Full assignment paper: Leadership analysis of John Terrill

By | April 22, 2014

This Assignment Is Published With Permission From The Author For Online Review Only
All Rights Reserved @ ChinaAbout.Net

List of figures

 

Figure 1 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model……………………… 3
Content

List of figures………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

  1. Using Hersey-Blanchard theory, identify John Terrill’s leadership style. What were the strengths and weaknesses?       4

1.1       Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model…………………………. 4

1.2       Case discussion: John Terrill’s supporting leadership style…………………….. 5

1.3       Strengths and weaknesses of supporting leadership style……………………… 6

  1. What do you think was John Terrill’s primary source of power? Do you think it is effective? 7

2.1       Theoretical review of source of power in the business environment……….. 7

2.2       Legitimate power as John Terrill’s major source of power……………………… 9

2.3       Evaluation of the effectiveness of the legitimate power of John Terrill…… 9

  1. Identify two of the ten managerial roles under Henry Mintzberg (1973)’s research that John Terrill performed in carrying out his duty………………………………………………………………………………………. 10

3.1       Henry Mintzberg (1973)’s ten managerial roles………………………………….. 10

3.2       Two managerial roles that John Terrill exhibited in the case…………………. 12

3.2.1       Monitor role………………………………………………………………………… 12

3.2.2       Disturbance handler……………………………………………………………… 13

  1. Do you think gender makes a difference when it comes to leadership style? Use examples and literature to support your stand…………………………………………………………………………………………. 13

4.1       Literature review of differences between male and female leaderships…. 13

4.2       Case discussion: John Terrill’s masculine leadership……………………………. 16

  1. If you were president of DGI International, would you recommend modifications in John Terrill’s leadership style that you would like him to adopt? Do you think it will be possible for John Terrill to make the necessary changes? Why……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

5.1       Modifications recommended in John Terrill’s leadership style……………… 16

5.1.1       Changing to a delegating leadership style……………………………….. 16

5.1.2       More focus on managerial role of entrepreneur………………………… 17

5.2       Viability of the changes in leadership style……………………………………….. 17

5.2.1       John Terrill can change his leadership style……………………………… 17

5.2.2       John Terrill has to change his leadership style………………………….. 18

List of reference…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19

 

 

 

1.        Using Hersey-Blanchard theory, identify John Terrill’s leadership style. What were the strengths and weaknesses?

1.1    Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model

Figure 1 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model

Source: Fiore 2004, p.31

 

Like Blake and Mounton’s Leadership Grid, the Situational Leadership Model which was proposed by Hersey and Blanchard (1977) based on the analysis on two different dimensions of leadership behaviors: task behavior and relationship behavior and two types of employees maturity which are job maturity and psychological maturity. Task behaviors concern for the production by engaging on which leaders’ major job would be to direct the employees about when, where, and how the tasks are to be carried out; and relationship behaviors concern for people, and in this dimension leaders are expected to use two-way communication to offer support and guidance to the subordinates and act as a true facilitator. And they also defined the employee maturity within the context of two components: Job maturity and Psychological Maturity. Job maturity refers to the subordinates’ task-relevant skills and technical professional knowledge and psychological maturity involves the subordinates’ self-confidence and self-respect (Lucas 2008, p.15). Constructed on these dimensions, Hersey and Blanchard (1969) created a four-quadrant model and all leadership practices are categorized into the four leadership styles as the figure above shows: Structuring, Coaching, Supporting and Delegating. And they claimed that different levels of maturity (ranging from immature to mature: M1, M2, M3, M4) and the leadership style and behaviors should fit in the level of the employee maturity in order to be effective (Yukl 1998) which explains why leadership is situational.

 

1.2    Case discussion: John Terrill’s supporting leadership style

 

According to the description in the case and the theoretical review of the Hersey and Blanchard (1977)’s Situational Leadership Model, we have come to the conclusion that John Terrill’s leadership style is “Supporting” which is featured by low task orientation but high relationship orientation of the leadership behaviors. On one hand, John Terrill after his coming to power as the head of the Technical Service division had not been spending a lot of time and energy in helping the technical staffs to get their job done and also it seemed to be not necessary as the 20 engineers are among the best educated professionals and knew how to do the job required of them in a task perspective, this low task orientation has been reconfirmed by John Terrill’s own word that “My job is to stay out of your way so that you can do your work…”, so that we can see that the degree of John Terrill’s involvement with task is low; on the other hand, in term of the leadership behavior in the dimension of relationship behavior or the care for employees, John Terrill had been focusing on addressing the issues that attracted the employees’ concern and build up good relationship with the technical staff. After takeover the manager’s job, the first thing that John Terrill did is to call for a meeting of the engineers and showed great concern for the employees’ personal welfare and needs at work. After hearing that the technical staffs were actually asked to write a lot of reports which were of little use to improving their work, John Terrill had immediately made a promise to the technical staffs that “My job is to stay out of your way so you can do your work and I will try to keep the top management off your backs too”, this should have made the technical staffs believe that John Terrill was really caring about them and trying hard to provide supports to them in the work place. So in conclusion we can see that John Terrill was using a “supporting” leadership style to provide relationship care to them to satisfy their psychological needs in order to facilitate their work.

 

1.3    Strengths and weaknesses of supporting leadership style

 

There are advantages and disadvantages for John Terrill’s using a supporting leadership style in the case of DGL International. There are at least three strengths of using the supporting leadership style: a) According to Hersey and Blanchard (1977)’s Situational Leadership Model, leadership is situational and when the subordinates have high degree of job maturity but low degree of psychological maturity (in other words, the followers are able to finish the job without direction but are with low commitment to the tasks), the use of the supporting leadership style will best fit the situation (Chemers 1997, p.56); b) the supporting leadership style is also known as participating leadership style, it encourage the employee participation in the decision making which is an obvious strategy for leaders to promote. And because the participation of followers, there is greater chance that they will be treating the decisions as their own decisions and support it with commitment (Woods & West 2010, p.446); c) what is more, by increasing participation employee it will result in improved communications and more effective conflict resolution between the leader and the subordinate (Landy & Conte 2010, p.555). And regarding the disadvantages of the use of participating or supporting leadership, a model developed by Victor Vroom and his colleagues suggests different decision making modes should be used in different situations and one of the situation is that a decision is important and the subordinates do not share the leader’s concern for task goals, group decision making is inappropriate (Vroom & Jago 1988).

 

 

 

2.        What do you think was John Terrill’s primary source of power? Do you think it is effective?

 

2.1    Theoretical review of source of power in the business environment

 

French and Raven (1960) suggested that there are five kinds of source of power in the business environment and below we will discuss these five source of power individually and briefly.

 

Expert Power:When a leader have sound knowledge and skills in the field, this right to lead is professionals, with technical ability, which means that most managers or colleagues who don’t have the same practical knowledge or common sense. So you can play a key role in your department, and affect the sector’s development. For example, John Terrill how to arrange their own engineers works of the department.

 

Positional Power:  When a leader is a legitimate and authoritative position. They obtain power of location depend on their own role in the organization. In many organizations, the classification system is reasonable for the employee’s position. As a manager, you can decide who does what work, who go where to work. As formal power, you can affect the entire department, because you have got the top power of the department. For example, the CEO of an organization has the highest power position. John Terrill was appointed as director of technical services, he has the right within the department is the highest.

 

Reward Power:  Obviously, when a leader can decide to grant or take away incentives to subordinates. As a department manager, he has a good resource, such as wages and benefits, human resources and capital controls. In essence, this is the manager provide reward based on the employee’s ability. For example, a programming team leader can provide such as by adding new programming tools to improve team productivity of their interests. Management of potential reward is a powerful force. It is an effective incentive mechanism. For example, a leader can decided to award the prize department, or cancel the behavior of staff allowances. John Terrill as a department manager, he has the right to grant or cancel the bonus for engineer.

 

Coercive Power:This is a leadership behavior when leaders feel their rights are threatened. Coercion is a potential to influence others by sanctions or other negative action. For example, an engineer works longer hours unpaid because their performance review is due with her leader. It is a product of fear of loss. Coercive Power could be used as a tool in the managing activities in the organizational environment to ensure that policies and orders could be carried out effectively and without out too much costs in term of explaining the rationality behinds the orders and the consumption of other monetary and non-monetary resources to motivate the employees to follow the orders and policies enacted by the company. But one thing that needs to be noticed is that the implementation and functioning of the coercive power need to be accompanied by the necessary standard and rules that rational the coercive power to make it understandable by the employees.

 

Personal Power: It is the power of persuasion and influencing the employees to accept the decision made by the individuals. But the functioning of the personal power is constructed based on the good relationship between the leaders and the subordinates under them. For example, when there is a bad relationship between a leader and the subordinates directly under him or her, then the decision made by leader may frequently encounter the resistance from the subordinates because they do not trust the leader from the deep of heart. There are a number of advantages to use the personal power in the work place. For example, when there are serious problems within the department or among the employees, the managers could utilize the personal influence to carry out respective adjustments in order to solve the problems. In term of production problems in the department, the managers could urge the employees to adopt the new system or production procedure to get adapted to the changed situation and on the other hand in term of employees issue, the managers could also performing job in dealing with the employees issues with the good relationship and influential power among the employees.

 

2.2    Legitimate power as John Terrill’s major source of power

 

According to the description in the case and the theoretical review of the five sources of power proposed by French and Raven (1960), we have come to the conclusion that John Terrill’s major source of power is legitimate power. The reasons are given as followings in three folds: a) firstly of all, all the responsibility and motivators of John Terrill to make a turnaround in the Technical Services division begins with his being appointed to the position of the head of the division and in another word he was asked and authorized to do; b) with the legitimate power given by the organization in the manager position, John Terrill obtain the power to power over the subordinates. At the very beginning he called for a meeting of the all the engineers to discuss the challenges faced in their work and such power to power over others to ask them to do according to his words and request; c) With the given legitimate power, John Terrill was able to give out not only orders to be carried within the department but also orders and request to be implemented by other departments. He actually ordered the original technical reports to be turned in to his office rather than mailed to headquarters. So that we can see the major source of power of John Terrill is legitimate power which facilitated his efforts to turn around the low productivity in the Technical Service.

 

2.3    Evaluation of the effectiveness of the legitimate power of John Terrill

 

The effectiveness of a leader’s power, in my understanding should be evaluated based on two dimensions: the degree of how successful the result of the business strategy is compared to the leader’s intension and the degree the relative stakeholders especially the followers accept and adhere to the vision and plan proposed. As in the case of John Terrill, the legitimate power is effective in both these dimensions. On one hand, speaking from the result of John Terrill’s leadership behaviors, he had reflected the fundamental reason of the low productivity of the technical division to the higher management, and though within this case the further actions had not been mentioned, but logically speaking after the identification of the root reason behind the overall underperformance of the technical department, the management side will accept John Terrill’s suggestion to simplify the reporting system, so there is a very high chance that the result will be successful compared to John Terrill’s intension; and on the other hand, speaking on the stakeholders’ perspective, we can observe from the case that, the followers who are the most important stakeholder in John Terrill’s leadership practices, accepted and appreciated very much what he had done on behalf of them to change the complex and time consuming report writing procedure and from the perspective of another key stakeholder, the management teams, they also support John Terrill to use the legitimate power to make a turnaround of the productivity in the technical department. So in the case of John Terrill, the legitimate power is effective in both these dimensions.

 

3.        Identify two of the ten managerial roles under Henry Mintzberg (1973)’s research that John Terrill performed in carrying out his duty

 

3.1    Henry Mintzberg (1973)’s ten managerial roles

 

Mintzberg (1973)’s Ten Management Roles are a complete set of behaviors or roles within a business environment. Because each role is different, so including all the management behavior. A particular way can further assessment the ability of the managers. In this theory of the ten roles, including the following roles:

 

Figurehead: All social, inspiration, law and ritual obligations. In this, the manager is seen as a symbol of status and power.

 

Leader: Responsibility is the core of the relationship between managers and subordinates; including incentive subordinates, monitor their work progress, to promote and encourage its development, and balancing result.

 

Liaison: describes a manager’s information and communication obligations. We have to get from the network of information exchange into the basic which we require knowledge.

 

Monitor: Responsibilities include: assessment of internal operations, the success of a department, sector problems and it may arise opportunities. In this respect the capacity of all the available information must be stored and maintained.

 

Disseminator: Focus on the facts or value-based organizations, and to subordinate the external perspective. This requires filtering and delegation skills.

 

Spokesman:Serves in a PR capacity by informing and lobbying others to keep key stakeholders updated about the operations of the organization.

 

Entrepreneur: manager’s role, to encourage improvement projects and work, commission, authorization and supervision team in the process of development.

 

Disturbance handler: A generalist role, needs charging, accidental destruction of conversion of an organization, you need to calm and support.

 

Resource Alligator: Describe the distribution and supervision financial, material and human resources responsibilities.

 

Negotiator: is a specific task, is to the spokesman, that represents the characters and resources distribution have indispensable role (Hodson & Sullivan 2007, p.503).

 

3.2    Two managerial roles that John Terrill exhibited in the case

 

In the case, John Terrill performed roles in carrying out his duty are mainly monitor and disturbance handler.

 

3.2.1            Monitor role

 

One major role played by John Terrill is the monitor role which according to Mintzber is one of the three informational roles and was usually used by leaders when they gather information (Lussier & Achua 2010, p.11). And according to the source of information, there are three major kinds of monitor behaviors as we can see from the leadership practices of John Terrill: Material reading, Communication with others and Observation. The first kind of behavior is material reading, with the problem involving the report system, John Terrill would have to read the technical report prepared by the technical staffs, and from these report he will be able to check the value of such reports and the necessity to prepare the report on daily frequency or not; the second kind of monitor role behaviors is communication. As we can see from the case, John Terrill held a meeting with all the technical staffs and to listen to them about the factors that caused the low productivity and it is for sure that communication was an important source of information for John Terrill to obtain the information he needed; the third method used by John Terrill is observation, he had spent a whole month on monitoring the usage of the technical report by other departments and the management team, and the result that very low usage was observed had actually played the critical role to prove that the report writing was not very necessary.

 

3.2.2            Disturbance handler

 

Disturbance handler is the other major managerial role that John Terrill played in handling the event. Disturbance handler according to Mintzber is one of the decisional roles and it is normally reactive capacity rather than proactive as in the entrepreneurial role because it handles with unexpected events (Bess & Dee 2008, p.638). The reasons why John Terrill was playing the role of disturbance handler include: first of all, it was the unexpected low productivity that attracted the attention of the management and lead to the appointment of John Terrill to handle the issue with the hope to make a turnaround in the technical department; secondly, John Terrill concentrate his time and energy to find out the motivators for the low productivity issue and also provide his solution suggested to fix the issue to the management. So it is obvious that John Terrill did play the role of disturbance handler during the handling of the issue.

 

4.        Do you think gender makes a difference when it comes to leadership style? Use examples and literature to support your stand.

 

4.1    Literature review of differences between male and female leaderships

 

First we have to discuss the topic that whether there will be differences between male and female leaderships. To begin with the topic, we have to understand that male and female will have different personal personality, behaviors and demands. They also have different techniques, skills and interests. For example, male leaders tend to be more independent in doing business and managing people than the female counterparts, what’s more they are more objective in doing things and differences could also be found in the competitiveness of the male and female leaders. And in contrast, typical female stereotype can be identified as sensitive, gentle and passive (Brown 1979). This gender characteristic difference could be seen as the differences in term of leadership styles and expression of behaviors. Some even classify and sum up these differences as the conclusion that male leaders are focusing on the results as could be expressed as results or goals oriented while the female leadership style is more focusing on the relationship between different people which could be characterized as relationship based leadership (Ashmore 1986). The leadership style could be defined as “the underlying needs structure of the leader which motivates his behavior in various leadership situations and infers the consistency of goals or needs over different situations” (Chapman 1975).

 

The leadership style is considered as based on the personal preferences, value, beliefs and organizational culture and other corporate rules (Terborg 1977). Female leaders tend to use more loose policy and focus on care for the employees to motivate the employees to work harder to achieve the goals set by the management. In contrast, while the female leaders provide a lot of empowerment to the employees under their management, the male leaders tend to have more demands and request to the subordinates and also show the characteristic of autocratic to the employees under their management. And because the female leaders provide sufficient empowerment to the employees under their management they would expect to demand more royalty from the employees. So that in many cases, male leaders would be considered as more preferred by power and when the female thus will usually put in a passive position when competing for leadership with the male counterparts. And to compete for the same position, the female candidates need to do more to prove their capability to the others in order to obtain the position.

 

And there are three different types of view about the differences between the male leadership style and the female leadership style. (1) No differences: Women who pursue the nontraditional career of manager reflect the feminine stereotype and have needs, value, and leadership style similar to those of men who pursue managerial careers.(2) Stereotypical differences: Female and male manager differ in ways predicted by stereotypes, as a result of early socialization experiences that reinforce masculinity in males and femininity in females. (3) Non stereotypical differences which suggests that there are no significant and fundamental differences between the male leadership and the female leadership.

 

Female leaders tend to use a more democratic leadership style by encouraging employment involvement and power and information sharing, and also they would try to upgrade the subordinate individual value. They tend to be more compatible and use charismatic to lead the employees and at the same time build up close inter-personal relationships with other employees and managers. On the other hand, male leaders more likely and prefer to use direct order and command to lead the team with closed control over the team performance. This style of leadership is based on the authorized power by the top management. So that democracy will be downgraded under the management of the male leaders. And obviously, the strict ruling and control under the male leadership make it more autocratic than that of the female leaders.

 

It is obvious that in the long history, there are differences between the male leaders and the female leaders, and male are more advantageous in obtaining power and being a good leader. But in today’s organizations, with increasing focus on the teamwork and cooperation, the information sharing and trust building is beginning to take over the powerful male autocratic leadership. It is well known to us that the best manager will need to motivate the employees to work to their potential and contribute to the companies. And it seems that in this area, the women leaders are doing a better job than the male counterparts because the advantages that the female leaders have in communication and more effective negotiations. For example, the founder of the Mary Kay will send hand writing birthday greetings to the salesmen to celebrate their birthday and show her care to the employees. And so the style of the senior leadership has significant importance to the business development in the organizations.

 

4.2    Case discussion: John Terrill’s masculine leadership

 

As in the case, the manager of the technical service department has summoned the meeting of the engineers and after the active listening of the employees about the complaints that they had in the working place. He decisively performed a transformation in the department. He utilize the director leadership style, as a male leader, he used an vivid experiment in a month to store up the technical reports and show the top management the large volume of the technical reports and he also suggested to the CEO that it is the busy report writing that decreased the productivity and performance of the engineers. We can see that from this case, the leader did not spend a lot of time in communicating with the employees like a typical woman leader, but he did use his way to order and to prove the effectiveness of his leadership style to be more directive and autocratic without too much democracy and focus on the relationship building among the employees.

 

5.        If you were president of DGI International, would you recommend modifications in John Terrill’s leadership style that you would like him to adopt? Do you think it will be possible for John Terrill to make the necessary changes? Why

 

5.1    Modifications recommended in John Terrill’s leadership style

 

5.1.1            Changing to a delegating leadership style

 

The first modification to John Terrill’s leadership style is to change his leadership style gradually to a delegating leadership. With the anticipated smooth resolve of the disturbance regarding the reporting system, by adopting a participating or supporting leadership style John Terrill had encouraged the employees to express their own complaints through escalation of the different ideas to the higher management rather than bearing it in the deep of heart, and this engorgement of participation by the employees will gradually lead to a higher employee psychological maturity. And with the psychological maturity of the employees, according to the Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership John Terrill should lead the followers using more delegation rather than supporting. By adopting a delegating leadership style, much less work to take care of the employees and motivation efforts could be save and thus John Terrill could work on other functions and jobs especially on the work regarding the managerial role of entrepreneur to encourage improvement projects and work.

 

5.1.2            More focus on managerial role of entrepreneur

 

When the roles of disturbance handler and monitor decline, John Terrill could focus more on other manager’s roles in particular the role of entrepreneur to encourage improvements in projects and work, commission, authorization and supervision of the team in the process of development, in other words, John Terrill should focus back on the decisions making in the business strategy. And based on Mintzberg’s study, managers could start to engage more on the entrepreneurial decision making by monitoring the internal organization and external environment to seek to uncover and anticipate both hidden problems and business opportunities (Bess & Dee 2008, p.638).

 

5.2    Viability of the changes in leadership style

 

5.2.1            John Terrill can change his leadership style

 

Researches and studies after the trait theories are more and more focus on how leaders could change their leadership style so that it could be effective in leadership practices, in another word, managers including John Terrill should be able to change their leadership style based on different environments because leaders are not born and they could be trained, educated with situational changes as well.

 

5.2.2            John Terrill has to change his leadership style

 

According to Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model, leadership style and behaviors should fit in the level of the employee maturity in order to be effective (Yukl 1998) which explains why leadership is situational, John Terrill has no choice but to change his leadership style in order to keep the high effectiveness of his leadership. For example, it is claimed that every manager should be able to play all the ten managerial roles, and after the event if John Terrill still continue to focus only on the two managerial roles, monitor and disturbance handler then his leadership would not be as much effective as other managers in leading their respective team. When such situation happen, John Terrill would have to change his leadership style and managerial role focus to better help improve the overall performance of the team. And such change would also be the same wish that the management teams have for John Terrill.

 

 

List of reference

 

Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K. & Wohlers, A. J. (1986) “The social psychology of female – male relations: A critical analysis of central concepts.” Academic Press,: 69-119.

 

Bess, J. L. & Dee, J. R. 2008, Understanding College and University Organization: Dynamics of the system, Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC. p.638

 

Brown, Stephen M. (1979) Male Versus Female Leaders: A Comparison of Empirical Studies. Sex Roles 5, no. 5: 595-611.

 

Chapman, J. Brad. Comparison of Male and Female Leadership Styles. (1975) The Academy of Management Journal (Academy of Management) 18, no. 3 (September 1975): 645-650.

 

Chemers, M. M (1997), an integrative theory of leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. p.56

 

Fiore, D. J. (2004), Introduction to educational administration: standards, theories, and practice, New York: Eye On Education, Inc, p.31

 

French, J. P. R. & Raven, B. 1960. The bases of social power. Group Dynamics. Evanston, IL: Row and Peterson. Pp.607-623

 

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of Organizational Behavior 3rd Edition– Utilizing Human Resources. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

 

Hodson, R. & Sullivan, T. A. (2007), The social organization of work. 4th ed, Mason, OH: Thomson Higher Education. p.503

 

Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. 2010, Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3rd edn, Altamont Pass: Wiley-Blackwell, p.555

 

Lucas, D. B. (2008), A study of the relationship between transformational leadership and constructive organizational culture in small manufacturing companies, Michigan: Wayne State University Press, p.15

 

Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. F. 2010, Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. Fourth Edition, Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, p.11

 

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4): 370-396

 

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row, p.92, 93

 

Murphy, S, Riggio, RE (eds.) (2003), The future of leadership development, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

 

Terborg, J. A., Peters, L. H., Ilgen, D. R., & Sweth, F, (1977) Organizational and personal correlates of attitudes toward women as managers. Academy of Management Journal, 89-100.

 

Vroom, V. H. & Jago, A. G. 1988, The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations, Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

 

Woods, S. & West, M. A. 2010, The Psychology of Work and Organizations, Hampshire: Cengage Learning EMEA. p.446

 

Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership in organizations, 4th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.