A case study on FridgeCom
Using specific examples drawn from the case study, critically discuss different styles of leadership and potential behavioural responses.
In today’s global economy, leadership and organizational behaviour are important factors that can determine the success of organizations. However, the methods used by leaders to influence employees for achieving goals are a matter of contention among researchers (Skansi, 2000). In answering this question, various leadership styles that motivate employees to increase productivity levels have been discussed. This answer attempts to focus on the various modes of leadership and potential behavioural responses to them in terms of motivation, communication, perception, and teamwork.
Understanding Leadership
As Mullins (2010) has correctly pointed out, leadership is not an attempt to control a group of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to improve communication among individuals and to motivate them to achieve goals. Researchers tend to differ regarding the appropriate definition of leadership. Robbins (2001, p. 314) defines leadership as, “the ability of influence a group toward the achievement of a goal”. Burns (1998, p. 133) states that leadership means “leaders inducting followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivation, the aspirations and the expectations of both leaders and followers”. As the term “manager” designates, in contrast to a leader, the manager only “manages” and does not lead. Thus, we can conclude that for an organization’s success, leaders play a far more important role than managers do. Several leadership theories such as behaviourist, transformational, and transactional theories have evolved as the debate on the ideal leadership style has intensified. Straker (2008) showed that the manner in which a person motivates employees decides if he or she is a leader or manager. Moreover, the roles played by leaders and managers are different. Mills and Novelli (2010) state that leadership is about foreseeing the future of the organization and motivating people to attain the goals to achieve this future, whereas management is about working efficiently to obtain results.
Of the various names given to leadership styles—such as democratic, bureaucratic, autocratic, laissez-faire, and charismatic leaderships—this paper considers the three most widely accepted ones as valid. These are the autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire styles (Mullins 2010). In the autocratic style, the leader does not include the employees in the organization’s decision-making process. Here, all employees follow their leader without question. In the democratic style, the leader discusses ideas and plans with workers and includes the team members in the decision-making process (Gastil, 2007). Finally, in the laissez-faire style, the leader of the group is not involved in the decision-making process and allows the employees to make their own decisions. In organizational behaviour studies, there is no rule that states one style of leadership be favoured over another, as different leadership styles are important in different situations, and a good leader should be able to gauge the style appropriate in a given situation (Manz and Sims, 2001). A successful leader can influence employees to achieve their goals successfully and enthusiastically. For this, he or she must understand the employees’ perception about their work and workplace and endeavour to structure techniques that can motivate the employees. Motivation is the most efficient method of inculcating a positive attitude to work (Spencer et al., 2008).
David Gill as the finance director of the FridgeCom is certainly an autocratic leader. While being proficient at what he does, his experiences seem to have made him only more rigid in his approach towards his employees. He cannot view the company’s need beyond the scope of his department. Turner and Muller (2005) show that autocratic leaders prefer to work by themselves and by isolating others or others’ opinions. The advantage of this leadership style in this case could be the fact that David would always keep the employees alert as an autocratic leader always likes to challenge his or her followers (Turner and Muller 2005).
Sandy McMahon’s lack of experience is naturally a problem, as she seems to be unable to feel the pulse of the company. She has not learnt to be sensitive to the employees’ feelings. As she is responsible for delegating the on-shift responsibility to operational managers, she can be doing some damage. The absenteeism could be attributed to dissatisfaction due to the shift allocations. However, she is appreciated for her work despite this problem. Her style of leadership would probably be democratic if she had displayed better judgement.
Veronica is obviously an enthusiastic, experienced, and observant leader. Her recognition of the company problems and attempts to improve the situation by suggesting a new human resource information system (HRIS) shows that she is good at her job. Her leadership style is democratic and autocratic. She is a democratic leader because she accepts and listens to other managers’ viewpoints. Presenting the HRIS to Mike and other managers was an example of her displaying democratic leadership. She came up with an interesting idea that was relevant not only to her department but to the whole company. Druckers (2010) claims that supporting employees in a firm is a constructive method of achieving the firm’s goal. Veronica seems to know how to influence her employees and has a good relationship with them. Lussier and Achua (2010) added that influencing workers by knowing there needs is important to obtain new and interesting ideas. Additionally, Veronica is a successful manager as she has the ability to think about the company’s problems more deeply. However, Veronica is also interested in expanding her hold on the organization, and perhaps she does this by influencing Mike and being insensitive to Terry’s views. This shows a somewhat autocratic approach, as she seems to isolate others from her ideas.
According to Miller and Wertheimer (2007), there are two types of paternalism, namely, soft paternalism and hard paternalism. The difference between soft and hard paternalism depends on the differences between the levels of contribution leaders have in making decisions. While Mike generally seems to show soft paternalism by attempting to take the onus for all that happens in the company, Veronica seems to be display hard paternalistic tendencies. For example, when Veronica presented the new HRIS, she did not regard Terry’s point of view, although he was the only one equipped with the technical expertise to advice her. As a paternalistic leader, although, she had an argument with Terry and Doug about her proposal, she still believed that the new HRIS would be successful for FridgeCom.
Terry Cole, has exceptional skills and knowledge about information systems. Terry is certainly not a leader. He suppresses his concerns regarding the effect Veronica’s HRIS proposal could have on FridgeCom systems.. His lack of communication skills is a major disability. Golemen (2000) has stated that, communication is the main role in encouraging employees to achieve perfect results. Terry cannot convince others ideas about his ideas because his fear of being not understood. He should be encouraged to speak in non-technical language, and Mike should be the one to encourage him.
Doug Statin has worked at FridgeCom as the production leader for twenty years. He seems to have has a democratic leadership style and most employees respect his decisions because of his experience. Gillen (2002) points out that, leadership with charisma and respect is based on what people feel about leaders. Doug’s leadership style can be considered democratic, because he has good skills in communicating with his team members. In addition, he is focused on solving the company’s problems by focusing on the employees. He usually meets his team and attempts to solve any issues they face on an everyday basis.
In FridgeCom, the lack of motivation and the quality of leadership are two main factors that have resulted in increased staff absenteeism and decreased staff turnover. It seems as if Doug as the team leader on the production floor is “unfazed” by the above-mentioned problems, as he has worked in the company for a long time and thinks of the problems as simply a “phase”. This is especially worrying, as he in his position has the maximum influence over the employees and knows them the best. He is perhaps gradually becoming more of a manager than a leader, when in his role, he should especially function as a leader. However, it cannot be denied that he has a major influence over the employees, and it is important that he understands that problems have to be solved by addressing them with technological advancements, otherwise the company would lose its competitive stand in the market. Perhaps the best method to do this would be making him study the management strategies in the companies that are competitors of FridgeCom. It is, however, a positive fact that Mike Wilson as the director manager of the organization understands Doug’s mind block. The fact that Doug believes that Veronica is not good in human resources as well as his arguments with her about the new HRIS is symbolic of differences that occur between different leadership styles (Mumford et al., 2000).
Sebastian Paker, has been employed for his technical skills, but he has been equally successful in making strategies to solve several management problems. He has been appreciated for his quick thinking and problem solving abilities. Furthermore, he is seems to have the ability to switch his leadership approach from one style to another. Gillen (2002) states that, a successful manager does not need to have a technical knowledge, but a manager needs to be good in quick thinking and problem solving. He seems to be an ideal manager and leader. His resources should be employed better; as a consultant, he has limited decision-making authorization. He should be given greater responsibilities as he seems extremely capable of handling them. As Helen Wong is a mentee of Sebastian, she could be trained to undertake some his responsibilities. As she lacks experience, but has the latest technological skills, she could be promising in the new role.
Mike, as mentioned the case study, has been working at FridgeCom, which is his family-owned business, since the 16 years of age. This and the fact that he has the idiom “the buck stops here” as his personal mission statement results in the old-fashioned paternalism he exhibits toward his employees. This attitude is not necessarily wrong, perhaps even useful in many ways. However, he should perhaps exercise autocratic leadership instead of soft paternalism in some instances. For example, he has to be firm with Doug regarding the use of the new system. Mike, with his golfing habits, does not really seem to follow the idiom that he claims to believe in. Although, it is essential that in his position he should delegate responsibilities, he should also be involved with the functioning of the company in a more serious manner. He is thus employing a laissez-faire style of leadership here.
Mike has also shown an autocratic leadership style. This can be seen when he makes several decisions without involving others. For instance, when Veronica King, the director of human resources, introduced to him the need of a new HRIS system, he decided to go ahead with the project without consulting other senior leaders in the company. In the process, he lost valuable inputs from Terry Cole, the head of Information Systems and antagonized Doug. He then showed a laissez-faire style of leadership by simply handling over the onus of making decisions for the project to Helen Wang and Sebastian Parker, the management/IT consultants. However, according to Monahan (2000), decision making can be a challenge due to psychological aspects such as power. Hence, Mike might be actually making a challenging and astute decision here. He might be displaying characteristics of a democratic leader by electing Helen and Sebastian as consultants in solving problems, as they are ideally suited for the job. This could also mean that he has begun to understand the company issues and is attempting to solve the company’s problems. However, the fact that he generally delegates responsibilities leads us to question if this was a democratic or laissez-faire approach. As Mullins (2010) explains in his “leader born or made” theory, it appears as if Mike needs to know more about leadership characteristics in order to deal with situations ably.
Mike also seems to stay comfortably in the top of his organization pyramid. He was not aware that his employee work rate was an issue until veronica pointed it out to him. His attitude as a top leader of the company could be influencing other leaders, and this could have lead to the increased absenteeism and low work turnover. Being attentive to human and behavioural aspects in an organization is of utmost importance in increasing the performance levels and in arriving at the best solutions to problems (Likert, 1967 and Yuki, 2009). Mike certainly does not provide adequate motivation to the employees. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, employees need a certain level of motivation at the workplace, that is, a comfortable work environment and high income (Mullins, 2010). As a result, it is extremely important that Mike communicate with the employees and attempt to understand their perception about their work. He could also motivate his employees by evaluating their income levels and taking adequate actions accordingly.
Conclusion
In terms of framework, Mike displays a lack of awareness in his firm’s situation and needs to increase his awareness regarding his industry and the business world. Sebastian is probably the most efficient leader in the company, but he should be given responsibilities that are more tangible. He could also train Helen to undertake some of his current responsibilities while he manages other more pressing matters. David appears to be excessively focused on the finances of the company, and has a rigid outlook in leading his team Veronica seems to be motivated by power, but has an interesting and potential style of leadership. Doug is a strong leader, but he needs to be aware of the importance of technological advancements in businesses today. Sandy needs to be sensitized towards the work environment and employees’ needs, and Terry has to be trained to be a leader if he is to be retained in his current position. Finally, Doug and Terry’s lack of confidence in Veronica’s ideas and Veronica’s disregard for their opinions show that there is a lack of unity in the team.
In conclusion, this essay has discussed a case study about FridgeCom. Several leadership styles have been analyzed in terms of different managers’ behaviour as well as by providing explanations regarding the importance of leadership and motivation an organization. In addition, the author of this essay has introduced certain suggestions that might be useful for improving the organization.
References:
BOCIJ,P., GREASLY, A., and HICKIE, S., 2008. Business Information System: Technology, Development and Management. 4th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
CARNAVALE, A., 1990.Workplace Basics: The Essential Skills Employers Want. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
CORONAS, T., and OLIVA, M., 2008. Encyclopedia of Human Resources Information Systems: Challenges in E-HRM. IGI Global Snippet.
CURTIS, G., and COBHAM, D., 2008. Business Information System: Analysis design and practice. 6th ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
PEARLSON, K., and SOUNDERS, C., 2004. Managing and Using Information System: A Strategic Approach. 2nd edn. New Caledonia.
DAFT, R., 2007. The leadership experience. Cengage Learning.
DERY, K., GRANT, D., and WIBLEN, S., 2009. Human Resource Information Systems: Replacing or Enhancing HR. Proceedings of the 15th World Congress of the International Industrial Relations Association IIRA 2009 'The New World of Work, Organisations and Employment, 27 August, Sydney, Australia, pp.1-9.
DRUCKER, p., 2010. The Practice of Management. Oxford: Meredith Belbin.
GILLEN, T., 2002. Leadership Skills for Boosting Performance. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
GOLEMAN, D., 2000. Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), pp 78-90.
HIRSCHHEIM, R., KLEIN, H., and LYYTINEN, K., 1995. Information system development and data modeling: Conceptual and philosophies foundations. Cambridge: Library of congress.
HUSSAIN, Z., WALLACE, J., and CORNELIUS, N. E., 2007. The use and impact of human resource information systems on human resource management professionals. Information & Management, 44(1), pp.74-89.
JAFFEE, D., 2001. Organization Theory: Tension and Change. McGraw-Hill, USA.
LIKERT, R., 1967. The human organisation: its management and value. New York: McGraw Hill.
LUSSIER, R., and ACHUA, C., 2010. Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. 4th ed. Manson: South-Western Cengage Learning.
MANZ, C., and SIMS, H., 2001. The New Super Leadership: leading others to lead themselves. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
MAYFIELD, J., MAYFIELD, M., and LUNCE, S., 2003. Human resource information systems: A review and model development. Entrepreneur, 11(1), 139-151.
MILLER, F. G., and Wertheimer, A., 2007. Facing up to paternalism in research ethics. Hastings Center Report, 37(3), pp.24–34.
MILLS, D. Q., and NOVELLI, L., 2010. Asian and Western executive styles. In M. Goldsmith, J. Baldoni, & S. McArthur, (eds.) The AMA handbook of leadership. New York, NY: AMACOM, 25-47.
MONAHAN, G., 2000. Management Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
MULLINS, L., 2010. Management and Organizational Behaviour. 9th ed. Harlow: Financial Times- Prentice Hall.
MUMFORD, M., MARKS, M., COHNELLY, M., ZACCARO, S., and PALMON, R., 2000. Development of leadership skills: Experience and timing. Science Direct, 11(1), pp. 87-114.
PEARLSON, K., and SOUNDERS, C., 2004. Managing and Using Information System: A Strategic Approach. 2nd edn. New Caledonia.
PIRAKATHEESWARI, P., 2010. Emerging issues in HRM. [Online]. Available at: http://barackoli.com/emerging-issues-in-hrm/. [Accessed on April 10, 2011].
ROBBINS, S., 2001. Organizational Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.
SAIYADIAN, M., 2009. Human Resource Management. Tata McGraw-Hill.
SKANSI, D., 2000. Relation of the managerial efficiency and leadership style: Empirical study in Hrvatska Elektroprivreda D.D. Management, 5(2), pp.51–67.
SPENCER, S., FEIN, S., ZANNA, M. and OLSON, J., 2008. Motivated Social Perception: The Ontario symposium. Taylor and Francis, 9, pp. 208.
YUKL, G., 2009. Management and organisational behavior. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Ltd.
