Define Trait, Behavior, And Power In

define Trait Behavior And Power In

Answer these essay questions: Define “trait,†“behavior,†and “power-influence†approaches. List the unique insights that each approach provides about effective leadership. Compare the following theories of leadership and explain why all types of theory are useful or not: Descriptive theory Prescriptive theory Universal theory Contingency theory How is a crisis likely to affect managerial activities and behavior? For example, the machinery broke down at your factory and you have to get the product out within a 24-hour deadline or the contract will be broken and your customer will go to another company “that can produce.†Case Study: Acme Manufacturing Company Steve Arnold is a production manager at Acme Manufacturing Company in New Jersey.

When Steve drove into the parking lot at the plant on Tuesday morning at 8:35, he was already 35 minutes late for work. Steve had overslept that morning because the night before he had stayed up late to finish the monthly production report for his department. He parked his car and entered the rear of the plant building. Passing through the shipping area, Steve spotted his friend George Summers and stopped to ask how work was progressing on the new addition to George’s house. Entering the office at 8:55, Steve greeted his secretary, Ruth Sweeney, and asked whether anything urgent needed his immediate attention.

Ruth reminded him of the staff meeting at 9:30 with Steve’s boss — Frank Jones, the vice president for Production — and the other production managers. Steve thanked Ruth for reminding him (he had forgotten about the meeting) and continued on to his adjoining inner office to look for the memo announcing the meeting. He vaguely remembered getting the memo in an email one or two weeks earlier, but did not take the time to read it or look at the attached materials. His phone rang, and it was Sue Bradley, the sales vice president, who was inquiring about the status of a rush order for one of the company’s important clients. Steve promised to look into the matter and get back to her later in the day with an answer.

Steve had delegated the rush order last week to Lucy Adams, one of his production supervisors, and he had not thought about it since then. Stepping back into his office, Steve emailed a message to Lucy asking her to call him as soon as possible.

Then, he resumed his search for the memo about the meeting with his boss and the other production managers. He finally found it in his large collection of unprocessed emails. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a proposed change in quality control procedures. By now it was 9:25, and there was no time to read the proposal. He hurried out to get to the meeting on time.

During the meeting, the other production managers participated in the discussion and made helpful comments or suggestions. Steve was not prepared for the meeting and did not contribute much except to say that he did not anticipate any problems with the proposed changes. The meeting ended at 10:30 and Steve returned to his office, where he found Paul Chen, one of his production supervisors, waiting for him. Paul wanted to discuss a problem caused in the production schedules by a major equipment breakdown. Steve called Glenda Brown, his assistant manager, and asked her to join them to help rearrange the production schedules for the next few days.

Glenda came in shortly and the three of them worked on the production schedules. At 11:25, Ruth came in to announce that Mr. Ferris was waiting and he claimed to have an appointment with Steve at 11:30. Steve looked at his calendar but could not find any entry for the appointment. Steve asked Ruth to tell Mr.

Ferris that he would be ready shortly. The schedules were completed around 11:40. Since it was nearly noon, Steve invited Mr. Ferris to join him for lunch at a nearby restaurant. During lunch Steve learned that Mr. Ferris was from one of the firms that provided materials used in the production process at Acme, and the purpose of the meeting was to inquire about some changes in material specifications the company had requested. As Mr. Ferris talked, Steve realized that he would not be able to answer some of the technical questions. When they returned to the plant at 1:15, Steve introduced Mr. Ferris to an engineer who could answer his questions.

Soon after Steve walked back to his office, his boss (Frank Jones) stopped in to ask about the quality report for last week. Steve explained that he had given top priority to finishing the monthly production report and would do the quality report next. Frank was irritated, because he needed the quality data to finalize his proposal for new procedures, and he thought Steve understood this task was more urgent than the production report. He told Steve to get the quality data to him as soon as possible and left. Steve immediately called Glenda Brown and asked her to bring the quality data to his office.

The task of reviewing the data and preparing a short summary was not difficult, but it took longer than he anticipated. It was 2:40 by the time Steve completed the report and attached it to an e-mail to his boss. Looking at his calendar, Steve noticed that he was already late for a 2:30 meeting of the plant safety committee. The committee meets weekly to review safety problems, and each department sends a representative. Steve rushed out to the meeting, which was held in another part of the plant.

The meeting was dull this week, without any important issues or problems to discuss. The meeting ended at 3:30, and as Steve walked back through his section of the plant, he stopped to talk to his assistant manager. Glenda wanted some advice on how to resolve a problem in the production assignments for the next day. They discussed the problem for about a half hour. When Steve returned to his office at 4:05, his secretary was just leaving.

She reported that Lucy had called before leaving to fly home from the conference. Steve was feeling tired and decided it was time for him to go home also. As he drove out of the parking lot, Steve reflected that he was getting further behind in his work. He wondered what he could do to get better control over his job. Questions What specific things did Steve do wrong, and what should have been done in each instance?

Provide a critique of Steve's analysis of the situation: What assumptions remained unquestioned? Critique his logic and the conclusions he must have reached to take the actions he deployed. What should Steve do to become more effective as a manager?

Paper For Above instruction

The assignment prompts a comprehensive analysis of leadership approaches, theories, crisis management, and managerial effectiveness, exemplified through the case of Steve Arnold at Acme Manufacturing. This essay explores the definitions of trait, behavior, and power-influence leadership approaches, compares different leadership theories, investigates the impact of crises on managerial activities, and critically evaluates Steve's actions and thought processes to suggest improvements for managerial effectiveness.

Leadership Approaches: Trait, Behavior, and Power-Influence

The trait approach asserts that effective leadership stems from innate qualities or characteristics such as intelligence, confidence, or integrity. It emphasizes that certain individuals possess traits predisposing them to be successful leaders (Northouse, 2018). For example, traits like decisiveness or emotional stability can influence leadership effectiveness. The behavior approach, on the other hand, focuses on specific actions or behaviors that leaders exhibit, such as task orientation or consideration for employees. It suggests that effective leadership is more about what leaders do than their inherent traits (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939). Lastly, the power-influence approach emphasizes the leader's capacity to influence followers through various forms of power, including positional, expert, and referent power. This approach highlights the importance of persuasion and social influence in leadership (French & Raven, 1959).

Theories of Leadership: Descriptive, Prescriptive, Universal, and Contingency

Descriptive theories aim to explain how leaders actually behave in real-world settings, often based on observation and empirical data. Prescriptive theories recommend how leaders should act to be effective, offering normative guidance. Universal theories suggest that certain leadership traits or behaviors are effective across all situations, such as transformational leadership being universally applicable (Bass & Avolio, 1994). In contrast, contingency theories propose that the effectiveness of leadership styles depends on contextual factors like the environment or task at hand. For example, Fiedler's Contingency Model argues that a leader's style must match the situation for optimal effectiveness (Fiedler, 1967). All these theories are useful because they provide different lenses to understand leadership, though their applicability varies depending on circumstances (Yukl, 2012).

Impact of a Crisis on Managerial Activities and Behavior

Crises significantly alter managerial priorities and behaviors. During crises, managers tend to focus on immediate problem-solving, quick decision-making, and maintaining control (Mitroff, 2004). For instance, a machinery breakdown necessitates rapid assessment, resource allocation, and perhaps improvisation under high stress. Managers may temporarily bypass routine procedures, delegate authority liberally, or act instinctively to resolve issues swiftly. These behavioral shifts are driven by the need to reduce uncertainty and prevent further damage (Hale et al., 2005). Therefore, crises tend to elevate stress levels, increase reliance on hierarchical authority, and prioritize reactive over strategic behaviors.

Case Study Analysis: Steve Arnold at Acme Manufacturing

What Steve Did Wrong and What He Should Have Done

Steve Arnold's actions reveal several deficiencies in managerial practice rooted in poor planning, prioritization, communication, and self-awareness. Firstly, he overslept due to inadequate time management, which set the tone for a day characterized by reactive behavior and missed opportunities for proactive leadership. He failed to review critical memos or prepare for meetings, which compromised his credibility and effectiveness. When caught in a storm of urgent tasks, he prioritized immediate responses without considering their importance or deadlines. For example, he addressed Mr. Ferris' technical inquiry inadequately, delaying responses and potentially damaging relationships. His failure to delegate effectively, such as not trusting Lucy to handle the rush order or contact him proactively, exacerbated his shortcomings. He also neglected to set clear priorities, especially around urgent and strategic tasks like the quality report, which impacted subsequent performance.

In each instance, Steve should have adopted better time management, prioritized tasks based on urgency and importance, and maintained clear communication channels. Reading and responding to critical memos and emails promptly, delegating tasks with explicit instructions, and proactively managing his schedule could have mitigated many issues. For example, he could have briefed Lucy earlier or anticipated the need for more technical expertise regarding Mr. Ferris’ questions, thus avoiding last-minute scrambling. His lack of preparation for meetings and failure to use a structured approach to handle emergencies reflect deficiencies in leadership discipline and strategic planning.

Critique of Steve's Situation Analysis and Underlying Assumptions

Steve's analysis appears to be limited and somewhat superficial, rooted in assumptions of control and linear productivity. He seems to believe that handling tasks in a reactive manner suffices, ignoring the importance of proactive planning and relationship management. His assumption that immediate responses are the best course of action ignores the need for strategic delegation and prioritization. Furthermore, his mental model likely emphasizes individual effort over systemic process improvements, leading to repetitive firefighting rather than systemic change.

His conclusions that slipping behind is inevitable and that simply working harder will solve his problems overlook the necessity of structured time management, delegation, and leadership development. The implicit assumption that crises can be addressed solely through individual effort without structural adjustments hampers effective problem-solving. To become more effective, Steve needs to adopt a strategic management mindset, focusing on planning, delegation, and communication, and develop emotional resilience to handle stress more constructively.

Recommendations for Improving Managerial Effectiveness

To enhance his effectiveness, Steve should develop better time management skills, including prioritization matrices and proactive planning. Regularly reviewing upcoming commitments and delegating authority to competent subordinates like Lucy with clear expectations can prevent last-minute crises. Building stronger communication frameworks, such as daily check-ins and status reports, would enable early identification of potential issues. Additionally, cultivating emotional intelligence and stress management techniques would help Steve maintain composure and clarity during crises. Leadership development programs focused on decision-making under pressure, systems thinking, and strategic planning can further augment his managerial capabilities (Goleman, 2017). Cultivating a culture of accountability and continuous improvement within his team will also facilitate more effective crisis anticipation and response.

Conclusion

In summary, effective leadership involves understanding different approaches, theories, and the contextual influences that shape managerial behaviors, especially during crises. The case of Steve Arnold highlights the importance of proactive planning, delegation, effective communication, and stress management to be a successful manager. By reflecting on his actions, assumptions, and shortcomings, and by adopting strategic and systemic management practices, Steve can significantly improve his effectiveness and contribute more positively to his organization's success.

References

• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage Publications.
• French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.
• Goleman, D. (2017). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
• Hale, T. M., Matear, S., Gifford, J., & Cavana, R. (2005). Crisis management in New Zealand manufacturing firms. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 13(3), 121-132.
• Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in children. Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 23–58.
• Mitroff, I. I. (2004). Managing crises before they happen: What every executive and manager needs to know about crisis management. Amacom.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 149–190.
• Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.