Answer The Questions At The End Of The Reading

Answer The Questions At The End Of The Readingapa Formatcite Sourcesd

Donna Burke was a systems engineer invited to participate in a high-stakes, complex project at Southwest Engineering Services aimed at developing an innovative decision support system critical for maintaining the company's competitiveness. The task required a leadership style that fostered motivation, clear communication, coordination, and problem-solving among team members with diverse expertise. Ron Morrison, the project director, exhibited several leadership behaviors that significantly influenced the team’s attitudes and behaviors, aligning with different types of leadership behaviors specified in the framework of task and group maintenance functions.

Paper For Above instruction

Ron Morrison employed a combination of task and relational leadership behaviors that created an environment conducive to high performance, motivation, and teamwork. From a task leadership perspective, he actively contributed to process structuring by clearly articulating the project's objectives and specifications, guiding members to focus on shared goals without micromanaging the methods used. His emphasis on total commitment and prioritization of the project over personal interests helped establish a sense of purpose and urgency within the team, which is essential in guiding and sequencing discussion toward effective decision-making and problem-solving (Northouse, 2018).

Furthermore, Ron stimulated communication by fostering an atmosphere of enthusiasm and encouragement, which facilitated open information exchange among team members. His supportive behavior, especially when team members faced technical setbacks, reinforced a culture of resilience and collective effort. This approach not only kept team morale high but also promoted increased participation and idea sharing, vital for innovative endeavors (Yukl, 2013). His ability to clarify communication through regular meetings and pep talks ensured that all members understood their roles, the current status, and future steps, thereby enhancing team cohesion and task understanding (Schriesheim & Neider, 2019).

Ron also engaged in summarizing and synthesizing progress during team meetings, which served to check for understanding and promote reflection on collective efforts. This reflective practice helped in maintaining momentum while also identifying obstacles early, aligning with effective process analysis to reduce disruptions (Bass & Avolio, 2014). His efforts in consensus testing, through encouraging team participation in design decisions based on expertise rather than hierarchy, fostered a participative environment where members felt valued and motivated to contribute meaningfully.

In terms of group maintenance behaviors, Ron acted as a gatekeeper by ensuring equitable participation, encouraging quieter members to voice ideas, and preventing dominance by stronger personalities. His role as a supporter was evident in how he responded to setbacks with empathy and motivation, reducing tension and fostering team cohesion during stressful times (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Moreover, his standard-setting and process analyzing behaviors helped regulate team interactions and resolve process-related issues, setting behavioral norms conducive to productive collaboration (Northouse, 2018).

Ron’s leadership influenced team members’ attitudes profoundly. His optimistic and enthusiastic demeanor was contagious, inspiring the team to maintain high levels of effort despite long hours and technical challenges. His supportive style, combined with clear goal-setting and empowerment, increased team members’ intrinsic motivation, commitment, and cooperative spirit, aligning with transformational leadership principles that elevate team performance (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Donna’s reflection on Ron as “a fantastic coach and facilitator” demonstrates how his influence fostered professional development and a positive work environment (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

Comparing this cross-functional project team with a self-managed operations team reveals both similarities and differences in leadership roles. Both types require leaders to facilitate team coordination and motivation; however, the scope and authority levels differ significantly. In the project team, Ron’s role was more directive and facilitative, providing guidance, resources, and emotional support while empowering members to use their expertise. He maintained a hands-on but non-autocratic approach, emphasizing shared leadership and mutual influence, which is characteristic of transformational leadership (Yukl, 2013).

In contrast, self-managed teams often operate with minimal direct supervision, with members collectively assuming leadership roles and making decisions autonomously. Leadership in such teams is more distributed, with members taking on responsibilities for planning, coordinating, and evaluating their work (Cohen & Ledford, 1994). The manager’s role shifts from direct supervision to a facilitator and resource provider, fostering internal leadership and accountability. This team type relies heavily on high levels of trust, shared norms, and collective responsibility, with leadership emerging from within based on expertise and influence rather than positional authority.

While both team types prioritize participation, communication, and shared objectives, the main difference lies in formal leadership authority. The project team led by Ron depended on a designated leader who actively guided processes, motivated through vision and support, and managed external resources. Conversely, self-managed teams function effectively with decentralized leadership, where roles are fluid and influence is based on competence and consensus (Manz & Sims, 1987). The effectiveness of each depends on contextual factors such as task complexity, team maturity, and organizational culture.

In conclusion, Ron Morrison’s leadership exemplified a blend of task and relational behaviors crucial for guiding a cross-functional team through complex, innovative work. His leadership style fostered motivation, effective communication, and a collaborative environment, influencing positive attitudes and high performance. Comparing it with self-managed teams highlights the importance of leadership structure and distribution of influence, with each approach suited to different organizational needs and project characteristics. Recognizing these distinctions helps organizations develop appropriate leadership strategies for diverse team structures to optimize performance and growth.

References

• Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Manual. Mind Garden.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2014). Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Sage Publications.
• Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Work Teams: A Quasi-Experiment. Human Relations, 47(3), 357-386.
• Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The Leadership Challenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations. Wiley.
• Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 47-67.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (2019). Fundamentals of Leadership: An Introduction. Routledge.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.