Kevin McCarthy Analysis
The apparent team leader of a manufacturing company decides to use a democratic approach in making decisions and gives his team several options from which to choose. He leaves the team members in a group discussion, where they would discuss amongst themselves and provide the appropriate decision. However, upon his return. The manager finds that the team made a decision that was not in the interest of the company, and left the some issues unresolved. Their argument was that the company paid him to make such decisions for them.
Using the Vroom-Yetton model, it was clear that the team was not committed to the decision making process, which made it necessary that he make the decision for them. Notably, lack of commitment in a team is likely to result to substandard productivity, and jeopardize the entire decision making process (Richards & Marks, 2011). This explains their lack of consensus on the decision on who was to leave for holidays on what time. From a Hersey-Blanchard model perspective, using a directive approach would have been the best-suited leadership approach in the situation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
McCarthy’s style of leadership before the experiment was central based, with him making all the decisions for the employees. Under such circumstances, one is often in a position to ensure that the achievement of the objectives is totally under his or her control. However, it also presents implementation challenges, when the employees feel as though decisions are imposed on them. Inclusion in decision making always limits the chances of resistance to change, thereby increasing success in implementation of organization goals (Han, Chiang, & Chang, 2010).
If I were in McCarthy’s position, I would organize a meeting with the employee, in which the agenda would be to address the concerns they have at the workplace. The results of the meeting that took place were an indicator that there was clear dissatisfaction with the company management. For effective productivity, the management and employees need to work together, and the meeting I would organize would be the first step towards achieving such collaboration.
Allen Block’s Analysis
Leading different teams in different cities, Block experiences problems from one of the teams that appear to be less committed to the work. While on a plane, he starts recalling the events that indicate the existence of issues within the teams. One consists of young people, who issue no complains to him and is often in time in meeting their deadlines, while the other one consists members who are often complaining, one of them quit the project, while the other two are always bickering. He has to convince the team to work harder and meet the deadline.
A people based approach to leadership approach would be best placed to deal with challenges presented by the situation. The teams need to understand their role in the project and the necessity of doing their best to meet the objectives. On the contrary, Block gave too much emphasis on accomplishing the tasks, which forgot to show the workers why their commitment was necessary.
If I were in Rob’s position, I would put up a reward to create more enthusiasm among the members. The Chicago team appears to be more concerned about their families and not having spent time with them during the project. Therefore, I would bring the deadline much closer to a reasonable date, and give paid vacations to the members if they met the deadline. It would be enough motivation, as it would give them time to recover time lost with their families while working. The LA team would be content with monetary rewards for meeting the deadline.
To succeed at the company, Block needs to develop further understanding for his employees at the company. Otherwise, he stands to meet greater challenges in future projects than he did with the current one. Notably, understanding the needs of the employee helps a leader to device motivation practices capable of stirring up commitment to achieve the desired needs (Sachau, 2007).
References
Han, T. S., Chiang, H. H., & Chang, A. (2010). Employee participation in decision making, psychological ownership and knowledge sharing: mediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high-tech organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management , 21 (12), 2218-2233.
Richards, J., & Marks, A. (2011). Biting the hand that feeds: Social identity and resistance in restaurant teams. Human Resource Management: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities , 239.
Sachau, D. A. (2007). Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the positive psychology movement. Human Resource Development Review , 6 (4), 377-393.
