Purpose Of Assessment: Applying Leadership Theories Structur

Purpose Of Assessmentapplytheories About Leadership Structure And Cu

Purpose of Assessment Apply theories about leadership, structure, and culture to real-world scenarios that have occurred in various organizations. You will be measured on how you narrate various leadership styles to foster innovation and lead change in a dynamic environment. Use the chart you created in Week 3 as a quick reference as you work. Review the following cases from Organizational Behavior : Ch. 12: Case Incident 1: Sharing is Performing Review questions: 12-13, 12-14, and 12-15. Ch. 15: Case Incident 2: Turbulence on United Airlines Review questions: 15-13, 15-14, and 15-15. Ch. 16: Case Incident 2: Active Cultures Review questions: 16-16, 16-17, and 16-18. In 780- words, do the following: For each of the above cases: Describe, through a story, the leader’s use of the leadership style in response to the situation. Use various action verbs in your story. Explain what makes the selected leadership style effective for the particular situation. Compare and contrast the leadership styles leaders chose for each case. Explain why the leadership styles should differ for each case.

Paper For Above instruction

The ability to adapt leadership styles to specific organizational situations is crucial for fostering innovation, managing change, and navigating turbulence. This paper examines three distinct cases from organizational behavior literature, illustrating how different leadership approaches are employed in response to unique challenges. By narrating these scenarios with vivid storytelling, analyzing the effectiveness of each leadership style, and contrasting them, we can understand the importance of situational leadership tailored to organizational contexts.

Case 1: Sharing is Performing

In the first scenario, a manufacturing company faced a decline in productivity and employee engagement. The leader, Maria, adopted a participative leadership style characterized by collaboration and open communication. She organized team meetings where employees shared insights about workflow inefficiencies and collectively brainstormed solutions. Maria facilitated discussions by encouraging input, actively listening, and empowering employees to take ownership of their tasks. Her approach fostered a culture of trust and shared responsibility, prompting innovation in process improvements.

Maria’s leadership proved effective because it leveraged employees’ knowledge and motivated them to contribute actively. Her inclusive style diminished resistance to change, fostered a sense of belonging, and accelerated the implementation of new ideas. This scenario exemplifies transformational leadership principles—motivating and inspiring staff while promoting shared goals in a dynamic environment.

Case 2: Turbulence on United Airlines

In the second case, United Airlines faced public relations crises and operational disruptions, prompting the CEO, Jack, to adopt an authoritative leadership style. Recognizing the need for quick decision-making, Jack issued clear directives, set firm policies, and communicated a vision aimed at restoring customer confidence. He emphasized maintaining control, ordering immediate reforms, and reinforcing standards despite varied employee reactions.

Jack’s decisive approach was effective because it provided clarity during chaos. His firm directives reassured stakeholders and stabilized operations in a turbulent environment. However, this style risked alienating employees who felt excluded from decision-making processes, potentially impacting morale. The authoritative style was suited to the crisis, emphasizing control and direction to navigate through turbulence swiftly.

Case 3: Active Cultures

In the third scenario, a tech startup experienced rapid growth driven by an innovative and adaptive organizational culture. The leader, Liam, embraced a visionary leadership style grounded in transformational qualities. He fostered an environment where employees autonomously explored new ideas, Experimented, and collaborated across functions. Liam modelled openness, encouraged experimentation, and celebrated successes publicly.

His leadership cultivated an active, creative culture that thrived on innovation and agility. This approach was effective because it empowered employees, promoted continuous learning, and aligned with the organization’s strategic goal of pioneering new products. Liam’s style exemplifies transformational leadership with an emphasis on motivation and fostering intrinsic drive within the team.

Comparison and Contrast of Leadership Styles

The three cases illustrate distinct leadership styles tailored to specific organizational challenges. Maria’s participative style in the first scenario emphasizes collaboration and shared responsibility, which is effective in fostering innovation among engaged employees. Conversely, Jack’s authoritative style in the crisis setting provides the decisiveness and control necessary during turbulence, though it may compromise morale if overused. Liam’s transformational approach in a growth-oriented startup encourages experimentation and intrinsic motivation, aligning with the dynamic nature of the environment.

These styles differ primarily in the level of autonomy granted to employees, the degree of directive control, and the focus on intrinsic motivation versus compliance. The participative style suits situations requiring creative problem-solving, where employee input enhances solutions. The authoritative style is appropriate in crises that demand rapid decisions, clear commands, and stabilization. The transformational style is optimal in contexts fostering innovation, continuous improvement, and cultural change.

Conclusion

Adapting leadership styles to organizational context is vital for effective management and fostering innovation. As demonstrated in these cases, the choice of style depends on situational demands—whether encouraging collaboration, managing turbulence, or driving growth. Leaders must assess their environment and select appropriate approaches to lead their organizations successfully through change, turbulence, and innovation.

References

• Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.
• Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Prentice Hall.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.
• Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.
• Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
• Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in children. Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269-299.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Maccoby, M. (2000). Leadership in the age of uncertainty. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 64-75.