Rubiera final exam
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Rubiera final exam

on

  • 376 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
376
Views on SlideShare
376
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Rubiera final exam Rubiera final exam Document Transcript

  • Final Exam 1 Final Exam Vince Rubiera MGT 660-62-082 2/21/2008
  • Final Exam 2 1. Using the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model, what mistakes did Joe make as a “leader” or supervisor? Using this theory, what should Joe do now to improve the situation in his new department? Following the process outlined by Vroom-Yetton-Jago Model, we will analyze his old group against the decision tree to see why it was successful: A. Does Decision Quality Matter?  No (in most decisions here), This was an assembly line and time and efficiency take precedence. This is highly structured work. (SKIP B, C, H) B. Do I Have Enough Information to Decide Myself? C. Can I Get the Missing Information Somewhere Other Than From My Followers? D. Does Acceptance Matter?  No, although it can be argued that it does, I feel that assembly line is repetitive, structured and does not involve much creativity; therefore, acceptance is somewhat trivial in this example (assumption due to lack of knowledge about product). (SKIP E, F, G) E. Do My Subordinates Trust Me to Represent Their Interests In This Decision? F. Do My Subordinates Share My Goals About this Decision (Do I Trust Them) G. Is Conflict Likely Among My Subordinates in Terms of Their Preferences for Different Solutions? H. Are Subordinates Qualified to Decide? Choices: G1, G2, D1, C2, G2, A1, A2 From what the case tells us, A1 or A2 would fit his “active, controlling and task oriented" style. This would probably explain his success with the line workers. A1 and A2 are highly autocratic
  • Final Exam 3 and show us that Joe preferred to solve problems himself with little to no input from his workers. This was ok for simple, quick paced, structured line work, but we will see below, this style is not suited for highly skilled employees that have more experience than Joe. Using the same model, we can walk through the next scenario, the drafting department. A. Does Decision Quality Matter?  Yes, drafting is a high-skilled art that affects product planning and manufacturing B. Do I Have Enough Information to Decide Myself?  No, the case states he only had a passable engineering background C. Can I Get the Missing Information Somewhere Other Than From My Followers?  No, they are the experts here (DROP A1) D. Does Acceptance Matter?  Yes, Drafting is highly technical skill, and subsequently requires buy-in. E. Do My Subordinates Trust Me to Represent Their Interests In This Decision?  No, there is some concern with Joe’s qualifications when compared to Fred. Also later the antagonism towards Joe grew. (DROP A2) F. Do My Subordinates Share My Goals about this Decision (Do I Trust Them)?  I am going to assume, since he was new and there was some question about his qualifications over Fred, that the answer is no. The case is not too specific here. (DROP G1, G2, D1) G. Is Conflict Likely Among My Subordinates in Terms of Their Preferences for Different Solutions?  Yes, Already some conflict has started over the appointment of Joe to this position. (Only C2, G2)
  • Final Exam 4 H. Are Subordinates Qualified to Decide?  Yes, their field is highly technical, and they are experts with several years of experience. Choices: G1, G2, D1, C2, G2, A1, A2 Given that Joe never changed his autocratic leadership style (A1 and/or A2), we can see (according to Vroom) that it was not the correct style for this group. That is probably why he encountered so many issues with turnover and productivity. The Vroom model shows us that C2 would have been the most effective way to lead this group. Suggesting that Joe needs to share the problems with his subordinates in a group setting, and make the final decision himself. Allowing the subordinates to have some input and generate some creative ideas, and foster subordinate development. This also solves the problem created by the diminishing amount of trust and increasing antagonism in the department, since it allows Joe to have the final say. This should be the most effective way to increase employee satisfaction, and it may restore the trust issues that will allow Joe to employ a G2 style. This would mean that Joe could create an environment of collaboration, which would be ideal. The other styles were eliminated by the model, showing their ineffectiveness here: A1 and A2 are too autocratic. G2 is does not work since there must be trust of the subordinates, and this has not been established yet. C1 is not a good choice since you lose the creativity the conflict will create.
  • Final Exam 5 2. From the viewpoint of “outstanding (charismatic/transformational) leadership,” what mistakes did Joe make as a “leader” or supervisor? Using this perspective, what should Joe do now to improve the situation in his new department? I would like to compare what Joe did in his departments using House’s characteristics of charismatics and the 11 behaviors of outstanding leaders. Starting with his old department: House’s Attitudinal Characteristics of Charismatics  Strong power needs (personalized or socialized) o Joe demonstrated strong power needs through his leadership style; described as active and controlling. o He would demonstrate interest in the well being of his subordinates by joining them after work and creating a personal bond.  High self-confidence o This was probably due to Joe’s experience on the job and his willingness to take risks to improve himself (college).  Belief in moral righteousness o Assumption: His dedication to school and his career demonstrates Joe’s steady moral compass. Also, his belief that his leadership style is the correct one regardless of which group he manages, speaks to his strong character. 11 behaviors of outstanding leaders:  Articulate an attractive ideological vision o Joe’s vision was an unspoken one. He created sense of family by connecting with the line workers at a personal level due to the ethnic similarity. There was also a sense of trust and employee satisfaction that was interwoven with their high productivity.
  • Final Exam 6  Display passion, self-sacrifice, and personal risk-taking o His connection to his subordinates illustrated his passion for his group. His self sacrifice was marked by his determination to get through school.  Show self-confidence, determination, and persistence o 3 years of school and expert on the line (expert power).  Engage in suitable personal image building. o His pride in his German heritage illustrated his similarity to his subordinates.  Engage in appropriate role modeling. o His loyalty to the company, efforts to improve himself & he has done the job. o Act as an effective external representative: Not shown.  Communicate high performance expectations and express confidence in followers’ ability to achieve them (engage in Achievement Oriented Leadership). o Not shown, but we know he used the correct style (above). He must have also set high goals to attest for their high productivity (assumption).  Selectively arouse pertinent follower motives: Not shown  Communicate in an inspirational manner. o It could be argued that Joe’s “kidding” in German was an attempt to connect and motivate his employees.  Show high levels of individualized consideration (not unique to “outstanding leaders”). o His ability to connect with them on and off the job . Joe could be defined as a charismatic/transformational leader in his original role in the assembly line. I will use the 11 behaviors of outstanding leaders to analyze what went wrong in his new department, and suggest ways to improve the situation.
  • Final Exam 7 11 behaviors of outstanding leaders: Joe’s Mistakes & Solutions:  Articulate an attractive ideological vision.  He did not demonstrate or communicate a vision to the new department.  He should develop a vision for the draftsmen that will focus on them and the direction of the department. It should motivate, inspire, and highlight their value to the organization.  Display passion, self-sacrifice, and personal risk-taking.  Leaders must demonstrate sacrifice, and Joe should show the employees that he is willing to take risks for them, work hard and be passionate.  Show self-confidence, determination, and persistence.  When Joe changed departments he no longer had the expert power he relied on, and there was little evidence of determination or persistence other than trying to hang on to a management style that was ineffective.  Joe needs to re-establish a new confidence, and with time, he can also begin to illustrate determination and persistence in his actions and with the correct management style.  Engage in suitable personal image building.  Joe has created a antagonistic environment by his controlling style.  He needs to change the way he is perceived by adapting a suitable management style and finding a way to connect to his new subordinates on a personal level.  Engage in appropriate role modeling.  Joe has little experience and knowledge of the job beyond his studies.  He should spend time with the employees learning the job (walking the walk).  Act as an effective external representative  He should be the advocate for his department. This will also take some time.
  • Final Exam 8  Communicate high performance expectations and express confidence in followers’ ability to achieve them (engage in Achievement Oriented Leadership)  Joe chose the wrong style of leadership for this group. In using a directive style with highly skilled employees, he de-motivated them  He should take on a path-goal approach, and use the correct type of leadership style. I believe this should be a combination of supportive (due to the stress of all the changes) and AOL (he needs to set the goals and back off some)  Selectively arouse pertinent follower motives  Joe must investigate what motivates these draftsmen and act on those (more path-goal)  Engage in “frame (of reference) alignment”  Joe’s style made it challenging for his employees to make sense of their environment. They probably lost their definition of what their role was  Joe needs to redefine their roles. This can also be done with a good vision  Communicate in an inspirational manner  Joe is not able to connect through ethnic similarity in this group  Joe has to find other ways connect and inspire with this new department  Show high levels of individualized consideration (not unique to “outstanding leaders”)  Joe’s refusal to change styles probably came across as inflexible and unable to manage individuals  He should create relationships with his employees individually and determine their differences. He should then use that knowledge to identify with them and deal with each of them as individuals
  • Final Exam 9 Killer Angels: Longstreet, managing the boss & outstanding leadership 1. Managing your boss: Longstreet was Lee’s “old warhorse” and yet was not able to convince Lee to adopt his battle style. There were encounters in the book that reinforced Longstreet’s inability to manage up, but I would like to concentrate on one specifically that could have changed the outcome of the war: Longstreet convincing Lee to use defensive strategies. Lee was an aggressive strategist. He believed in offensive warfare even if it was a long shot. Longstreet believed in a defensive strategy. He was ahead of his time with the idea of trench warfare, and he felt this was an effective way to proceed in several critical points of the war. If Longstreet convinced Lee to fight in Gettysburg this way it would have given the south a great advantage. I will frame this analysis using the outline given to us in class from Gabarro and Kotter’s article Managing Your Relationship with Your Boss. These are my recommendations: Make sure you understand your boss (Lee) and his/her context, including:  Lee’s goals and objectives: o Lee’s goal was to win the war with honor and respect. Lose the title “King of Spades”  The pressures on Lee: War: his men’s lives, maintain the sovereignty of his state, complex military strategies.  Lee’s o Strengths: he is loved by his army and state, he is a smart and charismatic leader. o Weakness: employs risky and aggressive offensive tactics. o Blind spots: ignores crucial information based on personal perception (the spy).  Lee’s style: o Napoleonic style frontal assaults, code of honor that should be followed in war
  • Final Exam 10 Assess yourself and your needs (Longstreet):  Longstreet’s: o Strengths: Strong defensive strategist and had Lee’s admiration. o Weaknesses: lacks refinement, stubborn, was not from Virginia (not a weakness, but a disadvantage) and doesn’t employ social skills.  Longstreet’s style: o Defensive warfare, believes in winning without a strong concern for chivalry or a “code”.  Longstreet’s predisposition toward authority: o Argues passionately, but will concede to authority of Lee. Develop and maintain a relationship that:  Fits both person’s needs and styles: o Frame defensive warfare as an attack: dig in first then, when you have the advantage, march onward in a glorious frontal assault towards victory!  Is characterized by mutual expectations: o Both want to win the war  Keeps your boss informed: o Longstreet needs to ensure information reaches Lee, even if his aides do not wish to wake him (coalitions with the aides, so they trust his definition of urgency)  Is based upon dependability and honesty: o This has already been established.  Selectively uses your boss’s time and resources: o Longstreet already shows concern for Lee’s resources by trying to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of each attack.
  • Final Exam 11 2. Outstanding leaders: Battles are sometimes won or lost based on the charismatic influence of the leader. We can see this in the leadership of Gen. Stonewall Jackson, Gen. Lee, and Gen. Chamberlain. “An army of rabbits led by a lion will always overcome an army of lions lead by a rabbit.” (Cicero). It would benefit Longstreet to transform himself into an “outstanding leader” to become more effective in battle. I will frame this with the outline in our notes to determine how Longstreet could achieve this:  Articulate an attractive ideological vision: Longstreet should communicate to his men how they will win the war and why they are fighting. It should include elements of patriotism, freedom and comradeship; in the same way chamberlain did when addressing the mutineers.  Display passion, self-sacrifice, and personal risk-taking: Longstreet displays personal risk- taking and self-sacrifice to the point that Lee asks him to stop getting so close to the front lines, and he responded “You cannot lead from behind”. Longstreet’s passion, on the other hand, appears to diminish at times with his frequent bouts of sadness. He should be more aware of how other may see that.  Show self-confidence, determination, and persistence: His depression may also be affecting his self-confidence. He is reclusive and does not socialize with his men like he used to. As mentioned earlier, this should be kept private, and he should work on an outward appearance of confidence. His determination and persistence is comes from his legendary stubbornness.  Engage in suitable personal image building: Needs a lot of work here. Marching off to war in slippers and unconcerned with outward appearance could have had a negative effect on the way Longstreet was viewed by his subordinates, and certainly affected the perception of him amongst his peers. They believed in chivalry and in the value of being gentlemen. Longstreet would have gained from branding himself as the era’s image of a noble and strong leader.
  • Final Exam 12  Engage in appropriate role modeling: He was a professional soldier. He “walked the walk”.  Act as an effective external representative: He needed to work on managing up and sideways. His ideas were revolutionary and could have saved many of his soldiers lives.  Communicate high performance expectations and express confidence in followers’ ability to achieve them: We can see this in his discussions with Pickett and Garnett. Pickett was concerned his “boys” were being intentionally left out of the battle, while Garnett was complaining about his need to reclaim his honor. He expresses his confidence in them, and helps to motivate them beyond their concerns. He also illustrates his ability to determine correct management style (directive) with Pickett when he asked to be in the front of the line.  Engage in “frame (of reference) alignment”: I will refer to the example of Pickett. Longstreet was able to take his perceived poor position (out of all the action and in the back) and frame it as the ideal place for a fight if the army had to withdrawal fighting.  Communicate in an inspirational manner: He communicated in a functional and sometimes argumentative manner. Sometimes he would even seem unapproachable, sitting alone. Longstreet should have used the opportunities around the campfire or other times to provide inspiration through tales of victory, pep talks and speaking to the glories of the confederacy.  Show high levels of individualized consideration: This is outwardly shown at times in the book, but only with specific people. One way he can accomplish this is by interacting more. He could get to know those fighting under him, and show them that he values their contributions. Also, in war there is ample opportunity to show individualized consideration. Longstreet should not continue internalize the obvious concern for his men as he has done, and find ways to express it.
  • Final Exam 13 References: Vecchio, R. P. (2007). Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Schriesheim, C.A. (2008). Leadership and Motivation. University of Miami, Class Notes. Shaara M. (1996). The Killer Angels. New York: Ballantine