The purpose of this exercise is to introduce the relationship of selecting, evaluating, building and hiring the right employees and leaders as one of the factors to establish to pull through a team strategy, increase company performance and develop organi

Authors Avatar

              Unit 14 – Working With & Leading Peoples         Assignment 14 – 02

Table of Contents

  1. Executive Summary

The purpose of this exercise is to introduce the relationship of selecting, evaluating, building and hiring the right employees and leaders as one of the factors to establish to pull through a team strategy, increase company performance and develop organizational effectiveness.

I will try to explain each of the key roles that will affect a business success in its industry. One of which is selecting the right leader and what is the best fit ‘type’ of leader. It will also include how some companies empower their employees better in their tasks. The document will also help how strategic performance management can take place at top management, middle management, or strategic operations levels, and their impact on business profitability, company competitiveness and organizational stability and growth.

  1. Leaders in the Organization

  1. Theories and Styles of Leadership

  1. Leadership theories

Many theories about leadership tend to focus on the question ‘What is it that makes one leader more effective than another?’ The hope is that by observing carefully enough how successful leaders operate, it will be possible to arrive at a theory which will either enable others to be more effective leaders, or at least enable organizations’ to select better leaders. These theories of leadership fall into three broad categories: trait theories, style theories and contingency theories. I'll examine each of these in turn.

  1. Trait theories

Trait theories are based on the assumption that the determining factor in an effective leader is a set of personal characteristics. It is also assumed that the way to discover these characteristics is to study successful leaders and determine which characteristics they have in common. However, despite innumerable studies, only about 5 per cent of the characteristics identified in successful leaders have been found to be widely shared. Of these, three stand out as significant:

  • above average intelligence, but not at the level of a genius;
  • initiative – a combination of independence, inventiveness and an urge to get things done;
  • self-assurance – a blend of self-confidence, self-esteem and high personal expectations.

Clearly, while these are important characteristics, they do not provide the clear-cut distinction between good and bad leaders sought by the theory. (Such a distinction may, in fact, be unattainable.) There are also significant exceptions: some individuals with all three characteristics are ineffective leaders, and some who lack these characteristics are very effective leaders. Despite these criticisms, trait theories continue to influence, albeit implicitly, many organizational procedures for selecting leaders.

  1. Style theories

Style theories are based on the assumption that it is the style of leadership that matters. The alternative styles are generally phrased in terms of ‘task centered’ or ‘person centered’; these have also been called ‘structuring’ and ‘supporting’ styles, corresponding roughly to the ‘scientific’ and ‘social relations’ styles of management.

The leadership styles are not mutually exclusive and can be represented in the form of a grid, as in  1.0. Thus it is possible for an individual to be strongly person centered or strongly task centered or both, or neither of these. Although leaders may change from one style to another, they tend to adopt a preferred style.

Figure 1.0: The dimensions of leadership style (from Blake and Mouton, 1964)

Leaders high on task orientation are generally perceived as more efficient, while those high on person orientation are seen as providing a more pleasant and satisfying work environment. It has been argued that the person-centered style is more effective because it enables people to meet their self-actualizing and esteem needs. However, it has been found that whilst the supportive style of leadership leads to greater subordinate satisfaction, lower grievance rates and less conflict, the gain in productivity is not substantial.

This finding begs the question of what the criteria for assessing effective leadership should be. This is a question that is rarely discussed. The most widely used criterion, although it is usually implied rather than explicitly stated, is whether or not there is a significant increase in productive output, or efficiency, of the group that the leader is responsible for. Naturally this is a very important outcome, but it is certainly not the only one.

Indeed, to place great emphasis on productive efficiency as the criterion for success means that the evaluation of the theories is being done from a task-oriented perspective. This clearly undervalues the person-oriented approach, which by its own criteria values the satisfaction of the workers as much as, or more than, the productive output.

  1. Contingency theories

Contingency theories are based on the idea that there is no single best style of leadership but that the most effective style depends upon the circumstances. The aspects of the circumstances identified as significant are:

  • the leader's characteristics and style (thus absorbing the two earlier theories).
  • the subordinates' expectations and experience.
  • the nature of the task and the organizational environment.

For example, Fiedler's contingency theory (Fiedler, 1967) focuses on the degree of structuring in the task and the leader's organizational power (i.e. the power to reward and punish). He finds that where the task is highly structured, and the leader liked, trusted and powerful, then the most effective leadership style is a directive, task-oriented style. Similarly, where the task is ambiguous and the leader is in a weak position, then the same directive, task-oriented style is most effective. In intermediate situations where the task is ambiguous and the leader liked and respected, then a participative, person-centered style is found to be most effective. These findings are summarized in Figure 2.0.

Figure 2.0: A summary of Fiedler's results on which leadership style is most effective

Other theories in this category focus on other aspects of the context; however, they have the same sort of structure, namely recommending different styles of leadership in different contexts.

  1. Analysis

There are no simple answers to what it is that makes some leaders more effective than others, and I think there is no single best leadership style or approach. What matters is that the style adopted should fit with the expectations of those being led and be consistent with the task at hand (that is, it should not ignore the specific characteristics of the task itself).

I realized that leadership has different roles to partake. They can be viewed scientifically like the central ‘controller’; which does the planning, monitoring and regulating. And the ‘democratic’ leader sees himself or herself as facilitator, or coordinator. And the more ‘educational’ view sees it as that of adviser, teacher, coach, mentor, source of expertise, etc. But a leader can be a little bit of everything from these types of roles where they can lead to achieving the task, building and maintaining the team, and developing individuals.

        History proclaims that leaders become leaders because of expectations created in childhood (our ‘inner child of the past’), and many have unconscious expectations to be a leader, and may well harbour resentments, anxieties, suspicions, subservience, passive resistances and attitudes to leadership that have little relationship to current adult realities.  But I think a good leader needs to be able to manage these feelings, especially responses to them. I think that leaders should be able to know oneself and be able to do self-reflection. And when dealing with other people he should know to provide objective or constructive feedback. Because it is in how you tactfully provide evaluative feedback that is becomes a valuable experienced because it will be received positively and thus will become helpful rather than destructive.  In addition, leaders should be able to take ownership of his actions. The importance of accepting responsibility for our own problems, rather than blaming others is clear distinction of being a leader.

  1. Communicating Company Vision and Mission

Until the early 1990s, it was not uncommon for organizations to think and plan in terms

of a five–, seven–, or even ten–year strategy. In some industries an even longer time horizon (measured in decades) was considered appropriate. During the 1990s, those same organizations started to reduce their time horizons for strategic planning activities. With the advent of dot–com thinking, a strategy and plan that covered only one year might have been considered too long a time frame. So in the fast–paced business world of today, what use is strategy now?

I think that strategy is not about how to define a single, unchanging vision for the future, but rather is a way of thinking about how to deal with the future—it is more about a process to guide decision–making than about a specific document to which people can (though they often don’t) refer.

In “the good old days;” when business life proceeded at a much more sedate pace (or so it

seems that it did, when we look back on it), an organization defined its vision and strategy and created the corresponding plan to achieve that vision. Once these had been approved and funded, the organization proceeded down the implementation path to achieve the vision. Occasionally, something might have happened external to the organization or even inside the organization that would require a minor tweak to the plan or, less often, to the strategy. But there was always a reasonable amount of time in which to react to these occurrences, and certainly few enough of them that the management team had time to consider each.

Today, reacting to external events requires more and more attention from the management team. With more frequent disruptive changes in different industries (the Internet, widespread high–speed network access), the need to address a completely different set of unanticipated problems (the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the explosion of viruses and spam, and the recent growth in phishing attacks), and the ever–present changes in the competitive landscape, modifying the strategy and amending the plan becomes a primary focus of management.

There’s the “head in the sand” approach—in which the organization continues to work to the original plan, which usually produces an outcome that those inside the organization think is successful and those outside the organization think is completely. And there’s the “wait until it’s obvious and re-plan” reactive approach—in which the organization, finally noticing something that will impact their strategy, decides to stop all work, put every effort into re-planning, and then restart along the path to implement against the new plan.

Instead, I think that a management team should review their mission and vision. And check if their day-to-day operations driven by strategy is still aligned to the company’s mission and vision. And when we hone skills around the process of strategy,  do we consider company’s culture and core values implementation. So by learning to recognize the “signs on the road” and learning “how to drive” to achieve a result that is a success for both the organization and its customers we recognize all details. And we understand the signposts (which represent internal and external events) and their impact on the company.

This responsibility cannot be implemented by management alone, it should be practiced across all exmployees. So by becoming more adept at applying these principles to the decisions that have a significant impact we take responsibility of our contribution to the company’s growth and profitability.

Strategy is no longer about “the document” or “that vision thing”—it’s about how the

organization approaches its decision–making day to day. Organizations can do better—and with clear communication of company’s mission and vision, core values and strategy; from top to bottom, they can do much better.  

The management should start developing alternatives, because an organization that has already established a business model with technologies, and capitalize on emerging opportunities that others may not recognize as quickly - - is an advantage.  And companies need to be updated and be aware of what has to happen for a business to succeed and what is happening around that will impact ability to succeed.

It is everyone’s responsibility to be familiar with the events that will have the most impact on current chosen direction—be ready to understand the consequences of disruptive changes, or events that are not turning out the way expected. And try to drive to decision or solution rather than engaging in endless dabate.

Success in business today is much like running a whitewater river. New challenges come up quickly, and must be dealt with quickly. Failure to make a decision can lead to disaster—but so can making a wrong one. Pre-thinking and rehearsing potential challenges (as well as opportunities) can ensure a more rapid, effective response when things begin to change suddenly. And most specially learn to contribute to the strategy regularly so that everyone in the company or team becomes more practiced at the process of strategy. Thus we lessen its impact on day-to-day operations. The company becomes better prepared to deal with any event that arises, whether the result of something outside your control or as you learn more about what you can influence to the company’s mission, vision and strategy.

  1. Enforcing Team Motivation

  1. Definition of  MBO

Management by objectives (MBO) is a systematic and organized approach that allows management to focus on achievable goals and to attain the best possible results from available resources.

  1. The Four Pillars of  MBO

  1.  is company strategy to increase organizational performance by alignment of the company goals and the employees’ objectives.
  2. It is a process of agreeing upon  within an organization so that  and  agree to the objectives and understand what they are in the organization.
  3. It is achieved using set targets. Ideally, employees get strong input to identify their objectives, time lines for completion, etc. It is MBO that introduced the SMART criteria: Objectives for MBO must be  (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Specific). In some sectors (Healthcare, Finance etc.) many add ER to make SMARTER, where the E=Extendable R=Recorded.
  4. MBO includes ongoing tracking and  in the process to reach objectives. Reliable  are needed to establish relevant objectives and monitor their "reach ratio" in an objective way. Pay  (bonuses) are often linked to results in reaching the objectives Test

There are several limitations to the assumptive base underlying the impact of managing by objectives, including:

1.         It over-emphasizes the setting of goals over the working of a plan as a driver of outcomes.

2.         It underemphasizes the importance of the environment or context in which the goals are set. That context includes everything from the availability and quality of resources, to relative buy-in by leadership and stake-holders. As an example of the influence of management buy-in as a contextual influencer, in a 1991 comprehensive review of thirty years of research on the impact of Management by Objectives, Robert Rodgers and John Hunter concluded that companies whose CEOs demonstrated high commitment to MBO showed, on average, a 56% gain in productivity. Companies with CEOs who showed low commitment only saw a 6% gain in productivity.

3.         It did not address the importance of successfully responding to obstacles and constraints as essential to reaching a goal. The model didn’t adequately cope with the obstacles of:

  • Defects in resources, planning and methodology,
  • The increasing burden of managing the information organization challenge,
  • The impact of a rapidly changing environment, which could alter the landscape enough to make yesterday’s goals and action plans irrelevant to the present

When this approach is not properly set, agreed and managed by organizations, in self-centered thinking employees, it may trigger an unethical behavior of distorting the system of results and financial figures to falsely achieve targets that were set in a short-term, narrow, bottom-line fashion.

A more fundamental and authoritative critique comes from Walter A. Shewhart / W. Edwards Deming, the fathers of Modern Quality Management, for whom MBO is the opposite of their founding Philosophy of .

The use of MBO needs to be carefully aligned with the culture of the organization. While MBO is not as fashionable as it was before the 'empowerment' fad, it still has its place in management today. The key difference is that rather than 'set' objectives from a cascade process, objectives are discussed and agreed, based upon a more strategic picture being available to employees. Engagement of employees in the objective setting process is seen as a strategic advantage by many .

A saying around MBO and CSF's -- "What gets measured gets done"is perhaps the most famous aphorism of performance measurement; therefore, to avoid potential problems SMART and SMARTER objectives need to be agreed upon in the true sense rather than set.

The original version of S.M.A.R.T. objective-setting that was used by Meyer was

  • Specific
  • Measurable
  • Attainable
  • Realistic and
  • Tangible

Meyer users the term Tangible, however the most common version uses time bound - the Blanchard/ Hersey version. Some claim that George T. Doran, developed the concept of S.M.A.R.T. goals in the discipline of project and program management and cite - George T. Doran, "There's a S. M. A. R. T. Way to Write Management Goals and Objectives", Management Review (AMA Forum), November 1981, pps. 35-36. Doran, George T. "There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write managements's goals and objectives." Management Review 70.11 (Nov. 1981): 35. Business Source Corporate.  . 15 Oct. 2008. Ironically in the same journal, in the same month. Miller, Arthur F. & Cunningham, James A "How to avoid costly job mismatches" Management Review, Nov 1981, Vol. 70 Issue 11, p29, 3p: 35. Business Source Corporate.  . 28 Oct. 2008. These certainly appear to be the first published articles documenting the SMART Objective as we know it today, however all this appears to prove is that there is an earlier source. One of the earliest publications applying goal setting directly to individuals performance is in GOAL SETTING AND SELF-CONTROL. By: RAIA, ANTHONY P.. Journal of Management Studies, Feb65, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p34-53, 20p;  . 31 Oct. 2008

And while this does not list the full SMART format it does talk about specific and measurable as well as requiring goals to be:

  • Authorised to complete the goal
  • Realistic and challenging
  • Tied to a completion date

So the elements are there - but not tied into the SMART formula.

  1. Group Report

Group Report Duration:  30 to 45 minutes, 03 March 2009

  1. Personal Teambuilding Seminar Proposal

  1. Importance of a Team Building

Team building is essentially a process involving participation, collaboration and nurturing of team spirit amongst the team members. This sense of team spirit is inculcated amongst participants in the team through interactive team exercises and group discussions. Team building is required in most of the organized group activity, even as the modern work sphere is increasingly getting specialized with division of labor and the global market is powered by communication revolution.

Join now!

A successful team building requires a number of steps, which include the following:

The first and foremost requirement for team building is the recruitment or selection of the participants. Since participants ensure the success of a project, a team leader looks for certain specific traits in them. They must have confidence and the ability to generate trust amongst the fellow members. A participant must possess leadership qualities and must be positively oriented at all times.

Next to selection of participants, it is imperative in team building to have well defined team goals and the same must ...

This is a preview of the whole essay