The Executive Leader: Steve Jobs and Jim Torr - Case Study Example

The Executive Leader: Steve Jobs and Jim Torr Name Course Name and Code Introduction To fully analyze and develop deeper understanding of executive leadership, the report will highlight Apple’s previous CEO Steve Jobs and the Chief Executive Officer at Australian Federal Police Association, Jim Torr as a basis of comparison. Steve Jobs can be described as a larger than life individual in the 21st century having greatly impacted varied industries including the mobile phone industry, electronic industry and more so the music industry (Imbimbo, 2009). Steve Paul Jobs an American entrepreneur and innovator, was the co-founder, chief executive and the chairman at Apple Inc until his death in the year 2011. He is reputed for envisioning the revolution in the computer world and playing a great role in changing the consumer electronics industry as noted by Lashinsky (2012). Apart from Apple Inc, Jobs co-founded other companies such as the Pixar and NeXT Inc. As a visionary and innovative individual, Jobs is responsible for introduction of smart electronic gadgets such as iPods, which are portable music players. iTunes, which are digital music system, iTunes store, the iPad, which is a digital tablet and the iPhone, Apple’s cellular phone, which is a smart phone with iPod features and a mobile browser among other features (Imbimbo, 2009). Jobs’ leadership style was suitable for a contemporary company such as Apple Inc, which is at the centre of a dynamic information and technology industry. Jobs did not only demand accountability, commitment, hard work and change from his subordinates but also, he lived as an example by demanding that of himself (Lashinsky, 2012). He was keen to envisage the future, prepare products and processes that aligned to the future he saw and executed quality, feasible and relevant products that effectively and efficiently met the needs of both the internal and external environment of the company he worked for. As a trendsetter, Jobs affirmed his commitment to innovation and creativity by describing himself and Apple Inc as a person and a company respectively that skates to where the puck is going to be and not where it has been (Imbimbo, 2009). According to Lashinsky (2012), Steve Jobs as the Chief executive officer was not only demanding of his subordinates but also keen on promoting quality in form, processes, people and products. He never was afraid to make tough choices such as terminating varied projects such as Cyber dog among others and laying off employees thought to be under performing in order to maximize returns on investments and minimize costs. According to Imbimbo (2009), Steve Jobs understood his customers; he knew their future needs, expectations, tastes and preferences. In so doing, built products that met these needs adequately, thus making Apple Inc a successful company and a global leader in technology industry even surpassing Microsoft and Dell Computer and elevating Jobs to the award of the Chief Executive Officer of the decade. He saw the potential in others and exploited it fully as witnessed by his motivation to make his long time friend and business partner, Wozniak to develop a circuit board with limited chips for the Breakout game. Jobs did not play by the rulebook and instead made his own rules (Lashinsky, 2012). The technology industry is a multifaceted one, which is characterized by rapidly changing consumer needs, varying consumer buying patterns and differing consumer buying behaviors. To remain the leader within this industry, an organization needs to be flexible and adaptable to these changes in order to remain relevant since advancement in technology makes it possible to develop new products, processes and systems every passing day (Hughes, et al., 1993). To take Apple Inc to the heights of success, it meant Jobs had to be keen on change by anticipating it and aligning the company to the change (Imbimbo, 2009). An organization within this industry needs to be on the forefront in innovativeness in order to remain feasible, relevant and viable to modern consumer. Ingenuity is necessary have attribute for a leader within this fast-paced industry. Running an organization such as the Australian Federal Police Association requires a leader who not only is committed and accountable but also one is ready to take firm stand on intricate national security issues. AFPA CEO Jim Torr is such a leader. Leading a large organization such as AFPA means Torr is not only learned in matters of security and defence, but also shouldered with the responsibility of overseeing and managing a large workforce (AFPA, 2012). The AFPA, a branch of Police Federation of Australia, have political independence and industrial coverage for the workforce under Australian Federal Police, which consists of Federal personnel, protective Service Agents, police staff and federal support staff both domestic, and in abroad (AFPA, 2012). A graduate from Charles Sturt University, Torr is an individual who have had to make tough decisions in balancing public interests and undertaking his duties as a state officer influenced by political systems within his office. As a leader within a policing institution, Torr has been brave enough to face the media, which has greatly criticized the AFP and its Commissioner who are under him on varied security issues such as the Hafeer Affair as highlighted by AFPA (2012). Owing to the type of organization and field that Jim Torr works in, he has had to be adamant and more resilient in maintaining the status quo and ensuring his subordinates follow laid down rules and procedures effectively and efficiently (Adlam & Villiers, 2003). Owing to the sensitivity of the field that he leads in, consultations occurs vertically and through hierarchies, that is, from the top brass to the lower levels of the organization structure and not vice versa as supported by Adlam & Villiers (2003). As a leader, Jim Torr has been known to demand perfection from his subordinates with no question asked while at the same time, reacting negatively to criticism, since he sees criticism as an attack to the Federal Police force (AFPA, 2012). Adlam & Villiers (2003) indicates that the law enforcement industry is one that is characterized by increased level of bureaucracies and strict hierarchical systems where leaders are expected to show the direction and the subordinates are expected to follow with no questions asked. The industry is founded on conformance to strict laws, policies and guidelines and it is operated on structured legal frameworks, top-down protocols in making decisions and solving problems and structured hierarchy of powers where utmost obedience is required of those under the leadership (Golding & Savage, 2008). Rarely has the industry conformed to external and internal pressure for change and instead it has remained relatively rigid to changes. Leaders within the industry have relied on regulated work systems, retribution and actions as a way of managing and controlling the workforce (MacKay, 2007). It is important to note that such form of leadership has been effective in ensuring discipline, order, accountability and commitment between both the high-level and low levels of the organizational structure. Although recent criticism from the media and activists to the industry citing brutality and rigidity in governance has seen a moderate shift in the way leaders exercise and execute their roles within law enforcement firms, the style of leadership and the leadership model preferred within the industry has remained relatively the same (Dalglish & Miller, 2010). Leadership theories and leadership models MacKay (2007) indicates that leadership is an aspect that plays a fundamental role in determining how effective, productive and successful an organization or an institution is since it generates support and guidance for those under the leadership and it helps steer them towards meeting mutually anticipated outcomes and achieving set goals and objectives. Effective leadership is the core foundation of enhanced performance, efficiency in work operations and processes, improved quality and capacity of production and empowering the subordinates to fully exploit their skills, knowledge and potential (Heifetz, 2000). According to Golding & Savage (2008), building an effective leadership structure especially in contemporary organizations and institutions is integral in accomplishing anticipated results and promoting cohesiveness, work commitment, accountability, teamwork and integrity among teams, which acts as fertile ground for enhanced performance and productivity. More often than not, different people lead differently thus different leading styles while difference in industry influences the way a leader within the industry leads thus influencing on issues such as responsibility, adaptability, organizational environment, principles, dedication, engagement and operational clarity (Goleman, et al., 2004). For instance, an operation commander within the military has a different outlook on leadership matters compared to an operations manager at a communication firm owing to the difference in dynamics in their areas and fields of work. To understand leadership, varied theories have been developed among them the trait theory, which suggest that individuals do inherit particular attributes and characteristics, which make them better and more capable in becoming leaders (Hughes, et al., 1993). Using the theory, a leader is chosen based on the ability of an individual to posses certain personal traits and behavior traits which are usually common among leaders. Nevertheless, it is important to note that this theory does not explain how people who may be perceived to have attributes that are thought to be basis for leadership but do not make it as leaders (Cosgrove, 2002). Apart from the traits theory, there is the situational theory which suggests that leaders selects the best plan of action based upon situations they find themselves in. this means that different leaders may exercise different styles of leadership which they may deem suitable for making different types of decisions (Armstrong, 2012). On the other hand, there is the behavioural theory of leadership that is founded on the belief that effective leaders are created and not born as such. Primarily, the theory analyzes the actions of leaders and not on their psychological attributes and traits. Based on this theory of leadership therefore, an individual can learn to become a leader by being taught or by merely observing other people leading and learning from them (Dalglish & Miller, 2010). The other theory of leadership to consider is the participative theory, which indicates that the most effective style of leadership is that which takes the opinions and ideas of others into consideration during decisions making and problem solving processes (Lussier & Achua, 2009). As per this theory, a leader encourages engagement, involvement and sharing from other people within the group or team and help each one of them feel not only important and relevant but also accountable and dedicated to the processes of making decisions (Heffernan, 2002). Be it as it may, participative theory allows the leader the right to permit the opinions and ideas of others. There is also the contingency theory that sees leadership as a relationship entailing the leader, follower and situation where the leader addresses the follower based on situation to establish suitable response and modify the approach they use (Tosi, et al., 2000). The contingency theory generates open systems of leading. Situational theory fits best when describing Steve Jobs. He as a leader, he would alternate his style of leadership to align to the situation at hand. He would be compassionate and motivational when there was need to be and he would be strict and hard when he needed to be as described by Lashinsky (2012). While some would describe him as a demanding and aggressive leader, others would describe him as a team player and a visionary depending on their experiences with him. On the other hand, the behavioural theory of leadership best defines Jim Torr owing to the fact that he did not automatically become the Chief Executive Officer at AFPA, but he had to climb up the organizational ladder to be where he is today. He has earned his position as a better leader through learning and more importantly observing his predecessors and learning from their experiences as indicated by Armstrong (2012). As an individual within a policing institution, possessing certain attributes may place them at a better position to be appointed a leader thus making the trait theory a better basis for describing leadership in policing. Nevertheless, increased institutional missions and the increased need for creativity in policing are forcing the industry to review the way leaders are appointed as supported by Adlam & Villiers (2003). Policing leaders who have been comfortable with one-dimensional type of leadership are facing up to leading a dynamic environment than that which existed before. This means appointing leaders who are able to lead in rapidly changing internal and external environments and who are flexible and adaptable to changes (Golding & Savage, 2008). To be competent and effective, policing leaders are now departing from the authoritative and dictatorial style of leading and changing their behavior situational where they integrate the variables of being a leader and a follower based on the situation at hand. Apart from theories of leadership, leadership models have been constructed to describe leadership. Among this model is transformational leadership model. This model of leadership describes a leader who generates positive changes in his followers and is ready and willing to empower and motivate them to see the potential in themselves and exploit fully and more importantly, see the significance in the work at hand and accomplish it (Hood & C.U., 2007). The author notes that transformational leaders are passionate about what they do, they are usually ready to challenge the status quo, they are flexible to changes and more often than not, they are visionary, Innovative and creative individuals who think and act outside the box. In transformational leadership model, the leader is concerned with involving and engaging the stakeholders in the processes, they are determined to see performance of all team members and more importantly, they possess high moral and ethical standards. Dalglish & Miller (2010) suggest that transformational leaders do not only lead from the front, but also lead by example in order to inspire the subordinates and challenging them to take accountability and ownership of their roles. In addition, transformational leaders are keen on knowing the strengths and weak points of each team member with the view to align each one of them with appropriate role to enhance performance and productivity (Hughes et al. 1993). According to Heffernan (2002), an admirable trait among transformational leaders is their desire and efforts to change organizational culture. Steve Jobs closely depicts the attributes of a transformational leader, he not only was visionary, creative and innovative thus meeting present and future needs of the customer in the technology field, but he is responsible for changing the face of mobile and music industry as we know it today (Imbimbo, 2009). Steve Jobs was not only flexible to changes, but his success was founded on driving change. He thought outside the existing culture to develop revolutionary products. Jobs did not only lead from the front but led by example both as a creator of products but also as its salesman and marketer (Imbimbo, 2009). As a true transformational leader, Jobs saw opportunities, seized, and capitalized on the weaknesses of his competitors. Important to mention is that no particular model of leadership is better or superior to the other although the impact it has on performance, dedication and productivity of the followers are what differentiates them and make one model preferable to an organization or industry as echoed by Dalglish & Miller (2010). Apart from transformational leadership model, there is the transactional leadership model where the leader is goal oriented and empowers the subordinates by setting standards and goals. Transactional leaders work best in clearly developed structures and systems and within a culture that promotes strict controls and regulations as noted by Cosgrove (2002). According to Armstrong (2012), the assumptions in transactional leadership model is that both social and work systems and processes functions best with clear chain of command. In addition, when consent to assigned roles, part of the deal is to relinquish all powers and authority to the leader where the leader offer commands and the subordinates follows them with no questions asked. The benefits of this model are that followers become more accountable in their actions and behavior as unethical act or move results in reprimand (Hood & C.U., 2007). Subordinates under transactional leaders are more disciplined since they understand their place and relationship while their leaders kowtow to set cultures and legalities and opt to maintain the status quo (Lussier & Achua, 2009). Jim Torr fits in as a transactional leader owing to the type of institution and field he works in. Due to the top-down hierarchies, bureaucratic attributes and structured systems that exists in policing, Torr has been influenced to be keen on maintaining set standards, ensuring order and decorum of his workforce and more so, demanding discipline and accountability from his subordinates as supported by AFPA (2012). Torr has relatively succeeded in working under clearly set structures and systems and within a culture that is almost rigid. Similarities and differences between Steve Jobs and Jim Torr As earlier mentioned, there is no leadership style, which is superior to the other, nor is there a good or bad style of leadership only that their influence on performance, morale and productivity of the followers is what distinguishes them. Having said that, as identified, Steve Jobs and Jim Torr have significantly different leading styles owing to the difference in their personalities and particularly the differences in the type of organizations and industry they are in. As a leader in a field that rapidly changes and that has a dynamic environment, Steve Jobs opted for styles of leadership that would not only strategically place him and his organization at the threshold, but also ensured he remain relevant, versatile and flexible to changes (Lashinsky, 2012). As a transformational leader, Jobs was not content with maintaining the status quo and he strived for change, creativity and innovation to meet the needs of his customers. On the other hand, as a leader in a field that is typically hierarchical and founded on strict controls, orders, regulations, protocols and guidelines, Jim Torr has been able to oversee a very extensive workforce effectively and efficiently as a transactional leader and excel in promoting control, discipline, law and order (Lussier & Achua, 2009). As leaders in contemporary environments, both Jobs and Torr have shown attempts in developing organizations that are conversant and relevant to modern challenges by allowing two-way communication across and along organizational structure as highlighted by AFPA (2012). They have attempted to exercise participative leadership by engaging the workforce in important decision-making processes. During his term, Torr has made moves towards shedding bureaucracy within his organization although this has been difficult owing to the complexity of serving the community and at the same time living to the role of a state officer who is under the influence of political systems. The transactional leadership style of which Torr fits best is most appropriate in a traditional institution such as AFPA where personnel are expected to follow directions given by the leader and there is little flexibility to accommodate the intrinsic and cognitive needs of the workforce (Cosgrove, 2002). Be it as it may, such style of leadership does not effectively function in dynamic organizations in present world where the need for motivation for personnel as the most reliable and valuable asset and resource to an organization is great (Hood & C.U., 2007). The difference in styles of leadership between Torr and Jobs can be based on the aspects of management and leadership. In contemporary commercial and private organizations such as Apple Inc and policing institutions such as AFPA, striking the balance between managing and leading separates the two in the type of leadership adopted in either. Bertocci & Bertocci (2009) notes that management is different from leadership where the former deals with effective use of resources by systems of organization, control and planning while the latter entails motivating subordinates in meeting mutually agreed goals and objectives. Leadership deals with empowerment where people are led and management deals with control of which resources are managed (Cosgrove, 2002). More often than not, policing leadership over manage and under lead resulting in decisions being one-dimensional while protocols and rules stipulate and veto the conduct of policing personnel where leaders focus on doings things right as noted by Golding & Savage (2008). Transactional leadership would be successful in stable organizational environment but in contemporary environments, which are dynamic and volatile, leadership should focus on integrating management with leadership. Torr has been able to produce good results in the Association but the results can even be better if he were to lessen the strictness with which personnel are led by not only focusing on rules and control, but also focusing on accountability, empowerment, trust, ideals and visions. This means incorporating the concept of doing the right thing with doing things right as highlighted by Kelly (2004). Steve Jobs is a visionary, an innovative and creative individual who defied all odds to be the CEO of the 21st Century despite the fact that he dropped out of college (Lashinsky, 2012). The fact that he saw opportunities and needs where no one saw them and the fact that he capitalized on the potential of his team members qualified him as a transformational leader. He was flexible to changes and when things did not work out using one way, he found new ways to make them. He empowered and motivated his employees to be accountable, committed and reliable in their roles (Imbimbo, 2009). He is known to send his team mails congratulating them for enhanced performance and productivity as witnessed in his letter to his team when Apple Inc’s profits surpassed those of Dell Computer (Imbimbo, 2009). Jim Torr has sufficiently shouldered his responsibility as a CEO at AFPA. He has realized that being an effective executive does not meet barking orders but leading by example, engaging team members and empowering them. Both Jobs and Torr have succeeded in ensuring the organizations they work for are efficient in meeting the needs and expectations of the community and customers respectively. Both CEOs have practiced effective leadership by setting proper examples to their followers to better their organizations and the external environments that they serve as suggested by Howell & Costly (2006). In addition, realizing the potential in others and developing them to ensure the potential is fully exploited as supported by Lashinsky (2012). As a leader, Torr has made commendable efforts to ensure as much as the rule of law is adhered to, he brings about change that promotes equity, competence and efficacy in the organization and exercises authority in case of crisis. He has succeeded in communicating goals and organizing roles and activities within his workforce with the view to accomplish anticipated outcomes. His leadership has been more hierarchical and he has gained control through systems of orders and protocols when making decisions, planning and solving problems and ensuring he work within set organizational limits. Unlike Torr whose need for control is significant, Jobs strived in developing long-term visions, motivating his team to take control over their duties, developing them and mobilizing for change in culture (Imbimbo, 2009). Both Jim Torr and Steve who have different styles of leadership have been able to lead and manage their workforce relatively well with enhanced performance and productivity to show for it. Nevertheless, the dynamics of contemporary organizational environment has meant traditionally inflexible leaders are embracing changes to drive vision and innovation (Howell & Costly, 2006). Although no one style of leadership is superior, transformational leadership seems best suited for contemporary organizations although aspects of transactional leadership are still necessarily to ensure order, discipline and accountability among the workforce. Conclusion Leadership is an essential component to the success and performance of an organization. Leadership within policing institutions have been characterized by strict control, hierarchical powers and top-down approach to decision making processes and structured systems. Despite the rigidity of policing institutions, promoting empowerment and engagement among the workforce will generate better policing outcomes in terms of creativity and innovation that will help in better service to community and superior ways of maintaining law and order. Although flexibility is required within policing organizations, it needs to be introduced cautiously to ensure sensitive issues of security and safety are not compromised. As highlighted in the report, varied people use different styles of leadership owing to their personality or because of the type of organization and industry, they operate and work in. References Adlam, R., & Villiers, P. (2003). Police leadership in the 21st century, Philosophy, doctrine and developments. Winchester: Waterside Press. AFPA. (2012). AFPA. Accessible from http://www.afpa.org.au/ Armstrong, M. (2012). Armstrong's Handbook of Management and Leadership: Developing Effective People Skills for Better Leadership and Management. New Delhi: Kogan Page Publishers. Bertocci, D.I. & Bertocci, D.L. (2009). Leadership in Organizations: There Is a Difference Between Leaders and Managers. Washongton DC: University Press of America. Cosgrove, G. P. (2002). Key features of being an effective leader in times of adversity. Platypus Magazine, 77, 39-43. Dalglish, C. & Miller, P. (2010). Leadership: Understanding its Global Impact. Prahran: Tilde University Press. Edelbacher, M., Delip K. D., Marenin, O. (2007). Comparative problems in policing: Interviews with nineteen police leaders from different nations. New York: Edwin Mellen Press. Golding, B. & Savage, S. P. (2008). Leadership and performance management. In T. Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of policing (2nd ed.). Devon: Willan Publishing. Chapter 27, pp. 725-759.  Goleman, D., Boyatzis D., McKee, A. (2004). Primal leadership: Learning to lead with emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Heffernan, W. C. (2002). Three types of leadership. In R. Adlam & P. Villiers (Eds.), Leadership in the 21st Century. UK: Waterside Press. Heifetz, R. A. (2000). Setting the frame. In Leadership without easy answers. Boston: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Hood, J.D. & C.U. (2007). Transformational and transactional leadership styles: An exploratory investigation of traditional and nontraditional student perceptions. London: ProQuest. Howell, J. P., & Costly, D. L. (2006). Understanding behaviors of effective leadership (2nd ed). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, C. J. (1993). Leadership is everyone’s business. In Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience (2nd ed.). Chicago: Irwin-Times, Mirror Higher Education Group. Imbimbo, A. (2009). Steve Jobs: The Brilliant Mind Behind Apple. New Jersey: Gareth Stevens. Kelly, J. (2004). Corporate leadership reflections of CEO and CEO advisor. Long Range Planning, 37, 389-398. Lashinsky, A. (2012). Inside Apple. New York: John Murray. Lussier, R.N., & Achua, C.F. (2009). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. London: Cengage Learning. MacKay, H. (2007). Advance Australia - where? Sydney: Huchatte Tosi, H.L., Mero, N.P., & Rizzo, J.R. (2000). Managing organizational behavior. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Read More