The case presents a genuine problem faced by all organizational, departmental managers when asked to recommend the positions to be filled during recruitment processes. As a VP, Linda is the leader of patient care and the final decision-maker for the unit. As a leader, Linda is faced with a challenge of deciding the neediest department to be allocated the single position given to patient care. Though their choice is made, with the position given to the imaging department based on very valid reasons, Linda faces potential disapproval from departmental employees as evidenced by the altercation with Cheryl. Linda’s decision is likely to rub other departmental the wrong way and generate resistance which may contribute to a drop in morale and productivity.
One can argue that the problem of discontent with the allocation of the patient care position to imaging was an outcome of Linda’s approach to decision-making. It can be noted that at the VP’s meeting, consultation was done before approval was given to each VP’s allocation choice. However, Linda did not consult with their subordinates when deciding on imaging as the neediest department in patient care. It is evident that Linda is authoritative in their leadership, which is corroborated through the heated exchange with Cheryl. Regardless of the evidence Linda had justifying the allocation of the position to imaging; the decision should have been democratic, implying that all employees in patient care should have been consulted to give their views before a verdict is reached based on a consensus from all participants. This way, employees would not be furious that they have been excluded in an important decision as the case with Cheryl.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One can argue that Linda lacks skills in situation management and their authoritative leadership is behind the assumption that all employees in patient care would agree with the decision to allocate the position to imaging. In the same vein, Linda’s handling of the argument with Cheryl indicates that they are unwilling to compromise, as they consider their decision to be final. Cheryl may be representing the view of the majority of employees in patient care, and as a leader, Linda should have been worried about their concerns and instead opted to carry out consultations to ascertain that indeed majority were or were not against the decision. Even if the outcome of the consultation was contrary Linda’s decision, it should have been presented to the board at the meeting because it is better to be late than never. Instead, Linda dismisses Cheryl and suggests discussing the issue when all the departmental directors are together. This may offer reprieve as it indicates a possible use of the democratic process to decide the allocation. While the allocation of the position of patient care to imaging was ethical as it was based on need, the process for doing so was not, and it is what resulted in the argument between Linda and Cheryl.
Nevertheless, one can argue that Linda’s authoritative leadership is ineffective in building trustworthy relationships with employees and other stakeholders. Linda’s future decisions will be scrutinized by other VP’s if they learn that employees were left aggrieved by the allocation of the position for patient care to imaging . In addition, dissatisfied employees may develop negative attitudes and behavior towards Linda, a scenario that may create divisions and negatively impact performance and service provision. According to a study on effects of bad leadership conducted by Schyns and Schilling (2013), the highest correlation was established between destructive leadership and employees’ attitudes towards the leader.
From the case, it can be deciphered that the problem emerged due to insufficient communication, leading to failure in consultation. According to Dasgupta, Suar , and Singh (2012), assertive communication style when used appropriately receives employees’ approval and can play a crucial role in satisfaction and fostering of strong emotional bond within the organization. It is arguable that Linda recognized their initial mistake, and tries to rectify it by communicating to Cheryl that the matter will be discussed at the next meeting of the departmental directors. Linda also handles Cheryl in a calm but assertive manner when ordering them out of the office. The objective is to command respect and avoid appearing petty as was the case with Cheryl who raised their voice at Linda.
In conclusion, it is arguable that Linda appropriately managed the resolution of the problem well by opting to discuss the issue further at the heads of departments meeting. After initially trying to force the decision patient care departments, Linda recognized their mistake and took necessary steps to rectify the situation from escalating when they told Cheryl the decision was open for discussion at the next meeting of directors. The lesson here is that leaders should accept mistakes, be willing to compromise and take corrective measures to avoid negative impacts of bad leadership decisions spreading and poisoning attitudes and behaviors of employees and negatively impacting their performance.
References
Dasgupta, S. A., Suar, D., & Singh, S. (2012 ). Impact of managerial communication styles on employees’ attitudes and behaviours . Employee Relations , 35 (2), 173-199.
Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). How bad are the effects of bad leaders? A meta-analysis of destructive leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly , 24 (1), 138-158.
