Assignment Cover Sheet
200571 Management Dynamics
200571 Management Dynamics
Tutorial time:
Tutorial room:
Individual written assignment – Organisation studies
Length:
650 words (± 65 words)
Submit through vUWS, on or before 5:00PM, of the day of your registered tutorial in Week 5 (26 to 30 March 2012). Optional hard copy submission to your tutor.
Campus of enrolment:
Declaration:
I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged.
I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any other student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made in the assignment.
No part of the assignment/product has been written/produced for me by any other person except where collaboration has been authorised by the subject lecturer/tutor concerned.
I am aware that this work may be reproduced and submitted to plagiarism detection software programs for the purpose of detecting possible plagiarism (which may retain a copy on its database for future plagiarism checking).
Note: An examiner or lecturer/tutor has the right to not mark this assignment if the above declaration has not been signed (or your name entered above in the case of an online submission through vUWS).
200571 Management Dynamics
Written assignment #1: Organisation Studies, Radical Leadership
(Graded; worth 10% of total marks)
It is hardly possible to give a precise definition of leadership. According to Oxford Online Dictionary, a leader is someone, who is commanding and leading an organization, a group etc (Oxford University Press, 2012). However, this explanation does not allow an in-depth comprehension of leadership, and does not suggest the right way to lead people (Wood, 2011). For years scholars have tried to identify the most successful way to influence people, but so far no leadership strategy can be universally applicable. Depending on the main objectives of a particular group of people, on the external environment and on the internal forces, successful leaders use different leadership tactics. That is why, in order to evaluate the leadership style of Ricardo Semler, the CEO Semco Group, it is important to identify the demands of the current market situation and the coherence of the leadership to the Semco specific business demands.
It is common to divide leadership styles into 3 styles according to the level of involvement in defining and achievement of business objectives: autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire (Hines). These leadership types reflect the degree of authority one exercises in a group, and the highest degree of control is associated with autocratic leaders. Although fully autocratic leadership, which strictly relies on the bureaucratic instruments, is quite rare in the modern world, most companies tend to adopt a somewhat democratic approach with a various degrees of authority. However, Ricardo Semler’s leadership style was often called revolutionary, since he did not merely allow employee participation but has adopted a virtually leaderless way to manage Semco. His strategy aimed to provide employees with the maximum level of freedom in decision-making, thus treating them like adults so that “they respond like adults”. This hands-off approach to leading people shifts the responsibility of defining goals, and resolving problems to the employees.
The benefits of a laissez-faire leadership are firstly reflected in the empowerment of employees, who feel responsibility and satisfaction in making daily decisions about Semco business. Moreover, the possibility to influence the level of salary or to select company leaders creates a sense of transparency and trust as well as improves the general working environment in the company. Thus, it fosters team work, cooperation and interpersonal relations. In addition to that, laissez-faire management helps to adapt the company to the fast changes in the industry and country environment. It also reduces business transaction costs, thus laissez-faire management is cheaper for the company. However, hands-off leadership is also associated with a number of problems. In particular, it creates the risk of losing clear company orientation and decreases the level of control. Furthermore, the decisions made by employees might not be maximizing company value but reflecting the goals/interests of individuals within the organization. Lastly, it eliminates the mechanism of positive and negative appraisal of company and employee performance, that is why it is hard to create appropriate incentives and motivate people to work for achieving common objectives (Bass, Bass & Bass, 2008).
Despite all the problems in implementing laissez-faire leadership in Semco, the growth rate of the company shows that this strategy works very well in this case. Since Semco is an old company with long-lasting traditions and employee relations, Semler has all the reasons to trust the integrity and expertise of its workers. Additionally, it is especially effective in countries like Brazil, where Semco is located, since political and economic uncertainty creates the need to adjust operations continuously and to be ready to the new demands and conditions. The competitiveness and uncertainty environment also puts a lot of competitive pressure on the company.
However, radically hands-off leaders like Semler may face a number of challenges in adopting laissez-faire approach. Firstly, such style requires full trust and belief in the capabilities of the employees. The inability of some individuals to understand the implications of their decisions for the business as a whole may become detrimental for the company. Secondly, the lack of monitoring leaves a lot of room for suboptimal decisions and performance. It also demotivates employees and eliminates the incentive to improve, since there is nobody to approve or disapprove their performance. Therefore, although the example of Semler’s radical leadership style is quite impressive, the possibility to replicate Semco’s success is limited by the significant challenges of laissez-faire approach.
Bass, B. M., Bass R. & Bass R.R. 2008, The Bass handbook of leadership: theory, research,
and managerial applications, 4th edn, Simon and Schuste.
Hines, G. H Organizational Behaviour. Human Relations in New Zealand Industry. Taylor &
Francis, United Kingdom
Oxford University Press (World English). 2012. Definition for leader - Oxford Dictionaries
Online (World English). [ONLINE] Available at:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/leader. [Accessed 24 March 2012].
Wood, J., T. 2011, Communication in Our Lives, Cengage Learning.
200571 Management Dynamics: Assignment Marking Guide
Note: Students should be aware that the UWS policy ‘Misconduct – Student Academic Misconduct’ policy is applicable to this assessment task. This policy can be accessed using the following link: http://policies.uws.edu.au/view.current.php?id=00051
Understands Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Able to research further into topics and concepts
Little or no understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Misinterprets information. No evidence of research beyond text and readings.
A basic understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Little evidence of research beyond text and readings.
A good understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Evidence of some good additional research linked to argument.
A sound understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Evidence of well targeted additional research which helps with development of argument.
An outstanding understanding of Management Dynamics topics and concepts. Evidence of excellent additional research which is very relevant to argument.
Able to demonstrate independent critical analysis skills
Regurgitates information from lectures and readings. No evidence of critical thinking or analysis.
A satisfactory level of critical thinking or analysis with a tendency to describe.
A good level of critical thinking or analysis. Insightful and critical reflections start to emerge.
An extremely good level of critical thinking or analysis. Insightful and critical reflections are evident.
An excellent level of critical thinking or analysis. Insightful and critical reflections are evident. Synthesizes concepts and abstract ideas.
Able to construct a coherent and sustained argument
Disjointed, unfocused, poorly structured argument in the entries. Disconnected, fragmented paragraphs; no clear line of argument.
Evidence of a basic line of argument; improvement needed to create coherent argument.
Organization of ideas relatively clear, but some work still needed to take argument to a higher level.
Able to construct a coherent line of argument right through the assessment.
Able to construct a coherent line of argument right through the assessment, and to effectively synthesize and integrate ideas.
Able to use sound grammar and spelling
Unintelligible expression due to poor grammar and/or incorrect punctuation. Unacceptable number of spelling errors.
Some grammatical discrepancies; few punctuation and spelling errors.
Relatively good grammar and punctuation. No punctuation and spelling errors.
Very good grammar and punctuation.
Sound grammar, punctuation and spelling. An elegant writing style. A great joy to read!
The ideas from information sources have not been appropriately acknowledged.
Attempted Harvard referencing but displays poor grasp of academic convention.
All of the ideas from information sources have been acknowledged. Some inconsistencies in Harvard referencing with in-text citations and/or references.
All of the ideas from information sources have been acknowledged. The student demonstrates a high level of understanding of the Harvard system.
An excellent level of comprehensive referencing throughout the assessment. Reference list is complete and highly accurate.
