The Laissez Faire leadership style is largely a hands off view that usually minimizes the amount of direction and face time that is normally required in most cases. This style is conducive and frequently seen in relation to a highly trained and highly prepared group of employees. The Autocratic leadership style advocates, this style it is falling out of favor in many corporations in different countries because of the absolute power that it tends to give to CEOs resembling the lords of Medieval times. The Participative leadership style is somewhat different and at the same time difficult to implement. This is because it is hard to demand employees to be creative, work and perform as a team, solve complex problems individually, improve product and service quality, and provide premier customer service. The style presents an alternative medium between over controlling leadership or micromanaging and not being there for the employees. This style is usually seen in organizations that must innovate to prosper and evolve.
Situational leadership is another style established in depth in the 1950s, management theorists from Ohio State University and the University of Michigan published a series of studies to determine whether leaders should be more task or relationship and people oriented. (Johanssen, ¶ 6) This research was very important because most leaders tend to have more of a dominant leadership style. The research discovered that there is no one best style leaders must adhere to, their leadership style must adapt to the situation as well as to the group of people being led. The Transactional leadership style emphasizes getting things done while keeping the status quo. This style strives to do everything by the book always staying within the rules already established and it is commonly seen in large, bureaucratic organizations. The Transformational leadership style focuses on making changes on oneself, others, groups and organizations. Visionary leadership style focuses on defining the future for followers and moving them as effectively as possible towards it.
The next step would to be to identify the type of changes that corporations have implemented most recently and commonly in the last couple of years and the steps that it took to put them into practice. Some of these changes have been acquisitions and mergers, transitions to E-commerce, establishing Six Sigma quality programs, switching to lean manufacturing, continuous improvement initiatives, establishing new company culture, and establishing new organizational structures. The steps that it took to get to these goals are very structured and precise. To be able to effectively identify the steps one must identify some key roles that play a major part in these changes.
Sponsors are the senior level people, the president, vice president or other senior executives who want change to go in effect. The sponsors provide the resources needed to make the change happen. In addition, they provide legitimacy and visibility for the change initiative. The Support Group is a small group of people who serve like a board of directors for the change, 8 to12 people who offer advice, direction, and support. The Project Manager creates a detailed project plan including human and financial resources and timeframes, milestones and actions required. Project manager needs a strong working relationship with the sponsor to streamline the communication down the ladder. The Target Group is a group of people who must change in some way and can range from production employees, middle managers, a department, or the entire organization. Secondary Group is the group that must change to support the changes being made by the target group. The secondary group is often the managers of employees in the target group.
Now that the roles have been established and a clear idea of what will have a direct effect in the change process one can establish the steps or phases that will transpire in order for the transition to go through. The Kick Off step is what starts everything, it is when the change is announced, the reason for the change is explained, and the sponsors describe how it will benefit the employees and the company overall. In addition sponsors establish timelines, deadlines and milestones. The second step is training and orientation this is an important step as sponsors need to provide the target group and the secondary group with the knowledge and skills needed for success and for the change to be as seamless as possible. Monitor and measure is the third step, here the project manager monitors performance and measures results. The sponsor supervises the overall plan and keeps the support group informed. Rewards and recognition are the next step, here specific dates are established as to when rewards and recognition will be carried out for both the target group and the secondary group as short term goals are achieved. Ongoing Progress Reports is the firth step where people are kept informed, whether it is through via e-mails, memos, meetings, videos, the company newsletters, or through one-on-one informal conversations. The sixth and final step is the institutionalization of the changes where these changes need to be incorporated into the company’s policies, standard operating procedures, and job descriptions. In addition this step will help cement the change in culture that company seeks.
Finally an essential part of change is learning how to identify the driving forces and the resistors which are crucial factors for the implementation of change. Although both are equally important and driving forces are essential and necessary, knowing how to deal with resistors is imperative for the success of the whole mission and project.
“About 20 to 30 percent of the employees resist almost any change. A small percentage of resistors 5-10 percent will be very vocal in complaining about the change.” (Thornton, 2009) The course of action here is to listen to their concerns and comments as they may have valid points that should be considered. When this happens and the resistors feel their views are being heard, they will be more likely to listen to other points of view. At some point if there are no other points to go over with the resisters and they still will not budge, removal could be necessary even if they are performing at a high level.
When one looks at Gene One and the organizational structure, one can see all the necessary components to complete the change in structure that the leadership feels is necessary to take the company to new heights and a new level of performance. Their transition to an IPO marks not only a change in the organization but also and inevitably a change in leadership style. Not only would it be necessary to handle the new direction, but to comply with the new regulatory directives brought on by change. Going from a participative style of leadership to a situational style will guarantee that when change comes through, adjusting to any situation that may rise will be a much more manageable endeavor.
References
Johanssen, M. (). Different Types of Leadership Styles. Legacee,. Retrieved from http://www.legacee.com/Info/Leadership/LeadershipStyles.html
Thornton, P. B. (2009, January 25). Implementing Organizational Change. Message posted to http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/2009/01/implementing-organizational-change.html
