time, and the reason for that was that the guidelines that were accomplished were followed strictly.
The delegating leadership style, on the other hand, is based on giving flexibility to the employees in determining how they can accomplish their tasks. Through this type of leadership style, the overall collaboration and quality of the production can be improved. The final decision for any kind of action, however, still resides with the leader. The objective of Ron behind the use of this type of leadership style is to allow the employees to increase flexibility in making decision for the accomplishment of the goals of the organization. By doing this, he helped to increase innovation and communication among different team members, who helped in increasing the productivity and efficiency of the projects.
Therefore, through the integration of these two leadership styles, Ron effectively implemented some strict guidelines for the employees to follow, which became the reason behind the success of the project.
The cross-function project teams are efficient teams that can work on a variety of tasks in different areas. In cross-function teams, there are different individuals who are brought together for various areas of expertise to work on any project. The self-managed operations are the ones where the individuals are responsible for the completion of different tasks independently. It is therefore seen that in both of the approaches of team development, the individuals are given the flexibility in determining to choose from that how the project will be accomplished.
The differences in the approaches indicate that while the cross-function project teams seek to take talented individuals from different backgrounds to work together and accomplish the goals of the organizations, the self-managed teams, on the other hand, give a different overview. In contradiction to the cross-function project teams, the self-managed teams give the individuals more freedom for the accomplishment of different tasks independently.
On the whole, the analysis indicated that the implementation of the right approach for leadership implemented by the leaders could contribute to the efficiency of the organization significantly. The leaders can also use two different leadership approaches to ensure better and more efficient outcomes.
Attribution Theory of Leadership
The attribution theory of leadership asserts that the leaders’ judgment about the employees is based on the leader’s attribution for the causes of employee performance. The basis of attribution theory indicates that people want to know about the reason for the action they take rather than assuming the action to be random. There are different justifications that are used by leaders to interpret the reasons behind their poor performance (Gwal, 2015). The attribution theory of perception is therefore used to understand organizational behavior. The managers and the leaders in the organization can use this theory to justify the performance of the subordinates who have not been seen following the guidelines and attribution of the leader. Therefore, the leader needs to make an effective impression on the employees through the attribution to make them learn and develop their skills that can be used for the betterment of the teams.
Attributes used to Manage Impression
Exemplification is the type of impression management where the leader self-sacrifices and goes above and beyond the call of duty to make sure that the employees are observing him and therefore gain the attribution of dedication from them (Gwal, 2015). Through exemplification, the leader can set an example for the employees to follow that can improve their performance and effectiveness.
Ingratiation is based on giving favor to the employees or using flattery to elicit the attribution of likability from the employees. Using this strategy, the employees are made to like the leader, and therefore, they can follow him in the management of different organizational activities. This increases the overall influence of the leader on the employees.
Intimidation is used when the leaders sign away the signals that have the power or the potential to be punished so that the employees get to know the danger zones. In leadership management, punishment is not an option for employee management therefore this strategy is quite outdated.
Self-promotion is used where the leader points out their abilities and accomplishments that can be seen as competent by the employees. Through self-promotions, the primary motivation of the leader is to be seen as a capable, intelligent and talented person.
In short, the attribution theory indicates that the performance of the employees significantly depends on the attributes dominated in the leader they are following. Through the attribution theory, the leader can evaluate the performance of the employees as well as use his attributes to significantly make an effective impression on the employees following them.