Southwest Engineering Services Donna Burke Was A Systems Eng

Southwest Engineering Servicesdonna Burke Was A Systems Engineer At So

Describe the leadership behaviors Ron used and their influence on the attitudes and behavior of the team members. Compare this cross-functional project team to a self-managed operations team by identifying similarities and differences in the leadership roles.

Paper For Above instruction

The narrative of Donna Burke’s experience on the software development project at Southwest Engineering Services offers a compelling insight into effective leadership behaviors within a project team, particularly under the guidance of Ron Morrison. Analyzing Morrison’s leadership approach reveals a strategic combination of transformational, participative, and supportive behaviors that significantly influenced team cohesion, motivation, and performance.

Leadership Behaviors Demonstrated by Ron Morrison

Ron Morrison exemplified transformational leadership by inspiring and motivating his team through a compelling vision of technological innovation that was critical for the company's competitive standing. His enthusiasm and optimism were contagious, fostering an environment of excitement and commitment among team members. His clear communication of project specifications provided a shared goal, which is a hallmark of transformational leadership, aligning team efforts towards a common purpose.

Moreover, Morrison demonstrated participative leadership by involving team members in decision-making processes, especially concerning how to accomplish tasks. He trusted their expertise, promoting autonomy and demonstrating respect for their skills. This participative style engendered ownership and accountability, as team members felt valued and empowered to contribute ideas, particularly during problem-solving and overcoming obstacles.

Supportive behaviors were also evident in Morrison’s approach when team members faced difficulties. He was approachable, providing guidance upon request and offering encouragement during setbacks, such as technical problems. His immediate response to setbacks, including the motivational pep talk amid frustrations, exemplified his supportiveness and his ability to maintain morale.

His relentless push for progress, combined with fair accountability—illustrated when a team member made a careless error and was expected to explain and apologize—encouraged a culture of responsibility and continuous improvement. His active involvement in securing resources through company travel and his delegation during his absences demonstrated strategic leadership essential for project success.

Influence of Leadership Behaviors on Team Attitudes and Behavior

Ron Morrison’s leadership cultivated a high level of motivation, commitment, and cohesion within the team. His vision and enthusiasm energized team members, fostering a sense of purpose and pride. The participative nature of his leadership fostered trust and respect, encouraging team members like Donna to take on leadership roles themselves, as evidenced by her internal leadership responsibility assignment, which she found satisfying and motivating.

The supportive behaviors helped maintain high morale despite challenging setbacks. Morrison’s ability to motivate the team during setbacks and celebrate small wins, such as solving technical obstacles, created a resilient team environment. His recognition of individual contributions and emphasis on team effort fostered a collaborative spirit essential for high performance in complex projects.

Furthermore, Morrison’s example of accountability and responsibility encouraged team members to uphold high standards of work quality and take ownership of their tasks, which was critical in meeting deadlines and exceeding initial expectations by finishing the project early.

Comparison with a Self-Managed Operations Team

Cross-functional project teams, like the one described, often share similarities with self-managed operations teams, particularly in their reliance on shared leadership, autonomy, and collective accountability. Both types of teams emphasize team members’ expertise and active participation in decision-making, which enhances innovation and responsiveness.

However, significant differences distinguish these teams. In a self-managed operations team, leadership is decentralized; members assume leadership roles individually and collectively oversee operations, often without a designated leader. In the Southwest project, Morrison’s role was a defined leadership position, providing direction, resource allocation, and strategic oversight, which is characteristic of traditional project management leadership rather than a self-managed team.

Furthermore, self-managed teams typically have broader scope of responsibilities, including ongoing operational functions, whereas project teams like Morrison’s are temporarily structured for specific objectives with a clear endpoint. The level of external coordination also varies: project teams often depend on external resource support and organizational guidance, as Morrison did through his travel and resource negotiation, whereas self-managed teams often operate with minimal external oversight.

Leadership in self-managed teams tends to be more distributed, with members rotating leadership roles depending on expertise and task requirements. In contrast, Morrison provided centralized leadership, guiding the team with a mixture of motivational, strategic, and participative behaviors, ensuring coherence and alignment with organizational goals.

Conclusion

Ron Morrison’s leadership behaviors had a profound influence on the success of the software development project at Southwest Engineering Services. His transformational, participative, and supportive styles fostered a motivated, committed, and collaborative team environment, which ultimately led to early project completion and high team morale. Comparing this project team to self-managed operations teams highlights core similarities in autonomy and collective effort but also underscores key differences, notably in leadership structure and responsibility distribution. Effective leadership remains a critical determinant of team success, whether in highly structured project-based environments or in autonomous self-managed teams, emphasizing that leadership style should align with team goals, task complexity, and organizational context.

References

• Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 233-269.
• Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (2011). The motivation to work. Transaction Publishers.
• Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization. Harvard Business School Press.
• Lencioni, P. (2002). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Fable. Jossey-Bass.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage publications.
• Schmidt, W. H., & Ragan, T. J. (2002). Preparing for the 21st Century: An Introduction to the History and Future of Education. Knowledge and Learning, 2(1), 12-22.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in Organizations. Pearson Higher Ed.
• Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The Nature of Organizational Leadership: Understanding the Performance Imperatives of Leadership. Jossey-Bass.