Hersey and Blanchards Situational Leadership Theory - Assignment Example

Leadership Style [Name] [Course] [Institution] [Professor’s name] [Date] Question 1 Different leaders possess different leadership styles, which influences how the leaders relate and connect with their subordinates (Daft et al., 2008). The focus of this report is the application of Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory by a middle level supervisor working in a department with more than two hundred subordinates. The theory is meant to help resolve current challenges affecting performance and efficiency of the department. According to Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory, a leader can apply different styles of leadership such as supportive leadership style, directive leadership style or participative leadership style (Daft et al., 2008). It is important for leaders to adapt their style of leadership to developing the performance of their subordinates depending on how wiling and ready the subordinates are to attaining the assigned roles and responsibilities as supported by Daft et al. (2008). The report shall apply the Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory in dealing with the departmental issues using a three step process as follows: I. Situation diagnosis The department has more than two hundred employees. Since there are no known training issues, supply challenges and lack of necessary worker experience and skills, the only notable issue is the leader in charge of the department and the type of leadership that is used in managing, directing, planning, coordinating and supervising the workforce. Results for the previous performance appraisal carried out by the previous supervisor indicate that although the department is fully equipped with modern equipment, the labor force seems lazy and non-performing. II. Managing the problem Since quick results are required to deal with the issues at the department, the assigned leader must focus on improving the leadership in the department and in so doing, help improve the performance or work output of the department, which is important in achieving the overall organizational success. Therefore, the first step in dealing with the leadership issues is to apply directive leadership in the first thirty days and when changes in performance of the workers in the department are noticed, other styles of leadership such as participative and supportive style of leadership shall be applied. Directive leadership entails carrying out various departmental activities, which guides and structures the conduct and actions of team members (Northouse, 2009). Firstly, leaders applying directive leadership must establish the needs of the subordinates for information and direction during performance of roles and tasks and offer the required support to meet these needs (Northouse, 2009). At this juncture, emphasis is placed on timing and the suitability of directive leadership behaviors. There are roles and responsibilities that require structure and guidance during the goal setting phase while there are others that need performance feedback and elucidation in execution time (Northouse, 2009). Similarly, there are subordinates that need technical guidance from the departmental leader while there are those that require guidance in how they can link their work to those of their group members. The two most fundamental skills required when applying directive leadership is effective communication and technical proficiency as highlighted by Northouse, (2009). Secondly, it is important to set mutually agreed departmental goals and objectives and deadlines (Northouse, 2009). Using clear, measurable, realistic, time bound and specific goals and objectives and strong supervision with flexibility in implementing order, will help improve employee relationships and will help the group members in the department to better accomplish tasks within set timelines. In addition, a schedule indicating all tasks and tasks timelines, offers each group member within the department an opportunity to understand what is expected of them, which is crucial in helping them manage their time and plan their task performance more efficiently (Northouse, 2009). To accomplish this, the leader leading the department with the worker performance issues must be overly optimistic, enthusiastic and motivated to better help the group members to enhance their positive attitude and generate a working environment that exude confidence, empowerment, optimism and motivation (Northouse, 2009). Rather than merely giving orders, the leader must be aware of the individual skills and abilities of each group member within the department, help each one of them discover their potential and in so doing, assigning them tasks and roles that are aligned to their skills and abilities. It is crucial that each group member is placed in a job position that they are motivated and interested in (Northouse, 2009). III. Use of other styles of leadership; applying supportive style The application of directive leadership in helping improve performance within the department is expected to generate some level of friction owing to the tough approach used in enforcing suitable performance behavior such as meeting set timelines. As a result, it is important to incorporate other styles of leadership to help improve teamwork, employee relations and helping align the organizational goals to individual goals. After applying directive leadership, integrating supportive leadership can help further enhance employee performance. Supportive leadership is a great tool in helping manage stress in the workplace environment (Lussier et al., 2009). Through supportive leadership, the leader at the department will get an opportunity to encourage and motivate group members to achieve set organizational and individual goals and create meaning in their work. This can be achieved by the leader showing the subordinates the purpose and importance of their work in the organization regardless of the position of the group member in the organizational structure (Lussier et al., 2009). As noted by Lussier et al. (2009), supportive leadership allows the leader to be flexible in their style of leadership. Using supportive leadership, the leader at the department will get the opportunity to know every group member at an individual level, which will be important in informing the leader’s decision to select the right employee for the right job position and task. Different people respond variedly to various styles of leadership and communication styles and so an effective leader should be ready and able to incorporate various communication and leadership styles (Lussier et al., 2009). As a leader, the departmental leader should develop a favorable working environment for the team that motivates them about their work and often, this is achieved by alternating the styles of leading. The departmental leader should not only motivate the group members but also listen keenly to the opinions and ideas of each team member. More often than not, the person who is good at a task, best knows how to improve the task (Lussier et al., 2009). Therefore, a leader must ensure they tap on the abilities, talents and knowledge of their subordinates to enhance outputs. This can be achieved by the leader helping the subordinates understand why it is not always possible to change things, but as best as the leader can, they should try to apply some of the feasible suggestions and opinions offered by the group members to enhance work performance, work quality and work environment (Lussier et al., 2009). Every group member must be made aware of the accountability and responsibility they have to the organization in achieving the set goals by effectively and efficiently accomplishing their assigned tasks and roles despite the organizational level of the employee within the organization (Lussier et al., 2009). In addition, the departmental leader must promote respectfulness and appreciation where each group member within the department must appreciate and respect the work, status and opinions of each other within the department and across and along the organizational structure. Appreciation is a key component in improving performance as each person feels valued within the department and within the organization (Lussier et al., 2009). As a way of appreciating the group members, the departmental leader must always appreciate and reward performance by letting the group members know when they perform well and inspiring them through positive employee action (Lussier et al., 2009). Other than that, the leader must exercise random acts of kindness such as saying thank you, remembering the birthdays for group members, awarding gifts to group members who show willingness to perform better and complimenting their efforts as a way of showing support and care for them. These simple acts have the power to influence positive working relationships where each group member feel as part of a team and they easily share their concerns and issues and in so doing, helping identify work issues and dealing with them accordingly (Lussier et al., 2009). This surely helps improve work performance. Acts of kindness are simple ways of generating a positive working environment required to cultivate work accountability needed to enhance work changes and performance. Using supportive leadership, the departmental leader is better placed in making work fun. Among ways they can achieve this is by injecting humor and creativity to resolve work dilemmas since each member is given the opportunity to be creative and think outside the box. Humor has the potential to develop and sustain positive attitude in the working environment (Lussier et al., 2009). Apart from making work fun, the departmental leader must reward the group members fairly by using evaluation system to reward each employee what they deserve based on their work inputs and outputs. The departmental leader must ensure they track and assess the performance of each employee and develop an effective reward program that informs all the decisions to reward employees as argued by Lussier et al. (2009). Conclusively, a leader must take into account varied things when dealing with employees, most of which is the employee themselves (Lussier et al., 2009). More often than not, leaders are so engrossed in achieving organizational goals and objectives such that they lose sight of the needs of the employees and as a result, the leaders negatively influence the individual worker performance and overall organizational performance. Always being aware of the needs and individual goals of the employees as a leader, and, constantly assessing one’s leadership method ensure that the leader effectively and efficiently achieve sustainable organizational success (Lussier et al., 2009). It is expected that following application of directive leadership within the first thirty days and incorporation of supportive leadership later on by the middle level supervisor will be effective in improving the levels of individual and overall performance of group members within the department. Question 2 Among popular theories in social psychology is group think, which has been routinely used to help understand group dynamics in varied fields (Furnham, 2005). Group think is defined as the shared reality, which people create that is prone to self -deception as they are discretely, the sum total of things they won’t look at (Furnham, 2005). Groupthink emerges when a group generates faulty decisions as a result of group pressure resulting to a decline in moral judgment, rational efficiency and reality testing (Furnham, 2005). As highlighted by Furnham (2005), there are various symptoms of groupthink that can be identified when working in groups, which includes Illusion of vulnerability; which refer to a sense of power and authority that make a group reason that its decisions are the best and fool proof. This often is illustrated by the group conceiving that its ideas and decisions will be effective and successful (Furnham, 2005). Belief in the Inherent Morality of group; which stem from a desire of the group to believe in the correctness and suitability of its actions. This symptom is characterized by a sense that the group is relieved of the accountability of vindicating decisions based on rational procedures. This often occurs to safeguard the self -esteem of the group (Furnham, 2005). Rationalization; which is illustrated by a tendency by the group to downplay the drawbacks and weaknesses of the decision it made (Furnham, 2005). The rationalization symptom was best illustrated in the Challenger tragedy. Stereotypes of Out-Groups; which entail characterizing opponent groups without sufficient facts or by simply ignoring facts (Furnham, 2005). A clear example of stereotypes out groups is the line in sand that was drawn by China separating South and North Korea, which was founded on false stereotype of communists as weak, controlled by Russia that was anti-war. Self –Censorship; where although individual expressionism is permitted, a person within a group setting may self -censor for the sake of team spirit, loyalty to the group and compliance with group rules and policies (Furnham, 2005). Direct pressure; which emerge when members of a group are habituated to keep nonconformist opinions and perspectives to themselves (Furnham, 2005). For instance, President Nixon failure to support open inquiry in group settings. Mind-guards; a bodyguard is a person who is responsible for safeguarding the physical wellbeing of others. In the same way, in groupthink, a mind-guard is an element that safeguards people from unsettling thoughts and notions. In groupthink, information, facts or ideas that have the potential to directly bear on the group are intentionally kept out of the sight of the group (Furnham, 2005). Illusion of unanimity; which is the last symptom of group think occurs when the decision process is almost complete. This is where the weaknesses of the decisions are further downplayed, the definitive course of plan is reinforced, the fears of the group members are effectively addressed and the faulty decision to carry on is accepted and acted upon (Furnham, 2005). Unanimity in groupthink is the final mutual agreement by all the group members about a given situation, where everyone is of similar mind and they act together as a unit (Furnham, 2005). The negative impacts of groupthink are apparent under the influence and existence of the following key elements namely: Cohesive group; this is a distinct requisite for groupthink. A group that is overly cohesive is more prone to groupthink since the group members are more likely to agree more, engage together, work together, are at ease with one another and the deep need to be part and to remain part of the group can compel them to conform and agree with decisions they individually feel are faulty decisions (Furnham, 2005). Active group dynamics; this occurs when the group feels a greater need to agree, resulting to more issues than solutions (Furnham, 2005). A required decision that acts as external pressure upon the group; the feeling of anxiety among the group members from varied sources and feeling of fear, which is often the fear of the unknown impacts the group as much as it affects an individual group member (Furnham, 2005). This regularly leads to irrational thought processes, which generates consequences and outcomes far greater for the group compared to that on an individual group member. There are various ways that one can safeguard against the negative impacts of groupthink. This includes: Cultivating an open climate; developing an open environment that enhances effective communication and open style of leadership allows group and group members to discuss issues freely regardless of how controversial the issues are (Furnham, 2005). An open climate ensures nonjudgmental attitudes that safeguards against defensive posturing, it promotes tolerance and acceptance of diversified thoughts and ideas, it promotes group creativity by failing to stifle creativity and more importantly, it fosters group openness where group members are not limited to tightly-controlled arguments (Furnham, 2005). Avoiding group isolation; it is important to inject some level of insecurity in order to safeguard against making groups overly cohesive which results in groupthink (Furnham, 2005). This can be achieved by breaking highly cohesive groups into subgroups. Allocating the role of critical evaluator to group members; where group members are given the power to challenge their personal values and accepted group assumptions (Furnham, 2005). Avoiding being overly directive; this occurs when the group leader occasionally takes a stand-back position by allowing the group discussions progress unbridled (Furnham, 2005). Irrespective of the nature of a group, given the environment of groupthink, faulty decisions are often made as argued by Furnham (2005). In order to safeguard against groupthink, one need to identify symptoms of groupthink and take the necessary steps to avoid the negative impacts of groupthink as highlighted above. Question 3 This section of the report seeks to highlight ways of pushing the bill for the next gen air traffic system. The process of making decision in a Federal government is an intricate process. There are set of power structures in the system of decision making within the Federal government and their respective responsibilities and they are as follows Presidential line of power that comprises of executive units and agents and special presidential staff institutions Congressional line of power that constitutes the different Congressional committees and subcommittees, employees and special agencies created to support the congress Courts line of power that is implemented through legal personnel in the executive branch, who infer possible court actions and highlight implemented court actions Other Bureaus- whose activities may compete for resources and jurisdiction or whose support is needed for effective performance Political parties that seek to influence the actions of the government to attain its political agenda and goals Media that are either specialized or general and are meant to convey communication through print or electronically Interest groups who represent the constituents, who expect that their representatives shall ensure that their ideals and needs are reflected in federal decisions Career staff that are related with bureau leaders and the staff under their supervision The best way to push for the bill is to start from bottom up. The first step will be to target the media, interest groups, political parties and other bureaus by furnishing them with facts and contents of the bill, this will to help mobilize their support behind the bill. After gunning enough support from the parties in the lower level of the decision making system, the next move will be push the file to the next level that encompasses the court, congressional and presidential office. The ultimate decision is made up of 60-70% of opinions from the public and an estimated 30% from the government. The Iron Triangle Often, Congressional Committee Heads are in service for long durations and are experts in their specific fields. They consider the president as superseding in their realm and departmental and agency leaders are proletarians owing to their high turnover rates in these positions. The latter are often caught up between congressmen and bureau heads. Agency heads are expected to comply with the will of the president and they often have to decide if to represent the bureaus to the president or vice versa. They constantly negotiate with bureau chiefs and career staff internally and negotiating with interest groups and congress externally while appeasing the President. On the other hand, interest group leaders are keen on developing special relations with suitable congress members, bureau chiefs, political appointees and career staffs while establishing close media allies by offering news stories and paying for advertisements. In addition, they acknowledge the power of knowledge and devote their focus not only on congress and political appointees but also focusing on communicating their opinion to career staff, whose skills and expertise often make them essential in federal decision making. The distinct aspect of the Sayre Model is that any player in the federal decision making process can be at the center circle of the model and establish other players that are pertinent to the elements of public policy they are particularly concerned with. The ABCs of How the System Functions Due to the complex power structures and interface involved in federal decision making system, many observers suggest that the system is ineffective. On the contrary, the system does work through building alliances, bargains and compromises. Alliances; they can be formal or informal, sporadic or regular, created between the varied power centers on the varied lines of power. No single player in the federal decision making system can achieve their goal without the help of another. For instance, Bureau chiefs often use the media with interest groups, congress members with the media and interest groups and congress members interchangeably as allies. The power combinations illustrated are intentionally created and make up a dynamic component in decision making Bargaining; this entails increasing bargaining chips and accountability and using them carefully in order not to use them all at once. A player in the center circle can assist in solving the problem of another player with the intention of cashing in on the assistance later on. Compromises; acts as lubricants which helps the political process to continue moving and not stopping. Decisions due to building alliances and negotiation processes are characterized by set of compromises made by varied interested players. Public policy decisions have to be made even though compromises may spell slow progress. The alliance building, bargains and compromises (ABC) of federal decision making system is highly criticized. Criticisms cite that the ABC lacks rationality, it depresses innovation and it fails to factor in the interests of the public. While reason is crucial in making decisions, the system is prone to irrational motivations, which may mean that lack of compromises will lead to decisions not being made, paralyzing policies. Public policies do not lend themselves to specific solutions instead, varied perspectives and ideals are needed to generate different solutions and in order to stop the problem, and some players will have to compromise in order to end the stalemate. The notion that the system depresses innovation is true since the process is a conservative one that requires players to have allies, power to negotiate and readiness to compromise. However, this is not enough to dismiss the system as non-innovative. Application of Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) are among innovations that have emanated from the system. References Daft, R.L., & Lane, P.G. (2008). The Leadership Experience + Infotrac. London: Cengage Learning. Furnham, A. (2005). The Psychology Of Behaviour At Work: The Individual In The Organisation. New York: Psychology Press. Lussier, R.N., Achua, C.F., & Lussier, R.N. (2009). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. London: Cengage Learning. Northouse, P.G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sidney: SAGE. Read More