Organizational Leadership Report

Introduction

This report introduces and evaluates the leadership effectiveness of Dan Russo. Dan has extensive history as an advisory leader. He is licenced a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSW), with many years of experience and practice in law. In 2013 Dan decided to establish a Family Day Care service in Sydney, NSW. In 2014 he opened another in Brisbane, Queensland. Dan is a friendly, well-liked and respected leader. He is admired for his incredible work ethic, as he constantly works long hours, often seven days per week. He manages to keep his appearance immaculate. Dan genuinely enjoys using his analytical skills to solve business problems by developing practical and efficient solutions. He is self-confident and assertive while also remaining respectful to those of whom he works with. Dan’s good leadership qualities outweigh the bad. The reason he was chosen for this report, is that, his bad qualities or weaknesses are difficult to identify and understand. This evaluation will support the process of recognising and identifying ineffective leadership in an individual who is considered almost flawless in his leadership abilities. The report will discuss five major approaches that are trait approaches, contingency approach, personality and perception, motivation, ethical leader and social power and influence. Dan would be evaluated on the bases of these five approaches.

Improved Part 1:

Evaluation 1

The Trait approach to leadership

Research indicates that certain traits are common amongst leaders, for example, intelligence, self-confidence, honesty, warmth and dominance (Daft 2016, p.36). Dan has extensive knowledge, in terms of law and business practices. He is ambitious, goal oriented, and displays great interpersonal skills, which support leadership effectiveness (Stodgdill 1948 cited in Daft 2016, p.36). However, effective leaders are observed as being highly consistent and committing to their agreements in a timely manner (Daft 2016, p.40). Unfortunately, in the recent years, perhaps due to over-commitment, Dan’s trustworthiness is declining. According to his subordinates. (As reported in private correspondence on 27 March), Dan has become unreliable and inconsistent in his actions, for example, he told a subordinate that he would sign and email an authorisation letter, which would grant the subordinate permission to complete a time-sensitive task. Dan failed to commit to his promise, by the deadline. Instances similar to this, have caused some subordinates to view him, as an unreliable and untrustworthy leader. Since honesty is an important basis of developing trust between leaders and subordinates (Daft 2016, p39); this issue indicates that Dan currently an ineffective leader based on the trait approach due to not recognizing that it is important for the subordinate to get letter signed by him so that he could conduct the task. This shows the ignorant nature of Dan.

Evaluation 2

The Contingency Approaches

The Contingency approaches suggests that the effective approach to leadership is dependent on various factors such as, the leader style and behaviour of the leader, the characteristics of the follower, and the situation (Daft 2016 p.66). A leadership approach may be used effectively with one employee and fail to achieve the same effective outcome with

The Path-goal theory outlines the importance of the leader’s obligation to designing and managing subordinate paths and motivations in the attainment of individual and organisational goals (Vroom & Jargo 2007, p.20).

Hersey & Blanchard established The Situational Theory, which emphasises the importance of the follower’s characteristics being a crucial component to the situation and therefore, outlining the most effective behaviour approach that should be adopted by the leader in that particular situation. (Hersey and Blanchard cited in Daft 2016, p.69) proposed a theory that subordinates differ in their readiness level, with R1 representing the lowest readiness and R4 being very high readiness

Using Hersey and Blanchard’s situational model, Dan may be classified as an ineffective leader. This is because, (As reported in private correspondence on 30 June), Dan interviewed and hired Eve, who is a young employee, with less than 2 years of limited work experience.

During this time, Dan also sent an application to the Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) to have his Brisbane based service assessed and rated against the National Quality Standard (NQS). As this was an important assessment, there was noticeably increased pressure on Eve. Dan failed to recognise this and adapt his leadership style to suit Eve’s maturity and organisational needs. Dan misdiagnosed the situation by inappropriately using the R3 High Readiness, participating style, instead of the R1 Low Readiness, telling style (Daft 2016, p.71). Dan neglected to use task-orientated actions such as clarifying, planning, monitoring (Yukl 2012, pp.68-71), which would have suited both the situation and Eve’s directive needs, based on her current level of experience (Yun et al. 2005, p. 1290). Hence, Dan’s leadership in this instance is considered ineffective. Failing to apply the correct approach could trigger The Set-up-to fail syndrome (Mazoni & Barsoux 1997).

Evaluation 3:

Perception and Personality

Perception is the means through which the individuals interpret their experiences in an environment. In corporations, the perception of the superiors moulds the atmosphere and efficacy of the workplace (Otara, 2011, p. 21). Dan in this case is a good leader because he is someone who gives respect to his subordinates as well as his colleagues, he is friendly and is admired for the work ethic he follows. The individuals feel honoured and appreciated to work for him due to his various good leadership skills.

Personality of a leader is very important for the betterment of the firm and the people who work for it. For a leader it is important to interact effectively with the employees and get to know the differences to make the most of their own effectiveness (Marsiglia, 2005, p. 30). According to Hogan, Curphy & Hogan (1994) there are a total of five types that can be utilized to measure the effectiveness of a leader:

1. Genuine performance of the firm or its team.
2. Feedback by colleagues, supervisors and juniors.
3. Interviews, mock ups or assessment outcomes.
4. Self-evaluating.
5. Insights of individuals whose professions are in danger.

The Personality trait of a leader is commonly divided into multiple factors known as the Big Five that are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (emotional). These various factors act as attributes to an individual’s genetics instead of impacting that individual’s surrounding (Dehghanan, Abdollahi & Rezaei, p. 1279). Implementing the Big Five Personality test on Dan, the previous traits of him doesn’t includes his openness to new experiences that are to consider innovative ideas. I think that this may lack in Dan, he is emotionally stable, is an extrovert but doesn’t take into consideration others input. When asked from one of his employees in the marketing team about the new techniques that the Family Day Care Centre can include to attract more of the target audience, not much attention was given to the idea by Dan. The innovative idea was listened by Dan but wasn’t implemented.

Evaluation 4:

Leader Ethics:

Ethical leadership can be defined as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal action and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (Brown et al., 2005 cited in Shakeel, Kruyen & Thiel, 2019, p. 614). An ethical leader is someone who respects others, h/she is fair and just towards h/her employees and cares for the agreed arrangements (Hegarty & Moccia, 2018, p. 1-2). It is very important for a leader to be ethical because through the leader’s morality the environment of the workplace would be set. If a leader is unethical than dishonesty will prevail in the workplace that would not be better for the company (Emery, 2016). There are five main ethical components through which a leader can be moral (Hegarty & Moccia, 2018, p. 2):

1. Gratitude
2. Humility
3. Justice
4. Mercy
5. Integrity

An ethical leader is humorous, shows honesty, accomplishes commitments, is just and fair, is responsible and motivates others to grow (Daft, 2016). Dan is an ethical leader in this case, firstly he is self dependent which means that if any task is not completed on time, he will work late or even on weekends to complete the task as soon as possible. When asked from one his subordinate, Chris, he sees Dan as a moral and just leader because he gives respect to his employees. He doesn’t burden the employees with huge amount of work and first see if the employees are comfortable in conducting the task. If any of the employees is not able to complete the required work, he will make them comfortable or even help them to the extent that the task would be completed before deadline.

Evaluation 5:

Motivation:

Motivation is described as “a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being” (Robnagel, 2017, p. 13). Motivational leaders need to motivate the employees not just through increase in wage but through other factors like emphasis on the employees’ needs, behaviour and providing them with rewards (Daft, 2016, p. 228). The relationship of a leader with the employee is the most important factor in terms of employee motivation. The quality of the relationship matters the most because this produces a constructive, professional and dutiful attitude. The workforce is more likely to implement the same strategy with their colleagues and appreciate working (Naile & Selesho, 2014, p. 178).

The two factor theory was introduced by Frederick Herzberg which is a need based theory. The founder interviewed many workers about motivation from their superiors. They were asked when they were motivated and when the feel they were dissatisfied (Daft, 2016, p. 234). The study concluded that work traits were different for employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to Herzberg, there are two distinct entities that contribute to workers’ attitude in the workplace. The factors are hygiene factors which includes job dissatisfiers like working conditions, wage, company regulations and social connections; when hygiene factors aren’t fulfilled workers are not satisfied. The other factors are motivators factors which include achievement, recognition, responsibility and opportunity to grow. Through the presence of motivators, employees are satisfied (Alshmemri, Shahwan & Maude, 2017)

In case of Dan, he is not a good leader, he does not motivate his employees to accomplish the organizational goals. He works hard towards the company’s goals and stays late to complete the task but doesn’t motivate others to do better and grow. Many of the former employees of the company stated that the reason for their departure from the organization was that they were dissatisfied while working there. They had an increase in wages but were not recognized for their extraordinary work and if they made a mistake Dan would complete the work on his own rather explaining it to the employee.

Evaluation 6:

Power and Social Influence:

The research dictates that power is the capability of an individual in any firm to influence other individuals to achieve the organizational goals. There are two types of power, hard or soft power. The former type of power comes mainly from an individual’s position of control, this type of power allows a superior to influence h/her employee through the use of incentives and punishments (Peyton, Zigarmi & Fowler, 2018, p. 4). On the other hand, the latter type of power can be defined as “the ability to shape what others want by being attractive” (Wang & Lu, 2008, p. 425). Daft (2016) includes expert (knowledge/skill of a leader) and referent power (based on personal traits of a leader) under soft power. Leaders utilize assertive influence strategies for the employees, the strategies are based on 6 principles that are higher vision, liking, approachability, developing allies, coherent persuasion, direct plea and developing allies (Daft, 2016, p. 380). In Dan’s case he is an assertive leaders who influences his employees, he has a friendly nature towards them and respects them. However, Dan doesn’t use any incentives or rewards to influence the employees to achieve the organizational goals. Through incentives employees are encouraged but Dan uses his assertive influence and friendliness to get the work done. This shows that Dan is a bad leader in case of power but a good one in influence.

Discussion:

Dan is a leader with multiple leadership qualities however, there are certain qualities or skills that he must adopt to be a good leader. He is a leader with a friendly nature and respects his peers and colleague but he is self dependent. The leader is evaluated through five evaluations, majority of them shows that he is not good a leader. For instance, in the first evaluation Dan is shown as an untrustworthy leader, his subordinate gave him something to sign but Dan wasn’t able to do it time which shows that he is not reliable. The major setback of Dan as a leader is that he does not motivate his employees to accomplish the organizational goals, he does not recognize the work they complete by going out of their way. The employees at his firm doesn’t need a raise but need an appraisal from the leader himself so they are not keen to leave the firm. Dan is an ethical leader, he respects others and is admired by others for his hard work but it does not count if he is not eager to listen to others. As mentioned under the personality quality, one of the employees’ innovative idea for the Day Care was not implemented by Dan. This shows that he is not open to experience, if he listens to his employees in terms of any idea or listening to the employees’ needs than they will see him as a good leader. A leader who listens to his employees is seen as an interactive leader who listens to his workers. On the other hand, burdening Eva in her initial months of her employment was really off setting and can mentally upset her. Dan was not able to recognize the problems faced by Eva which indicates that he doesn’t observe what his employees are going through and how can he lessen the burden over his employees. Hence, the majority of the evaluation states that Dan is a bad leader who needs to incorporate major qualities in his leadership.

Reference List:

Alshmemri, M, Shahwan-Akl, L and Maude, P 2017, ‘Herzberg’s two-factor theory’. Life Science Journal, vol. 14, no.5, pp.12-16.

Daft, RL 2016, ‘The Leadership Experience’, Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central

Emery, E 2016 ‘Ethical behavior, leadership, and decision making’, Walden University, pp. 1-119.   Viewed 5 August 2020 <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147834381.pdf>

Manzoni, JF & Barsoux, JL 1998, ‘The set up to fail syndrome’. Harvard Business Review, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 101–113.

Peyton, T, Zigarmi, D and Fowler, SN 2019, ‘Examining the relationship between leaders’ power use, followers’ motivational outlooks, and followers’ work intentions’. Frontiers in psychology, vol.  9, pp. 1-20. Viewed 5 August 2020 <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6367254/>

Vroom, VH & Jago, AG 2007, ‘The role of the situation in leadership’. American Psychologist, vol. 62, no.1, pp. 17–24.

Yukl, G 2012, ‘Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention.’ Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 26, no.4, pp. 66–85.

Yun, S, Faraj, S & Sims, HP 2005, ‘Contingent leadership and effectiveness of trauma resuscitation teams.’ Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 90, no. 6, pp. 1288–1296.