- Using Hersey-Blanchard theory, identify John Terrill’s leadership style. What were its strengths and weaknesses?
ⅰ) Leadership style-participating
There are four styles of leadership styles according to the situational theory of Hersey and Blanchard, such as the telling style, selling style, participating style and delegating style. Combining this leadership theory and the situation mentioned in the case, the leadership style of Terrill may be defined as participating which will be discussed in the following. (Daft 2010)
To begin with, Hersey and Blanchard gave the participating leadership style the definition that it is based on a combination of high concern for people and relationships and low concern for production tasks which is best suitable for the follower readiness level of R3 (Daft 2010, pp. 483). When concerning with the engineers’ readiness level in the Technical services department in DGL International, there are two points worth mentioning. The first point was the job readiness of the engineers in Terrill’s department. Frankly speaking, the level of these engineers’ job readiness was comparatively high which may be concluded from the case that the engineers in the Technical service division have enjoyed the highest salary with the support of good educational background. In another word, such kind of education background and salary level implied the relatively high working capability of them such as the necessary knowledge, skills and experience required in the position of engineers in the Technical services department of DGL International. In short, these engineers were able to have excellent performances in their jobs. The other point referring to the readiness of engineers is their willingness level which can be regarded as low. The information from these employees may explain the reason just as they mentioned that they had no choice but to waste time on writing a large number of unnecessary reports which largely decreased their working enthusiasm and morale as well as their productivity. And such kind of working situation made them lack of the confidence and willingness to fight for the proper and high productive performances in their works. And on the grounds of the two points, we can get the readiness level of Terrill’s subordinate engineers belonged to R3. (Daft 2010; Stefanović 2007)
Moreover, the leadership behavior of Terrill revealed he was mindful of people and relationship building instead of initiating task structures for his people. On the one hand, Terrill was engaged in offering these people the opportunities to show their views on their requirements and suggestions on job design and sharing ideas with them aimed to solve the current issue of the reason resulting in low productivity of these engineers and foster a harmonious working environment in the Technical services division of DGL International via the building a good relationship between its department leader John Terrill and his subordinates. By and large, the concern for the welfare of engineer people showed John Terrill’s leadership style had an inclination on the relationship establishing. On the other hand, although John Terrill had practised so many relationship behaviors, he had a low level of task behaviors. In other ways, Terrill spent much of his time in dealing with the welfare issue of his subordinate engineers but less concerning with the task structure establishing. For instance, in the case, Terrill had implemented nearly no activities in pointing out the working responsibilities and obligations to his people including the telling people what they should do, how to do their jobs, where to do their jobs, when to do their jobs and so on. (Yukl 2005; Daft 2010)
Broadly speaking, the conclusion can be made that John Terrill’s leadership style is participating with high concern with relationship and low concern with task structure which was also best suitable for the readiness level of his subordinate engineers.
ⅱ) Strengths and weaknesses of Terrill’s leadership style
Terrill’s leadership style may have both strengths and weaknesses which will be analyzed like the following.
First and foremost, the participating leadership owned the strength to ease the emotion and pressure from Terrill’s subordinate engineers who used to be depressed due to the impression that they were regarded as the pencil pushers rather than the engineers. Via the face to face communication in the meeting held by John Terrill, the true feelings and suggestions from the engineers in the Technical services department may be expressed freely and frankly to a certain extent which may be helpful in mollifying the pressure and distorted working attitudes towards their current jobs in DGL International under the support of the hopes that the current situation may be improved by Terrill’s efforts. (Cropanzano et al.2008)
In addition, Harter et al. (2005) also mentioned one of the strengths in participating leadership is its positive impact on the communication effectiveness and decision making within the organization. For instance, the meeting attended by not only Terrill and his subordinate engineer was a useful way to assist the communication and decision making in the Technical services department. In the meeting, engineers launched their concerns, opinions, suggestions or even some complaints about their jobs to Terrill without hesitation. Meanwhile, Terrill also showed his honesty and confidence in dealing with the problems which encountered by the engineers. Such direct and honest communication may move several barriers between Terrill and his subordinates to improve the correct of information gathering as well as the speed up the decision making process.
Broadly speaking, Terrill’s leadership style may help him build a harmonious relationship with his subordinate engineers which may further facilitate the overall performance of the Technical services department with the remove of several barriers.
According to Hogan et al. (2001) and the situation in the case, there were two kinds of weaknesses of Terrill’s participating leadership style.
The first aspect was the possibility of several negative outcomes of the participating leadership behaviors in the Technical service division. For example, there was a requirement on the time, human resources and other related sources spent in communication and decision making process such as the meeting which required almost the full participation and involvement of the division members as well as the thorough communication without too much hesitation and worry. Moreover, there was also a higher requirement on the leader-Terrill’s capacity to pick out the most accurate and useful information from his subordinates. If there was something wrong with the above two aspects namely the engineers’ part and Terrill’s part, the outcomes of Terrill’s participating leadership behavior may be only in vain. (Hogan et al. 2001)
The second aspect was the less mindful on the establishment and enhancement of task related issues. For instance, Terrill was keen on improving the personal welfare of these engineers too much including holding meetings to gather information, meeting with the top management to help engineers gain more rights, while there was less emphasis on the task structure’s consolidation including giving necessary task guidance, setting shared task goals, helping clarifying other task related aspects. Without the necessary concern on the task behaviors, this kind of leadership used by Terrill may also cause many factors leading to the poor performance and low productivity of his subordinate engineers such as the ambiguous task goals, misunderstanding, and conflicts and so on. (Hogan et al. 2001)
- What do you think was John Terrill’s primary source of power? Do you think it is effective?
ⅰ) Referent power
Gitman and McDaniel (2009) mentioned there are five primary sources including legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, expert power and referent power for leaders and managers used as the ability to influence or control people’s behaviors in organizations. To be more effectively guide and motivate working individuals, leaders as well as managers are necessary to resort to a certain source of power to influence working individuals toward business goals. According to Gitman and McDaniel (2009) as well as Daft (2010), we can define that the primary source of power for John Terrill was the referent power, which stems from the personal characteristics of John Terrill that enable him to command people’s identification, respect, and admiration to gain their respect and following. Let’s dig into the following two aspects to understand the primary source of power for John Terrill.
For one thing, although John Terrill was appointed as the boss of Technical services department in DGL International, it didn’t mean he was able to gain a good relationship with his subordinate engineers. But he depended on his personal charisma to win the heart and support from his subordinates, which can be observed in several evidences from the case. One example was the result of the meeting conducted by Terrill. Terrill finally got the information from his subordinate engineers via his mild and diplomatic manner in dealing with engineers’ complaints on the report writing. In the meeting, Terrill showed his great concern and care for the welfare of these engineers rather than the department’s performance, which may help him win the good impression and approval from the engineers. Just because of his outstanding performance in the beginning, employees frankly expressed their points of views as the respond of Terrill’s question. This kind of evidence disclosed the charm and influence of Terrill on his subordinate engineers that he was able to make them speak out the problem directly but not to keep in silence or show the negative attitude. This kind of power and influence wasn’t from his position but from his personal aspect, which was the referent power. (Choi 2006, pp. 24)
For another, John Terrill’s personal characteristics also endowed him the potential influence to build a good relationship with these engineers, which may not be so easy to build only depending on his position appointed by DGL International. At first, his clearly definition of his position to assist engineers to the jobs they want, which paved the base for the good relationship between Terrill and engineers. And then a series of actions carried out by Terrill also strengthen the confidence and respect of engineers towards him such as the practice of gathering technical report so as to use them as the references to talk with top management. Both the two aspects suggested Terrill had already built a friendly relationship with these engineers in the Technical services division via his personal charisma and measures of dealing with problems or else they may not be so cheerful when Terrill entered the office of the president to deal with their problem which was largely due to their confidence and admiration of Terrill’s capability. In short, such kind of good relationship building and people’s support gaining of Terrill also depended largely on his referent power. (Choi 2006, pp. 24)
In a word, John Terrill’s primary source of power on influence his subordinate engineers was the referent power, which was largely due to his personal charisma.
ⅱ) Effectiveness of referent power
Hughes (2006) advocated the referent power for management is most suitable in relationship building and support wining, which was performed by John Terrill properly and effectively.
One of the effective parts of this source of power was the success in mollifying the emotion and strengthening the confidence towards work for these engineers in Technical division. Before John Terrill took the charge of Technical services division one of the biggest barriers for the Technical services division’s low working morale and productivity was the requirement of a great many reports from engineers, which extinguished their working morale and career ambition to a certain extent. Although the low productivity had attracted the management’s attention of DGL International, it was seemed that nobody had realized the factor resulting in the low productivity. But John Terrill made it. After he was in the position as the boss of Technical service division, he well used the referent power of himself to influence his employees to be more compliant, believe their capacity as well as their jobs. For example, Terrill claimed his willingness to fight for the welfare of these engineers in the beginning which may largely strengthen the confidences of engineers towards their future career. And then Terrill gradually induced them to speak out the main reason for their poor performance which was built upon the emotional appeals such as the concern and care from their boss- John Terrill. In another word, feeling the care and concern of John Terrill’ behaviors, these engineers was then willing to speak out their worries and unhappiness in their jobs without too many worries and fear of be revenged by the management. In short, the success of persuading and guiding employees in facing their problems was the effectiveness of Terrill’s referent power. (Nankervis & Compton 2006, pp. 83-101; Hughes 2006)
Furthermore, the relatively adequate built relationship with the engineers in Technical services division also facilitate John Terrill to ease the difficulty of problem solving which was also the representation of Terrill’s referent power’s effectiveness. At first, his claim of concern for engineers’ welfare had helped him to win the support of these engineers in the beginning. And then, Terrill had carried out a sequence of activities to further show his honesty and perseverance in solving the current situation for these engineers, which also assisted him to won more support. These two steps had contributed a lot to build a good relationship between Terrill and his subordinates which was reflected from their cooperation in handing in their reports to Terrill rather than mailed them to the headquarter. One scenario may also disclose the good relationship and subordinates’ support for Terrill was that one day when he entered into the president’s office to deal with the problem of engineers, all of these engineers were so glad because they knew Terrill was able to help them and they believe Terrill was capable enough to help them to gain the proper job content. All of the above evidences showed John Terrill well used his referent power to influence his people, to gain their support as well as admiration, which was really effective. (Nankervis & Compton 2006, pp. 83-101; Hughes 2006)
Henry Mintzberg’s research indicates that diverse manager activities can be organized into ten roles. Identify two of these roles that John Terrill performed in carrying out his duty.
ⅰ) Disturbance Handler
According to Henry Mintzberg (Cited in Daft 2010), the disturbance handler role out of the ten manager roles refers to the character to take correct action during disputes or crises, to deal with conflicts among employees as well as to assist organization to adopt to environmental crises, which was the same role played by John Terrill. Generally speaking, when John Terrill was nominated as the person in charge of Technical services department, he began his disturbance handling process including matters calming, problem’s solving alternative evaluation and implementation (Jones 2004, pp.722-750).
At first, John Terrill called a face to face meeting to further dig out the main reasons for the poor performance of his subordinate in Technical services department. The face to face meeting was the means used by John Terrill to clear up the upward communication barriers in his department via offering opportunities to every engineers to show their concerns, advices as well as complaints towards their works and DGL International, which was an effectively communication methods with relatively fast feedback and accuracy. With the help of this meeting, John Terrill would understand more detailed information about the problems in Technical services department and then work out effective approach to solve it.
For example, when John Terrill had the face to face communication with these engineers, he found out the workload such as the report writing wasn’t appropriately assigned to them which not only took up a large part of engineers’ working time but also gave them an abhorrent impression that they were treated as pencil pushers rather than the engineers by their company. With the information getting from engineers, John Terrill then calmed down their emotion by declaring his aim and responsibility as the leader of the Technical services department that was to fight for engineers’ welfare in DGL International.
Besides the above, John Terrill worked out an efficient means to resolve the problem that was to use one month’s time to collect the reports written by engineers as the evidences for senior management to realize the inappropriate workload assigned to engineers in his department. And after one month time, he implanted his plan thoroughly including asking the secretary to meet him in the presidents’ office and have a face to face talk with the top management of DGL International to facilitate him solve the problem leading to the low productivity of engineers in his department.
The series of practices such as calming down engineers, thinking out proper solutions and implementation all indicated the role which John Terrill acted was the disturbance handler, because he took immediate action to alleviate the disputes of engineers and the organization, give solutions in dealing with conflicts and help DGL International to clearly realize the truth resulting in the poor performance of Technical service department. By and large, all of these practices and activities of John Terrill were aimed to solve problem for DGL International which disclosed his role as disturbance handler.
John Terrill also performed his role as a leader in playing the position as the person in charge of Technical services department. He well performed the leader role in direct and motivate his subordinates and communicate with them effectively (Daft 2010).
Firstly, John Terrill offered appropriate direction to these engineers in his department that everyone can express their ideas and complaints freely in the meeting. For example, he asked engineers questions directly such as “what’s the problem? Why can’t we produce? Why does this division have such turnover? ”, which directly led these engineers to face the problem and encourage them to express their truth feelings. Depending on the appropriate direction, the effectiveness of communication between John Terrill and engineers was enhanced as the case said without hesitation, employees launched a hail of complaints from which John Terrill got the reasons for the low productivity.
In addition, as Henry Mintzberg (Cited in Daft 2010) and Jones (2004, pp.722-750) advocated as the leader, it is necessary to stand in the height of whole organization to define the working structure or content for employees in order to assist employees to fulfill tasks and are motivated effectively which requires the leader to well balance needs between organization and employees to facilitate organization’s effective operation. For John Terrill, he also did a good job in this aspect, which included two points.
This first point was the logical and systematic capacity of John Terrill shown in concluding the problem and evaluating the alternatives of problem solving. For example, the major reason for the lack of productivity in the Technical services division was summarized by him as the pressure from report writing which was concluded on the basis of an analysis of the working environment and current situation in Technical service division. It showed the wisdom and capacity of Terrill as a leader. Meanwhile, one alternative he chose to collect evidences to support his action also showed his gift as a leader to predicate the future situation under the properly analysis and understanding of the overall situation of his organization. For example, he clearly realized the uselessness of too large amount in report writing before he ordered the reports turned in his office but not to mail them to the headquarters, that’s why he was so confident to promise the engineers that he would try his best to help them gain more welfare.
The second point was the effectiveness of John Terrill in motivating his subordinates as the leader. These claims such as “my job is to stay out of your way so you can do your work, and I’ll try to keep top management off your backs too and the actions such as walked to the president office with the cart full of engineers’ reports which all worked as motivators for engineers in Technical services division to gain more confidence and hope that John Terrill stood in their side to help them strive for the welfare.
All in all, all of the evidences showed the truth that John Terrill performed the role of a leader properly.
Do you think gender makes a difference when it comes to leadership style? Use example(s) and literature to support your stand.
In recent years, many people including these professionals such as social scientist, management consultants, and business writers have addressed the issue of gender and leadership, and there are schools who support the idea that gender makes a difference in leadership style while other schools assert that there is no difference in genders when comes to leadership style (Groves 2005)
ⅰ) Gender and leadership differences
According to the results getting from surveys on both male and female managers in companies ranking in Fortune 100 Company, a conclusion was made that women do have different styles of leadership compared with men (Ali 2011).
And there are a variety of researches to support this point of view that female leaders or managers intend to influence others such as their followers and subordinates by showing greater concerns for them while male leaders or managers try to influence their followers and subordinates by showing greater concern for self. For example, women managers or leaders are more likely to keep the broad interests of their organizations in mind when acting, take others’ feelings into consideration, and involve others when planning as well as focus not only on the task but also interpersonal aspects of the situation. Compared with female leaders, male leaders or managers may prefer to act out of self-interest, giving less concern on others’ feelings, work alone when strategy developing as well as focus the task itself alone primarily (Groves 2005).
These different leadership styles contribute to many different leadership behaviors of different genders. When talking about communication, gender may make a big difference. As Tannen (1994 cited in Groves 2005) mentioned women are more closely related to the connectivity in communication and men’s communication styles often show the reflect status type goals. That is to say the communication style of women leaders or managers is often intimacy oriented by which they tries to negotiate a complex network of friendship, reduce the amount of differences to reach a certain kind of consensus. While for male leaders or managers, independence often is key in their communication styles that is aimed to establish status in order to tell people what to do, how to do and other related orders.
Just as the founder of Bodyshop – Anita Roddick said that she run the company based on feminine principles including caring, intuitive decisions making, having the sense that work is part of your life as well as putting the labor in which your love is (Ali 2011). Compared with Anita Roddick, there are also a variety of male leaders run their business according to more masculine principles (Ali 2011). Zhang Ruiming, the CEO of Haier Group of China, for instance, made a fast and independent decision to break nearly 100 refrigerators with problems in quality during the period that refrigerator was regarded as the luxury goods for all Chinese people. This activity carried out by Zhang Ruiming was aimed to protect the reputation of his company and attract the attention to product quality from his employees, which was successfully. This kind of leadership style and behaviors shows the special characteristics of male leaders, which are defined as autocratic style or more task oriented (Seijts 2006).
In a word, all the above theories and evidences tell us there are differences in leadership style due to gender differences that women are found to act more interpersonally oriented with a rather democratic or participative like leadership style, while men are found to act more task oriented with a more autocratic like leadership style (Groves 2005).
ⅱ) Gender makes no difference in leadership style
There are also some schools hold the opposite view towards the idea that gender often makes a difference when comes to leadership style. An international survey implemented by Cranfield (2005 cited in Ali 2011) support female leaders or managers have no better or worse performance than male leaders or managers in their leadership and management practices by the comparison made between top men and women managers and leaders in both public and private sectors. We can say that the major factors which have influence on people’s performance are defined as people’s working length in their jobs and organizations, educational background, culture issues as well as environmental factors rather than the gender difference.
In fact, the longer the managers or leaders in their jobs the more experienced they become which may directly influence their leadership styles. Meanwhile, company cultures, environmental pressures or challenges often have greater influence on leadership style rather than gender difference. The following examples that without the influence of gender difference, leaders adopt the same leadership style due to different reasons.
Leona Helmsley, the wife of Helmsley Palace’s owner adopted a rather tyrannical leadership style towards employees and conducted many wrong behaviors such as tax evasion and falsified records which leaded the world’s best hotel-Helmsley Palace suffered a great loss. The same as Leona Helmsley, Howell Raines as New York Times’ former executive editor also adopt the tyrannical leadership style, who was regarded as an autocrat by his subordinate due to his harsh and rigorous management. Although the gender of the two people is different, their leadership styles are so similar, which are formed due to their living environment and followers or people’s attitudes misleading their attitudes and behaviors. (Pfeffer 2004 cited in Ali 2011)
Meanwhile, according to contingency leadership theory, the effectiveness of leadership style due to the fact that whether they matching their leader style to the situation. Based on this theory, the gender difference may not make too many differences in leadership style rather than the situation it matters. For example, according to the situation of employees, organizational managers may choose leadership styles from four kinds including telling, selling, participating and delegating. The participate leadership style of John Terrill in this case, for example, may mainly due to the current situation and his subordinates’ situation who were relatively capable but wasn’t willing to perform well. And as the analysis of question 1, John Terrill adopted the participating leadership style was mainly because of the situation factors rather than his gender. Meanwhile, the participating leadership style adopted by zhang Lan the CEO of a Chinese chain restaurant named South-beauty group is also due to the situation and her employees’ readiness that they need to be motivated and enhanced security feelings to achieve better performance under their actual capacity. (Seijts 2006)
In brief, the above evidences and perspectives show us the idea that gender difference may not make too big difference in leadership style.
If you were the president of DGI International, would you recommend modifications of John Terrill’s leadership style that you would like him to adopt? Do you think it will be responsible for John Terrill to make the necessary changes? Why?
As the president of DGI International, it is necessary to analyses the weaknesses and strengths of participating leadership adopted by John Terrill, and then give some recommendations for John Terrill to touch up his leadership style in order to be more suitable for the situation of DGL International.
According to Hersey-Blanchard theory, the participating leadership of John Terrill in DGL International was due to the readiness level of his subordinates that they were capable to have excellent performances in their jobs but they weren’t willing to or feel insecurity to achieve the required performance. To gain the trust from engineers in Technical service department and strengthen their self-confidence as well as improve their sense of belonging, John Terrill used the participating leadership style to focus relationship building with his subordinates rather than the task structure initiated, which was relatively reasonable from the short term, but in the long term it may be not so suitable. On the one hand, John Terrill was also recommended to continue his participating leadership style in the Technical services department to strengthen the relationship with his subordinates. On the other hand, it is necessary for him to do several modifications.
The first necessary modification need to be done is in the task structure building aspect. John Terrill is advised to give more directions and concerns with these issues more involved in engineers’ task. Although most of engineers in his department were best educated, it didn’t means they were good at their assigned task. That they were capable didn’t mean they can do it well. For these engineers, the overall objectives and job description are also crucial to remove misunderstandings of them such as they were employed to be pencil pusher more than engineers. And to clarify the overall goals or objectives of their department may also help engineers have a better understanding of their jobs or the new appointed leaders, which is benefit for John Terrill to assign future tasks and guide his department to move at a right direction. Of course this kind of task structure building and clarification is also recommended to build up on the proper communication. (Nankervis & Compton 2006; Choi 2006)
Furthermore, the ambiguous institution inside the Technical services department of DGL International may also result in the slowdown of their tasks’ fulfillment. And meanwhile, as a new leader, it is also important for John Terrill to have a deeper investigation and evaluation of the existing institutions or rules in his department and then carry out some proper and effective adjustment. According to the information in the case, most of these engineers attributed their low productivity to their job design and definition. In another word they nearly attributed the reasons to the company side rather than themselves. And John Terrill was seemed to solve the problems based on the view that it was the company’s mistake that led to the low productivity, while ignoring the responsibility of the engineers’ side. To make things go on more smoothly in the future and avoid the arrogance of engineers, John Terrill had better carry out some rules or principles to control and rule these engineers to realize their problems and make some improvement. (Nankervis & Compton 2006; Choi 2006)
ⅱ) Possibility of leadership change
When referring to leadership change, there are different views, one of which is for the idea that it is possible to make changes in leadership and the other of which support the idea that it isn’t possible to make changes in leadership.
To begin with, let take a look at the idea that it is possible to make changes in leadership. When referring to the case, we can get the conclusion that it will be possible for John Terrill to make the necessary changes in his leadership with reasons as below.
As Annie (2005 cited in Stefanović 2007) mentioned that it is possible to make necessary changes in leadership or even change leadership style but it is time-consuming. One of the successful factors for organization is an effective leadership. And at recent years, it is surprising that there are a variety of organizational examples of leadership style changes which even occur with the executive leadership transition that refers to the current leaders’ departure and new executive leaders’ hiring. To meeting the continuing changes of the environment in business world including the changes in customers’ preference, governments’ policies, and technology development and so on, organizational leaders many have no other choice but to modify their leadership or change the style to meet these changes. To modify its leadership or change it, organizations’ leaders can re-examine the current business practices, product position and branding, organizations’ mission, direction as well as vision, which can benefit the future development of the organizations. (Stefanović 2007)
Based on the above evidences and perspectives, it is seemed possible for John Terrill to make changes in his leadership. Firstly, the future situation of Technical service department isn’t so exact and controllable; hence it is necessary for John Terrill to do some modification or proper changes to strengthen his influence and effort staff building and relationship building field. Meanwhile, from the aspect of the top management whose major concern is the business performance of their employees which indicates that any changes or modification in leadership conducted by John Terrill may be acceptable since they are aimed at improve the business performance of the Technical services department of DGL International.
Furthermore, the idea that it isn’t possible to make changes in leadership also has its reasons. Bell et al. (2002) claimed that organizational culture, employees’ resistance and other inside or outside factors may reduce the possibility of leadership change.
In most of Asian countries especially the developed ones such as in China, there are often some rooted enterprise cultures in Chinese organizations which is very typical in these state owned enterprises. In these organizations, the cultures at there are relatively conservative and self –protection, which has fostered a large number of conservative and relatively stubborn employees who are reluctant or afraid to any changes. For them, a small modification in leadership may lead them to go in panic let alone an overall change in leadership style. For their companies, it is always a threat to make changes in leadership. One reason for this is due to the fact that some of the leaders in these organizations are nominated by government who are often lack the passion and ambition because they are working for the country not for themselves, which make them unwilling to make changes. The other reason is that some of the salary of workers in these companies are fixed, that is to say any change or not may not make any difference, so there is no need to change. (Bell et al. 2002)
These reasons make the possibility of changes in leadership at a low level. And based on that, we have the reason to believe that it is also impossible for John Terrill to make changes in leadership. At first, he was a new appointed leader who may lack a full understanding of the overall situation about the people and environment of DGL International, which may arouse several negative outcomes if he makes some changes such as the resistance from employees and even the top management. Moreover, due to the shortage of full understanding of the company culture and other related issues, these changes made by John Terrill may touch some of the organization’s taboos, which will decrease the possibility for success brought by these changes conducted by John Terrill. (Kelman 2004)
In brief, the possibility of making changes in leadership for John Terrill can be regarded as low.
Ali, M. 2011, A Survey on the Role of Gender Differences in Leadership Style Selection and its leading to Organizational Crisis-preparedness or Crisis-proneness, Journal of Peace, Gender and Development Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 42-47.
Bell, E., Taylor, S. & Thorpe, R. 2002, A step in the right direction: Investors in People and the learning organization, British Journal of Management, Vol.13, pp. 161-171.
Choi, J. 2006, A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and empowerment, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.24.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E. & Byre, Z.S. 2008, The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.88, No.1, pp.160-169.
Daft, R. L. 2010, New era of management, 9 edn, South-Western, n.p, pp. 483.
Gitman, L.J. & McDaniel, C. 2009, The future of business: The essentials, South- Western, Mason,
Groves, S. K. 2005, Gender differences in social and emotional skills and charismatic leadership, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, No. 3.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. 2005, Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.87, No.2, pp. 268-79.
Hogan, R.H. & Hogan, J. 2001, Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol.9, pp. 40-51.
Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C. & Curphy, G. J. 2006, Leadership, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Jones, A., Watson, B., Garner, J., & Gallois, C. 2004, Organizational communication: challenges for the new century, Journal of Communication,Vol.19, pp.722-750.
Kelman, H.C. 2004, Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol.2, pp.50-60.
Nankervis, A.R. & Compton, R. 2006, Performance management: theory in practice, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 83-101.
Seijts, G.H. 2006, Cases in organizational behavior, Beamish, PW (ed.), SAGE Publications, London,
Stefanović, N. 2007, One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Leadership Styles, electronic version, International Journal for Quality research, Vol.1, No. 2, viewed 30 April 2011,
Yukl, G. A. 2005, Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research, Journal of Management, Vol.15, No. 2, pp.251-289,