- Subject: Leadership in Organizations. - Mandatory book for this week's assignment (file attached - please include in citations): Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Harlow, Boston: Pea

E ssay # 1: C ase S tu dy: E ch o E le ctr o nic s

P aul S anch ez is th e p ro ductio n m an ager fo r E ch o E le ctr o nic s, a s m all c o m pany th at

m ake s a nd d is tr ib ute s c o m munic a tio ns e quip m en t. P aul’s d ir e ct s u bord in ate s a re th e

su perv is o rs o f th e fo ur p ro ductio n d epartm en ts in th e c o m pa ny’s m anufa ctu rin g p la nt.

S ix m onth s a go, th e e ngin eerin g m an ager a t E ch o E le ctr o nic s p ro pose d a p la n to in sta ll

n ew c o m pute riz e d w ork sta tio ns to in cre ase p ro ductiv it y in th e p la nt. It s e em ed to b e a

g ood id ea to P aul, a nd h e w elc o m ed th e c h a nge. T he C EO a ls o a ppro ve d th e p la n, a nd

th e n ew e quip m ent w as in sta lle d im media te ly .

T hre e m onth s la te r, P aul w as s u rp ris e d a nd d is a p poin te d to fin d th at th e e xp ecte d

in cre ase in p ro ductiv it y d id n ot o ccu r. In fa ct, p ro ductiv it y a nd q ualit y a ctu ally

d ecre ase d. T he m ark e tin g m ana ger to ld P aul th at s e ve ra l o f th eir b est c u sto m ers

c o m pla in ed a bout r e ce iv in g E ch o e quip m en t th at w as d efe ctiv e . P aul d oes n ot b elie ve

th at th e p ro ble m lie s w it h th e n ew w ork sta tio ns. T e ch n ic ia ns fr o m th e fir m th at b uilt th e

w ork sta tio ns r e ce ntly c h ecke d th em a nd fo und th at th ey w ere o pera tin g p ro perly . P aul

ta lk e d to s o m eone a t a noth er c o m pa ny th at u se s th e w ork sta tio ns, a nd h is c o nta ct

re porte d th at th ey w ere h avin g g re at s u cce ss w it h th em .

Wh en P aul d is cu sse d th e p ro ble m w it h h is fo ur p ro ductio n s u p erv is o rs , h e fo und th at

th ey s h are d h is c o nce rn b ut d id n ot a gre e a m on g th em se lv e s a bout th e c a use o f th e

pro ble m . R easo ns g iv e n fo r th e d eclin e in p erfo rm an ce in clu ded p oor d esig n o f th e

w ork sta tio ns, in adequate tr a in in g o f th e p ro ductio n w ork e rs w ho o pera te th em , a nd la ck

o f fin ancia l in ce ntiv e s fo r in cre asin g p ro ductiv it y . T he s u p erv is o rs a ls o to ld P aul th at th e

pro ductio n w ork e rs h ave s tr o ng fe elin gs a bout th e w ork sta tio ns. M ora le d eclin ed, a nd

tw o e m plo ye es q uit b eca use th e y w ere u pse t a bout th e c h a nges m ade in th e w ay th e

w ork is d one.

T his m orn in g, P aul r e ce iv e d a p h one c a ll fr o m th e C EO w ho ju st r e ce iv e d th e

pro ductio n fig ure s fo r la st m onth a nd w as c a llin g to e xp re ss c o n ce rn a bout th em . T he

C EO in dic a te d th at th e p ro ble m w as P aul’s to s o lv e , b ut h e m ust ta ke im media te s te ps

to d eal w it h it . T he C EO w ants t o k n o w b y n ext w eek w hat s te ps P aul w ill ta ke to

r e ve rs e th e d eclin e in p ro ductiv it y a nd p ro duct q ualit y .

Q uestio ns

1. Wh at a ctio ns c o uld P aul h ave ta ke n to p re ve n t th e p ro ble m ?

2. Wh at s te ps s h ould P aul ta ke n ow to d eal w it h th e p ro ble m ?

Essay # 2: C ase S tu dy: A lv is C orp ora tio n

K ath y M cC arth y w as th e m anage r o f a p ro ductio n d epartm en t in A lv is C orp ora tio n, a

f ir m th at m anufa ctu re s o ff ic e e q uip m en t. T he w ork e rs a re n ot u nio niz e d. A fte r r e adin g

an a rtic le th at s tr e sse d th e b ene fit s o f p artic ip ativ e m an agem en t, K ath y b elie ve d th at

th ese b enefit s c o uld b e r e aliz e d in h er d epartm en t if th e w ork e rs w ere a llo w ed to partic ip ate in m akin g s o m e d ecis io ns th at a ff e ct th em . K ath y s e le cte d tw o d ecis io ns fo r

an e xp erim ent in p artic ip ativ e m anagem en t.

T he fir s t d ecis io n in vo lv e d v a ca tio n s ch edule s. E ach s u m mer th e w ork e rs a re g iv e n tw o

weeks’ v a ca tio n, b ut n o m ore th an tw o w ork e rs c a n g o o n v a ca tio n a t th e s a m e tim e. In

p rio r y e ars , K ath y m ade th is d ecis io n h ers e lf . S he w ould fir s t a sk th e w ork e rs to

in dic a te th eir p re fe rre d d ate s, th en s h e c o n sid ere d h ow th e w ork w ould b e a ff e cte d if

d if f e re nt p eople w ere o ut a t th e s a m e tim e. It w as im po rta nt to p la n a v a ca tio n s ch edule

t h at w ould e nsu re a dequate s ta ff in g fo r a ll o f th e e sse ntia l o pera tio ns p erfo rm ed b y th e

departm ent. Wh en m ore th an tw o w ork e rs w ante d th e s a m e tim e p erio d, a nd th ey h ad

sim ila r s kills , s h e u su ally g ave p re fe re nce to th e w ork e rs w it h th e h ig hest p ro ductiv it y .

T he s e co nd d ecis io n in vo lv e d p ro ductio n s ta ndard s. S ale s h ad b een in cre asin g s te adily

o ve r th e p ast fe w y e ars , a nd th e c o m pa ny r e ce n tly in sta lle d s o m e n ew e quip m ent to

in cre ase p ro ductiv it y . T he n ew e quip m en t w ould m ake it p ossib le to p ro duce m ore w it h

t h e s a m e n um ber o f w ork e rs . T he c o m pa ny h ad a p ay in ce n tiv e s yste m in w hic h

w ork e rs r e ce iv e d a p ie ce r a te fo r e ach u nit p ro duce d a bove a s ta ndard a m ount.

S epara te s ta ndard s e xis te d fo r e ach ty p e o f p ro duct, b ase d o n a n in dustr ia l

engin eerin g s tu dy c o nducte d a f e w y e a rs e arlie r. T o p m an agem ent w ante d to r e adju st

th e p ro ductio n s ta ndard s to r e fle ct th e fa ct th at th e n ew e quip m ent m ade it p ossib le fo r

th e w ork e rs to e arn m ore w it h o ut w ork in g a ny h ard er. T he s a vin gs fr o m h ig her

pro ductiv it y w ere n eeded to h elp p ay fo r th e n ew e quip m en t.

K ath y c a lle d a m eetin g o f h er 1 5 w ork e rs a n h our b efo re th e e nd o f th e w ork d ay a nd

exp la in ed th at s h e w ante d th em to d is cu ss th e tw o is su es a nd m ake r e co m mendatio ns.

K ath y fig ure d th at th e w ork e rs m ig ht b e in hib it e d a bout p artic ip atin g in th e d is cu ssio n if

s h e w ere p re se nt, s o s h e le ft th e m a lo ne to d is cu ss th e is su es. B esid es, K ath y h ad a n

appoin tm ent to m eet w it h th e q ualit y c o n tr o l m an ager. Q ualit y p ro ble m s h ad in cre ase d

afte r th e n ew e quip m ent w as in sta lle d, a nd th e in dustr ia l e ngin eers w ere s tu dyin g th e

pro ble m in a n a tte m pt to d ete rm in e w hy q ualit y h ad g otte n w ors e r a th er th an b ette r.

Wh en K ath y r e tu rn ed to h er d epa rtm en t ju st a t q uit tin g tim e, s h e w as s u rp ris e d to le arn

th at th e w ork e rs r e co m mended k e e pin g th e s ta ndard s th e s a m e. S he h ad a ssu m ed

th ey k n ew th e p ay in ce ntiv e s w ere n o lo nger fa ir a nd w ould s e t a h ig her s ta ndard . T he

w ork e r s p eakin g fo r th e g ro up e xp la in ed th at th eir b ase p ay h ad n ot k e pt u p w it h

in fla tio n, a nd th e h ig her in ce ntiv e p ay r e sto re d th eir r e al in co m e to it s p rio r le ve l.

O n th e v a ca tio n is su e, th e g ro up w as d eadlo cke d. S eve ra l o f th e w ork e rs w ante d to

t a ke th eir v a ca tio ns d urin g th e s a m e tw o-w eek p erio d a nd c o u ld n ot a gre e o n w ho

sh ould g o. S om e w ork e rs a rg ued th at th ey s h o uld h ave p rio rit y b eca use th ey h ad m ore

s e nio rit y , w hile o th ers a rg ued th at p rio rit y s h o uld b e b ase d o n p ro ductiv it y , a s in th e

past. B eca use it w as q uit tin g tim e, th e g ro up c o n clu ded th at K ath y w ould h ave to

r e so lv e th e d is p ute h ers e lf . A fte r a ll, w asn ’t th at w hat s h e w as b ein g p aid fo r?

Q uestio ns 1. Were th e tw o d ecis io ns a ppro pria te fo r a g ro up d ecis io n p ro ce d ure a cco rd in g to

t h e V ro om –Y etto n m odel?

2. Wh at m is ta ke s w ere m ade in u sin g p artic ip atio n, a nd w hat c o u ld h ave b een d one

to a vo id th e d if f ic u lt ie s th e m anag er e nco u nte re d?

3. Wh ere th ese tw o d ecis io ns a ppro pria te o nes fo r in tr o ducin g p artic ip atio n in to th e

departm ent?

E ssay # 3: Wh at a re th e p ote ntia l b enefit s o f d ele gatio n, a nd w hen is it m ost lik e ly to b e

su cce ssfu l? Wh at a re s o m e g uid elin es o n w hat to d ele gate ? W hy d o s o m e m anagers

fin d it s o d if f ic u lt to d ele gate o r s h a re p ow er? W rit e a n e ssa y o n S te ve J o bs s ty le o f

fu nctio nin g? D id h e d ele gate h is jo b e ff e ctiv e ly ?

E ssay # 4: C ase S tu dy: N atio nal P ro ducts

S usa n T hom as is th e v ic e p re sid ent fo r h um an r e so u rc e s a t N atio nal P ro ducts , a

m anufa ctu rin g c o m pany w it h 5 0 0 e m plo ye e s. T he c o m pa ny h as a n o penin g fo r a

g enera l m anager in o ne o f it s p ro duct d iv is io ns, a nd th e p re sid ent a ske d S usa n to

r e vie w th e b ackg ro unds o f th re e d epartm en t m an agers w ho a re in te re ste d in b ein g

pro m ote d to th is p osit io n. S he is e xp e cte d e it h er to r e co m mend o ne o f th e th re e

in te rn al c a ndid ate s o r to b egin r e cru it m en t o f e xte rn al c a n did ate s. T he in te rn al

ca ndid ate s a re C harle y A dam s, B ill S tu art, a nd R ay J o h nso n . T he fo llo w in g in fo rm atio n

about e ach c a ndid ate w as o bta in ed fr o m p erfo rm an ce r e co rd s, in te rv ie w s w it h th e

ca ndid ate s, a nd d is cu ssio ns w it h th e b oss o f e ach c a n did ate .

C harle y A dam s

Charle y A dam s h as b een a p ro ductio n m an ager fo r th e p ast e ig ht y e ars . H e is a n

easyg oin g p ers o n w ho lo ve s to s w ap jo ke s a nd te ll s to rie s. C harle y s tr e sse s th e

im porta nce o f c o opera tio n a nd te am work . H e is u nco m fo rta ble w it h c o nflic t, a nd h e tr ie s

to s m ooth it o ve r q uic kly o r fin d a n a cce pta ble c o m pro m is e .

B efo re b eco m in g a m anager, C harle y w as a lw ays w illin g to ta ke o n e xtr a a ssig nm ents

f o r h is b oss a nd to p ro vid e h elp fu l a dvic e to le ss e xp e rie nce d c o w ork e rs in h is

d epartm ent. C harle y is p ro ud o f h is r e puta tio n a s a “ g ood te am p la ye r” a nd a lo ya l

“c o m pany m an.” It is im porta nt to C harle y to b e lik e d a nd a ppre cia te d b y p eople in th e

org aniz a tio n.

C harle y c o m es fr o m a c u lt u ra l b a ckg ro und e m ph asiz in g th e im porta nce o f c lo se fa m ily

t ie s. H e h old s fr e quent S unday d in ners a t w hic h th e e ntir e A dam s c la n g ath ers fo r a n

afte rn oon o f s w im min g, b ase ball, e atin g, a nd s in gin g. O n S atu rd ays, C harle y lik e s to

p la y g olf w it h fr ie nds, in clu din g s o m e o f th e o th er m an agers in th e c o m pany.

C harle y w ants h is d epartm ent to h ave a g ood p erfo rm an ce r e co rd , b ut h e is r e lu cta nt to

je opard iz e r e la tio ns w it h s u bord in ate s b y p ush in g th em to im pro ve th eir p erfo rm ance

b eyo nd c u rre nt le ve ls , w hic h h e b elie ve s a re a dequate . W hen C harle y g iv e s o ut

perfo rm ance b onuse s to s u bord in ate s, h e u su a lly tr ie s to g iv e s o m eth in g to e ve ry o ne.

B ill S tu art Bill Stuart has been the manager of an engineering department for three years. He was

promoted to that position because he was the best design engineer in the company and

was ambitious to further his career by going into management. At the time, Bill had little

understanding of what the job would be like, but he saw it as both an opportunity and a

challenge. Bill grew up as somewhat of a loner. He still feels awkward around people

he doesn’t know well, and he dislikes social functions such as cocktail parties and

company picnics. As a design engineer, Bill preferred assignments where he could

work alone rather than team projects. He is impatient with bureaucratic authority figures

and he is critical of corporate policies that he regards as too restrictive. Bill gets along

well with his present boss, because he is left alone to run his engineering group in his

own way.

Bill likes challenging assignments, and he tries to save the most difficult and interesting

design projects for himself. Although Bill usually performs these tasks effectively, his

preoccupation with them sometimes takes time away from some of his managerial

responsibilities, such as developing and mentoring subordinates.

Ray Johnson

Ray Johnson has been a corporate marketing manager for five years. He grew up in a

poor ethnic neighborhood where he learned to be tough in order to survive. He has

worked hard to get where he is, but for Ray, good performance has been a way to get

ahead rather than something he enjoys for its own sake.

Ray lives in a large house with a big swimming pool in the best part of town, and he

likes to throw big parties at his home. He wears expensive clothes, drives a luxury car,

and he belongs to the best country club. Ray is married, but fancies himself as quite a

playboy and has had many affairs, including some with female employees.

Ray views the organization as a political jungle, and he is quick to defend himself

against any threats to his reputation, authority, or position. He tries to undermine or

discredit anybody who criticizes or opposes him. He keeps a tight control over the

operations of his department, and he insists that subordinates check with him before

taking any action that is not routine.

Questions1.

What are the dominant motives for each candidate?

2. What are the implications of these traits for the success of each candidate if

selected for the general manager position?

3. Should Susan recommend one of these candidates for the position, or look for

external candidates? Discussion Question:

Which skills are most important at lower, middle, and higher levels of

management? Compare these skills for any world-class organization like GE,

Proctor & Gamble or a company of your choice.