Case Incident 141 Changes In The Plastics Division

Case Incident 141changes In The Plastics Divisioned Sullivan Was Gene

Case Incident 14.1 discusses the leadership styles demonstrated in the Plastics Division of Warner Manufacturing Company, focusing on the transition from Ed Sullivan to Wallace Thomas as the new division manager. Ed Sullivan, the previous manager, employed a hands-off approach that enabled Rusty Means, his general manager, to operate the factories independently, prioritizing product quality and schedule adherence. Rusty’s leadership style was largely directive, emphasizing rule enforcement, minimal employee involvement, and a perception that work is to be done by the book. Employees appreciated Rusty's firm management, low turnover, and the belief that he knew his trade and stood up for them.

Wallace Thomas, upon assuming his role, initiated significant organizational changes aimed at increasing employee participation and implementing new systems, including employee involvement in decision-making, forming a planning committee, launching suggestion programs, and establishing a performance appraisal system. These changes indicate a shift towards a participative or democratic leadership style, contrasting with Rusty’s authoritative approach. Rusty perceives these changes as external impositions that may disrupt the way he has managed and maintained the factory operations, expressing doubts about their effectiveness with the current employee base.

Paper For Above instruction

The contrasting leadership styles represented in the case of Warner Manufacturing’s Plastics Division reveal fundamental differences in management philosophy and approach to organizational change. Ed Sullivan’s leadership approach was predominantly task-oriented and authoritative, emphasizing product quality, schedule adherence, and minimal employee interference. Such a leadership style aligns with a task-oriented or directive approach, focusing on achieving specific results through clear rules and expectations. This style often fosters stability, predictability, and high job satisfaction among employees who prefer clear hierarchies and defined roles. Rusty Means exemplified this leadership approach, as he maintained a firm stance, ran the factories independently, and garnered employee loyalty through competence and fairness, albeit within a highly directive framework.

In contrast, Wallace Thomas’s leadership approach signifies a shift towards participative management, emphasizing employee involvement in decision-making processes, fostering collaboration, and encouraging innovation through suggestion systems and performance appraisals. This style aligns with a democratic or participative leadership approach, which involves employees in shaping policies and operational decisions. Such a leadership style aims at enhancing motivation, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, especially when employees perceive their inputs as valued and impactful. Wallace’s initiatives reflect contemporary management theories emphasizing empowerment, communication, and inclusion, which have been linked to increased organizational effectiveness and employee engagement.

Transitioning from one leadership style to another can be challenging, especially when the existing management, such as Rusty, perceives these changes as threats to established routines and control. Rusty’s skepticism about employee participation and new systems reflects a resistance often encountered in organizations undergoing significant change. His statement that the proposed initiatives are “just fancy management stuff” suggests a perception that these efforts are superficial or incompatible with the current employee culture. This resistance is rooted in the fear of losing authority or the disruption of existing workflows that Rusty has successfully managed for years.

When considering what leadership style Wallace should adopt to work effectively with Rusty, it is essential to understand that entrenched management cultures often require a gradual and strategic approach to change. A transformational or situational leadership style might be effective, where Wallace demonstrates flexibility and adapts his approach based on Rusty’s readiness and attitudes. Building trust through open communication, clarifying the benefits of employee participation, and involving Rusty in shaping the change process can mitigate resistance. Additionally, employing a coach or mentor approach that recognizes Rusty’s strengths while gently guiding him towards the new management paradigm can facilitate a smoother transition.

From my perspective, Rusty’s resistance is understandable but potentially limiting for organizational growth. While his management style has effectively maintained product quality and low turnover, the evolving business environment requires adaptability, innovation, and employee engagement for sustained success. Engaging Rusty by illustrating how participative practices can complement his existing strengths—such as stability and product quality—may help him see the value in the changes. For example, emphasizing that employee involvement can lead to even higher productivity, better problem-solving, and a more motivated workforce might change his outlook.

It is also worth noting that leadership is not a one-size-fits-all phenomenon; different situations and individuals demand different approaches. A leader like Wallace must balance the need for organizational change with respect for existing management practices. Employing a transformational leadership style, which inspires and motivates employees while fostering trust and collaboration, could be particularly effective. Demonstrating genuine concern for Rusty’s opinions, involving him in planning the implementation of new systems, and providing appropriate training can help align his leadership style with the new organizational goals.

In conclusion, the case highlights the importance of understanding diverse leadership styles—directive and participative—and managing the transition between them strategically. Rusty’s authoritative style has served the division well but may need to evolve in response to changing organizational priorities. Wallace’s leadership style must emphasize change management, communication, and employee involvement to foster a more participative environment. By combining strengths and addressing resistance with empathy and strategic planning, effective leadership can be cultivated that balances organizational change with stability. Ultimately, leadership adaptability and interpersonal skills are crucial for navigating such transitions successfully, ensuring that the division remains productive, innovative, and motivated in a dynamic business landscape.

References

• Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.
• Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.
• Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in reloads of children. Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 271-299.
• Lussier, R. N., & Hendry, L. C. (2018). Perspectives on organizational effectiveness and change management. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 19(2), 88-98.
• McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage publications.
• Robinson, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational Behavior. Pearson.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. Pearson.
• Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24.
• Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67-78.