MGMT20001 Organisational Behaviour- Malcolm and Tony Approach

1. The question of effective leadership in Liberal Inc. would appear to be as much a matter of management ideology as it is a matter of personality. Drawing on the material from MGMT20001 and any other sources you think appropriate, identify the management approach espoused by Tony and Malcolm respectively. Be sure to focus on matters of organization and process rather than personality.

2. Analyse the ideological bases for these contrasting management approaches? Here you should focus on why, above and beyond any claims of superior effectiveness, Malcolm and Tony believe their approach is the better one.

3. On the matter of effectiveness, it appears that neither Tony’s nor Malcolm’s approach worked particularly well. How would you explain this?

4. If you were appointed CEO of Liberal Inc. what would you do to reverse the company’s declining market share? Be sure to focus on internal matters of management and organization rather than actual products. 

Answers

1. After considering and understanding the provided case study, it is understandable that both of the CEOs of Liberal Inc. have failed in long run instead of their powerful as well as successful leadership style in the initial phase. It has been identified that Tony, the former CEO of Liberal Inc. adopted the autocratic leadership style. In specific words, it seems that the former manager CEO Tony has pursued the directive management approach. The reason behind such identification is that the former CEO Tony was portrayed as a strict authoritative leader who preferred to accomplish works by taking decisions all by him and by pushing employees by applying strict disciples and threats. It has been identified that in the directive management style, a manager or a leader in a business organization prefers to closely control his/her subordinates by motivating them through threat and disciplines (Miller & Form, 1964). Most significantly, it is to say that Tony’s management or leadership approach has been highly directive as it is evident from the case study that Tony preferred to terminate employee who could not meet his expectation. At the same time, it has been also understood that Tony has never regarded the fact that subordinates are potential and integral part of a group.

On the other hand, the later and present CEO – Malcolm is seem to have followed the transformational and transaction leadership style. More precisely, it has been identified that after Tony’s disappointing leadership, Malcolm won the chair of CEO by mainly approaching the participative management style. It is because the case study is indicative of the fact that Malcolm won the heart of the disappointed staffs by including them in the decision making process and by considering their individual opinions. The participative management style prioritizes the concept of viewing workers as an individual personality and integral part of a group (Dinh et al., 2014). Additionally, in the particular management approach, managers prefer to motivate employees to give input in decision making (Day et al., 2014). Therefore, it is understandable that Malcolm’s management style has been participative.

2. As per considering the case study, it should be said that both Tony and Malcolm’s management styles have been adopted by them due to the individual situations they have been in. In case of Tony it can be said that the situation of Liberal Inc. was in need of a leadership, which strictly control the employees and would accomplish organizational goal. On the other hand, considering Malcolm’s ideological bases, it can be said that the organization at that time has been going through certain circumstances, which required immediate correction through having a motivational and democratic leadership style. Malcolm believed his management style would be effective and apt as under the management style of Tony, the organization was losing employee morale, which has been affecting its capability to earn market share. Through an autocratic leadership style, it is not possible to maintain employee morale as well as the situation becomes difficult to earn impressive market share (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016). On the other hand, Tony identified his management to be apt and applicable as the former situation of the mentioned organization has been lagging behind and falling too weak to compete with its arch rival.

Therefore, it can be said that both of the ideological bases of Tony and Malcolm has been the individual situations of Liberal Inc. On the other hand, it can be also interpreted that the individual backgrounds of each of the mentioned CEOs should be also considered. Both Tony and Malcolm’s former working culture and individual organizational management styles have possibly curved their ideologies for management. It has been identified that managers who have worked as employees formerly, always prefer to apply those tactics, which had been applied upon them by their former organizations (Coy, 2007).

3. From the given case study, it has been understood that neither Tony’s nor Malcolm’s management approaches have worked particularly well. More precisely, in case of Tony, the management or leadership style, which has been highly directive and autocratic could not work after the initial phase as the employees started to understand that their opinions and positions are not being prioritized by the management. In this context, it is required mentioning that for pursuing effective management and to have a successful business, it is significant to follow the rules of scientific management (Freedman, 1992). According to scientific management, managers need to give importance to the words of their employees and should prioritize individual capabilities (McCleskey, 2014). Unlike that Tony’s leadership style proved to be highly autocratic with its rude approach towards the employees. Therefore it failed. On the other hand, instead of the fact that Malcolm’s initial style has been relatively democratic and transformational, gradually it turned into an autocratic way. Therefore, the act of giving opportunity to the subordinates to share their inputs became worthless. Therefore, Malcolm’s style does not work like Tony’s as he failed to give importance to the individual employee capability like the former manger.

4. If I had been appointed as the CEO of Liberal Inc. I would prefer to select the style or management approach that has been pursued by Malcolm at the initial phase. More specifically, it would be appropriate to select participative style accompanied with transformational leadership style. It is because with the help of transformational leadership style managers become able to work along with their workers and at the same time becomes able to positively encourage them to accomplish organizational goals (McShane et al., 2016). In order to increase the market share, immediately it is essential to increase competitive advantage and strengthening customer relationship. For achieving the above-mentioned criterion, it is necessary to have a potential team of employees and a management that pushed the working team to understand their significance, so that they work hard to satisfy customers (McCleskey, 2014). Therefore, unlike Malcolm it would necessary to continuously follow the motivational and participative leadership style.

However, it is also essential to denote that instead of the fact that Tony’s autocratic management style has been a serious failure, his style of pushing employees to accomplish the organizational goals has been applicable and relevant. Therefore, it would be appropriate to follow both transformational and transactional leadership and participative management approach through which management could control the employee productivity through the system of giving punishment or reward (Miller & Form, 1964). Through this particular style, the organization could make satisfactory customer relationship and earn impressive market share.   

References

Coy, P. (2007) Cog or CoWorker? BusinessWeek, 58-60.

D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964-1991.

Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63-82.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.

Freedman, D. H. (1992). Harvard Business Review, 20(6), 26-32.

McCleskey, J. A. (2014). Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), 117.

McShane et al. (2016). Introduction to the field of organisational Behaviour. In McShane et al (Eds. 5), Organisational Behaviour: Emerging Knowledge. Global Insights. (pp. 1 – 32). Australia: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, D., & Form, W. H. (1964). Chapter 15: The evolution of managerial philosophies. In Industrial Sociology: An introduction to the sociology of work relations (pp. 643-686). New York: Harper & Row Publishers.