Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. can be to many as one of the most inspirational leaders of all time. The civil rights movement would have most likely never been successful with out him. I would say MLK is a prime example of authentic leadership. This quote might help us understand the severity of what "negros" were facing at the time and still today; "But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we have come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.” What can we take from his statements that day which inspired millions and still will continue to inspire millions for years to come? It came from the heart. Authentic leaders are not afraid to challenge the status-quo that deters many of us from inspiring the people around us.
There were many leaders during the civil rights movement but to most of us, MLK is the only one that sticks out. Is that a coincidence or the way it's suppose to be? I believe it isn't. MLK won our hearts because he was original . What do you think about MLK? Is he a true subject of authentic leadership? Authentic leaders must portray various aspects to be considered an authentic leader; passion, compassion, consistency, connectedness, and behavior. I feel Dr. King possesses all of these traits but one that stands out to me is his drive of compassion. Compassion equates to heart. Dr. King had a heart bigger than the Grinch from the Grinch that Stole Christmas, and his heart changed millions and the way our society knows and functions today!
Check out this article for eight leadership traits we should take from Dr. King. http://michaelhyatt.com/eight-leadership-lessons-from-martin-luther-king-jr.html
-Nick Kulavic
Monday, March 21, 2011
Hitler? A leader?
Adolf Hitler can be regarded as one of the worst human beings born of all time, but why do we hate him so much? That question is pretty straight forward and might stir up a great deal of controversy but overall the general answer can be simply summed up as "he killed millions of innocent people." What led him to get in this position of power? It's because he was able to lead millions of people to follow him.
I think Hitler is the perfect example of a transformational leader. A transformational leader creates a vision for his followers. This is exactly what Adolf did. He created his vision of domination throughout the world. At first all of Germany thought he was a great country icon, but what happened that led the entire world to hate him? Hitler will never go down in history as a great man or icon because of his actions, but at the time many would have begged to differ. He instilled a key part of transformational leadership style, building trust in others. This trust led the German regime to be one of the most hated countries in the world at that time. I bet now that thought WWII still lingers in Germans today. What do you think? I know this is a very controversial topic, so please keep in mind the millions of lives that were lost to this socially deranged man.
-Nick Kulavic
I think Hitler is the perfect example of a transformational leader. A transformational leader creates a vision for his followers. This is exactly what Adolf did. He created his vision of domination throughout the world. At first all of Germany thought he was a great country icon, but what happened that led the entire world to hate him? Hitler will never go down in history as a great man or icon because of his actions, but at the time many would have begged to differ. He instilled a key part of transformational leadership style, building trust in others. This trust led the German regime to be one of the most hated countries in the world at that time. I bet now that thought WWII still lingers in Germans today. What do you think? I know this is a very controversial topic, so please keep in mind the millions of lives that were lost to this socially deranged man.
-Nick Kulavic
Mark Zuckerberg is truly on the edge
If you have been living in a cave for the past couple years, you might not have heard about Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg but for the majority of us Zuckerberg is a easily recognizable name. What about Zuckerberg makes him so great? Is it because he built a billion dollar empire? Is it because he changed the way people interact across the globe? No, Zuckerberg is great because throughout his short lived life he never gave up on his dream; connecting people through social interaction. In this TIME magazine article (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036683_2037183,00.html) TIME votes him the 2010 man of the year. You can't be the man of the year without being a great leader.
Zuckerberg's leadership style has been in question and will be in question as Facebook prepares to switch its funding to IPO. I believe Zuckerberg is a perfect example of path-goal theory. Path-goal leaders as we know, need to adapt their style to one that allows their subordinates to achieve a specific goal.
This can be done by being directive, supportive, participated, and achievement oriented. Zuckerberg fits all criteria. Throughout the growth and development of Facebook he has changed his style to continuously achieve their overall goal. To start he began the company as a directive leader; providing guidance and instilling the psychological structure that the company needed in order to have constant expansion. It is hard to convey an idea to another, especially if it is one that could change the way society operated. Once Zuckerberg set the foundation of psychological structure, he could sit back and play a more supportive role. Being supportative allows for the vision of Facebook to take hold. Currently though Zuckerberg is the best demonstrator of a participative style. Facebook is now self sustaining and doesn't need a hard-nosed leader under its ranks. The best way we can see this style of leadership in action is through his own Facebook page. He is currently promoting the need for driven individuals such as himself to work for the company.
Any thoughts on Zuckerberg? I know there has got to be a lot of input since his company is now the most visited page in the US over Gooogle!
-Nick Kulavic
-Nick Kulavic
Jeff Beznos : Amazon CEO
Jeff Beznos started Amazon as an online bookstore back in 1994. He applied his leadership style and helped turn this online new entrant and turn it into the single largest retailer on the web. Beznos discusses the importance of a long term vision. He continues by stressing the importance of keeping your head up through failure and learning to be misunderstood before reaching success.
Another firm belief that Mr. Beznos applies to Amazon is his customer-focus orientation. This allows Amazon to embed a culture that shows customer and employee appreciation.
No doubt Beznos is a tremendous leader, for being a true Internet pioneer, but there is a specific theory that relates to Beznos' leadership. The applied theory, in this case, is Transformational Leadership.
In this given scenario, a man created an incredibly successful company that exists electronically. The change agent occurred when consumers initially heard of purchasing items over the Internet, it was ludicrous. Now-a-days, its simple, quick and extremely efficient. Needless to say, millions of consumers hesitant to utilize an online retailer have had attitude and emotional changes that helped create the success of Amazon.
Jeff Beznos leads subordinates at Amazon by continually raising level of motivation and morality. One key part of success for Amazon has been the tremendous amount of innovation. This is a direct result of Jeff's leadership style. "While we're crossing the desert, we may be thirsty, but we sincerely believe there's an oasis on the other side." This quote from Jeff Beznos helps to explain the concepts he applies to his organization. He boosts motivation in his followers by utilizing hope that the new risky ventures the company is participating in, will have great rewards and ultimately lead to profitability and growth.
Furthermore, Beznos demonstrates an extreme desire to influence in that he is open to ideas, questions, comments and concerns of followers and workers alike. "One piece of the culture here that is true of my personality is that I have never believed that you couldn't be serious and have fun at the same time. It's perhaps most important to have fun when stumbling." This quote illustrates Beznos' opinion in embedding customer and employee focus on the company culture and explains that it is important and crucial for long term success. This helps to explain his belief in similarity between the leader and the follower.
Having a strong focus on relationships and their development will lead to success because followers/employees will feel needed and will be more driven towards success. This leadership style has proven successful through Amazon's success and if the transformational theory remains intact, the company will continue to grow and produce profits, while maintaining a satisfied customer and employee base.
What do you all think about his leadership style? Is it effective?
For more reading, check out this link:
http://www.usnews.com/news/best-leaders/articles/2008/11/19/americas-best-leaders-jeff-bezos-amazoncom-ceo
-Danny Mielneczek
Changing the culture of the U.S. with.... Robots??
http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/content.aspx?id=48
Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway, is also the founder of a program called FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology). This is a program that is attempting to change the culture of the United States through exposing kids from elementary school through high school to math and science through robotics. I participated in this program in high school and it's still something I participate in as a mentor.
Dean Kamen is the textbook definition of a transformational leader. Through getting kids excited about STEM careers (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), Kamen is working to change the culture of the U.S. to celebrate these areas instead of traditional sports and celebrities. Kamen created this program to spread the message that we get the best of what we celebrate. Meaning that if people think something is worthwhile and want the reward associated with it, they will compete and therefore produce a better overall output. Instead of celebrating sports, Kamen wants to celebrate kids making robots.
Through this program Kamen has the ability to inspire and motivate others to create a change in the culture of the U.S.. Kamen engages students with a different challenge every year, typically a game played with 6 robots (3v3). Kids then have 6 weeks to design, build and complete a robot, with the help of engineers and other professionals, that is about 5 ft. tall weighing up to 120 lbs.. Kamen uses the creation of robots as a tool for intellectual stimulation of the students. Through the different facets of each robotics team, Kamen is able to reach and fulfill a consideration for the needs of every student participating. From tasks such as programming, scouting, designing and manufacturing, each student has a place on the team.
While Kamen may not be the most charismatic man you will ever see (he always dresses in full out denim), he sure has found a great way to inspire youth to get excited about science and technology. By creating something that is somewhat similar to a sport, Kamen has built an excitement that started in 1992 with only 28 teams in a New Hampshire high school gym that now reaches over 250,000 kids that get to compete at the end of the season on the floor of the Georgia Dome in Atlanta. Playing in this type of atmosphere helps to inspire the students and motivate them to do great things. If this isn't an example of inspiring a change and transforming a culture, I don't know what is.
Compared to transformational leaders like Kamen, what leaders can you think of that would fit in other Leadership types such as Transactional Leadership and Laissez-Faire Leadership?
Kellen Hill
Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway, is also the founder of a program called FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology). This is a program that is attempting to change the culture of the United States through exposing kids from elementary school through high school to math and science through robotics. I participated in this program in high school and it's still something I participate in as a mentor.
Dean Kamen is the textbook definition of a transformational leader. Through getting kids excited about STEM careers (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), Kamen is working to change the culture of the U.S. to celebrate these areas instead of traditional sports and celebrities. Kamen created this program to spread the message that we get the best of what we celebrate. Meaning that if people think something is worthwhile and want the reward associated with it, they will compete and therefore produce a better overall output. Instead of celebrating sports, Kamen wants to celebrate kids making robots.
Through this program Kamen has the ability to inspire and motivate others to create a change in the culture of the U.S.. Kamen engages students with a different challenge every year, typically a game played with 6 robots (3v3). Kids then have 6 weeks to design, build and complete a robot, with the help of engineers and other professionals, that is about 5 ft. tall weighing up to 120 lbs.. Kamen uses the creation of robots as a tool for intellectual stimulation of the students. Through the different facets of each robotics team, Kamen is able to reach and fulfill a consideration for the needs of every student participating. From tasks such as programming, scouting, designing and manufacturing, each student has a place on the team.
While Kamen may not be the most charismatic man you will ever see (he always dresses in full out denim), he sure has found a great way to inspire youth to get excited about science and technology. By creating something that is somewhat similar to a sport, Kamen has built an excitement that started in 1992 with only 28 teams in a New Hampshire high school gym that now reaches over 250,000 kids that get to compete at the end of the season on the floor of the Georgia Dome in Atlanta. Playing in this type of atmosphere helps to inspire the students and motivate them to do great things. If this isn't an example of inspiring a change and transforming a culture, I don't know what is.
Compared to transformational leaders like Kamen, what leaders can you think of that would fit in other Leadership types such as Transactional Leadership and Laissez-Faire Leadership?
Kellen Hill
Sunday, March 20, 2011
James Parker: Southwest Airlines
September 11, 2001 is a day that most people remember as being one of the worst terrorist attacks that hit our nation. In the midst of such a tragedy, businesses everywhere were significantly impacted. The most impacted was the airline industry.
Southwest is known for their customer service. In an industry fraught with awful customer service, Southwest distanced itself from other airlines by putting the customer first, no matter what the situation.
On September 11, 2001, airlines were forced to shut down for days while the rest of the nation recovered from the terrorist attacks. This meant that all airline passengers, flight attendants and pilots were stranded with the planes across the country. Instead of merely sitting and waiting, Southwest employees were encouraged to take passengers bowling or to the movies to pass the time.
Many airlines started cutting jobs in the months following 9/11. The airline industry had been badly damaged, and many airlines were forced to cut their workforce by up to 20%. Instead of following the trend, Southwest made an announcement only three days after 9/11 that Southwest would be keeping all of their employees and starting a $179.8 million profit sharing payment to employees.
Southwest CEO James Parker believed that because Southwest had built their company on sound business principles for the past 30 years, they were able to handle crisis better than other airlines.
James Parker demonstrates many aspects of the contingency model in his leadership style. The first and foremost important factor is that there is a situational influence that determines the leadership methods that are to be implemented. Mr. Parker has Good leader-member relations, is influenced by a degree of task structure and definitely displays tremendous amounts of power in his leadership.
These three factors characterize the type of leadership that should follow the situation at hand. And, due to the given scenario, Parker remains extremely customer and employee focused and demonstrates this focus by implementing programs in favor of the employees and customers.
Ultimately, the company may be less profitable in the short-term, but due to the significant impact Parker’s leadership style has on the company and followers, Southwest Airlines has adopted an infinitely important reputation of customer and employee focus.
What do you all think? Is the contingency theory well represented in this example? What other theories can you justify for Parker and Southwest Airlines?
-Danny Mielneczek
Are executive bonuses okay?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703294004574511223494536570.html
In this article from the Wall Street Journal, one journalist gives his opinion on whether Executive Bonuses should exist today. He believes that companies should scrap the whole idea of the cash bonuses, mainly because of the corrupt history they have created in the past. This journalist has many reasons why he believes that Executives should not receive cash bonuses and also states the false assumptions of companies. He believes Executive Bonuses represent the most prominent form of legal corruption and that they are bringing down the global economy.
After reading this article, I realized that much of what this journalist was saying related to the chapter in our book about leadership ethics. The chapter is not about a leadership ethics theory, per se, but it does provide a guide to some of the ethical issues that can arise in leadership situations. According to the book, "ethics is concerned with the kinds of values and morals an individual or society finds desirable or appropriate" (378). Concerning leadership, ethics has to do with what leaders do and who leaders are.The article states that executives should not receive bonuses for several reasons, many of which have to do with the ethics behind it. It seems as though the executives that are describes are exhibiting characteristics of ethical egoism. Ethical egoism is when a person acts to create the greatest good for herself or himself (379). The article states that executives collect bonuses even when it just appears as if they are winning, even when they lose, just for drawing cards, and even just for sticking with it and staying with the company. All of these actions demonstrate that these executives are not doing anything for others, but making sure that they receive a bonus, whether or not they really deserve one or not. The article states that, "This may be nice work if you can get it, but it is awful work if you care about the sustainability of an enterprise." And this just shows that executives that receive bonuses aren't really interested in keeping the company around for a long time, as long as the bonus benefits themselves right now.
Additionally, I believe this article relates to the influence dimension of ethics as well. The influence dimension of leadership requires that the leader have an impact on the lives of those being led (382). And, since the leaders have more power, they have more responsibility to be conscious of how their leadership affects followers' lives. The article states that the executives that receive bonuses are more like gamblers than leaders; directly relating to the influence dimension. Executives are acting like gamblers, but they are playing with other peoples' money. As an executive of a company, you are responsible for the stockholders' money as well as the livelihood of the employees and the sustainability of the company.Therefore, executives that take the cash bonus are not exhibiting the influence dimension in a positive way.
After reading the article and my blog post, do you think executives receiving bonuses is ethical? If so, can you argue against what I stated above?
(posted by: Kelly Yuen)
In this article from the Wall Street Journal, one journalist gives his opinion on whether Executive Bonuses should exist today. He believes that companies should scrap the whole idea of the cash bonuses, mainly because of the corrupt history they have created in the past. This journalist has many reasons why he believes that Executives should not receive cash bonuses and also states the false assumptions of companies. He believes Executive Bonuses represent the most prominent form of legal corruption and that they are bringing down the global economy.
After reading this article, I realized that much of what this journalist was saying related to the chapter in our book about leadership ethics. The chapter is not about a leadership ethics theory, per se, but it does provide a guide to some of the ethical issues that can arise in leadership situations. According to the book, "ethics is concerned with the kinds of values and morals an individual or society finds desirable or appropriate" (378). Concerning leadership, ethics has to do with what leaders do and who leaders are.The article states that executives should not receive bonuses for several reasons, many of which have to do with the ethics behind it. It seems as though the executives that are describes are exhibiting characteristics of ethical egoism. Ethical egoism is when a person acts to create the greatest good for herself or himself (379). The article states that executives collect bonuses even when it just appears as if they are winning, even when they lose, just for drawing cards, and even just for sticking with it and staying with the company. All of these actions demonstrate that these executives are not doing anything for others, but making sure that they receive a bonus, whether or not they really deserve one or not. The article states that, "This may be nice work if you can get it, but it is awful work if you care about the sustainability of an enterprise." And this just shows that executives that receive bonuses aren't really interested in keeping the company around for a long time, as long as the bonus benefits themselves right now.
Additionally, I believe this article relates to the influence dimension of ethics as well. The influence dimension of leadership requires that the leader have an impact on the lives of those being led (382). And, since the leaders have more power, they have more responsibility to be conscious of how their leadership affects followers' lives. The article states that the executives that receive bonuses are more like gamblers than leaders; directly relating to the influence dimension. Executives are acting like gamblers, but they are playing with other peoples' money. As an executive of a company, you are responsible for the stockholders' money as well as the livelihood of the employees and the sustainability of the company.Therefore, executives that take the cash bonus are not exhibiting the influence dimension in a positive way.
After reading the article and my blog post, do you think executives receiving bonuses is ethical? If so, can you argue against what I stated above?
(posted by: Kelly Yuen)
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Women Leaders
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/women-and-revolution-what_b_837879.html
This article from the Huffington Post describes the risks that the women of the Middle East have taken in the last few months but are still not always recognized or treated fairly.
Recently, women celebrated the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day in Egypt. Despite marking a celebrated 100 years, they came across male hecklers who shouted at them to go home "where they belong". However, some can argue that the revolutions in the Middle East never would have happened without the women, that they were the brains behind the slogans, the marches, and that they were the true activists. Yet, they are not receiving the recognition or treatment that they deserve.
The Middle East has a long history of the mistreatment of women. Many countries in the Middle East do not see women as equals. However, as we learned in class, women are equally effective leaders (303). Also, the book states that women were proven to be more effective than man were in education, government, and social services organizations. But, the article describes Iraqi women's struggles to find equality in filling the seats of parliament, despite being promised that women would fill an equal amount of seats.
Women of the Middle East seem to be struggling with issues that are considered under the leadership labyrinth described in the book. As I stated above, some of the men shouted at the women to go back home "where they belong." This confrontation falls under the Human Capital section of the leadership labyrinth. The Human Capital section talks about the work-home conflict that many women face. For many, many years, women have been expected to work in the home. And in recent years, women have been diving further into the workforce, but are still expected to do all of the work in the home.Women in the Middle East are perceived to take a backseat when it comes to leadership because it is thought that they do not belong there.
Additionally, the issues women are facing in the Middle East fall under the Prejudice section of the labyrinth as well. Despite contributing tremendous efforts to the revolutions in the Middle East, the women are still not receiving equal treatment. This might be because of the prejudice that women are facing because of the stereotypic beliefs about how women ought to be. The book states that "gender stereotypes are pervasive, well documented, and highly resistant to change" (311). This means that even though women played a huge part in the recent revolutions, they are not going to see change in the perception of women because they are so ingrained in the culture of those countries. The unequal and unfair treatment of women will not change significantly from these revolutions because gender stereotypes are so resistant to change.
After reading this article and my interpretation of the situation, what are your thoughts on how women in the Middle East should be navigating the labyrinth? What should the women be doing to overcome these issues? Do you think any additional sections or attributes of the leadership labyrinth are present?
(posted by: Kelly Yuen)
This article from the Huffington Post describes the risks that the women of the Middle East have taken in the last few months but are still not always recognized or treated fairly.
Recently, women celebrated the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day in Egypt. Despite marking a celebrated 100 years, they came across male hecklers who shouted at them to go home "where they belong". However, some can argue that the revolutions in the Middle East never would have happened without the women, that they were the brains behind the slogans, the marches, and that they were the true activists. Yet, they are not receiving the recognition or treatment that they deserve.
The Middle East has a long history of the mistreatment of women. Many countries in the Middle East do not see women as equals. However, as we learned in class, women are equally effective leaders (303). Also, the book states that women were proven to be more effective than man were in education, government, and social services organizations. But, the article describes Iraqi women's struggles to find equality in filling the seats of parliament, despite being promised that women would fill an equal amount of seats.
Women of the Middle East seem to be struggling with issues that are considered under the leadership labyrinth described in the book. As I stated above, some of the men shouted at the women to go back home "where they belong." This confrontation falls under the Human Capital section of the leadership labyrinth. The Human Capital section talks about the work-home conflict that many women face. For many, many years, women have been expected to work in the home. And in recent years, women have been diving further into the workforce, but are still expected to do all of the work in the home.Women in the Middle East are perceived to take a backseat when it comes to leadership because it is thought that they do not belong there.
Additionally, the issues women are facing in the Middle East fall under the Prejudice section of the labyrinth as well. Despite contributing tremendous efforts to the revolutions in the Middle East, the women are still not receiving equal treatment. This might be because of the prejudice that women are facing because of the stereotypic beliefs about how women ought to be. The book states that "gender stereotypes are pervasive, well documented, and highly resistant to change" (311). This means that even though women played a huge part in the recent revolutions, they are not going to see change in the perception of women because they are so ingrained in the culture of those countries. The unequal and unfair treatment of women will not change significantly from these revolutions because gender stereotypes are so resistant to change.
After reading this article and my interpretation of the situation, what are your thoughts on how women in the Middle East should be navigating the labyrinth? What should the women be doing to overcome these issues? Do you think any additional sections or attributes of the leadership labyrinth are present?
(posted by: Kelly Yuen)
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Why Frat Boys Make Lousy Change Agents
This article looks at the leadership style in the "frat boy" culture of the Tribune Company and how effective that style is when promoting change.
After reading this article, the first theory that came to mind was the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory. The LMX theory takes into account the dyadic relationship and interactions between the leader and followers. It also looks at the relationship that the leader has between each individual follower, as opposed to the relationship with the collective group. Sam Zell, owner of the Tribune Company, allowed his executive team to build a "fun, non-linear creative environment." He didn't care about job candidates with "solid newsroom experience", and he encouraged candidates who were "anti-establishment". The type of culture he created consisted of people just like him, and was almost clique-like. Everyone within the company that had the same "frat culture" view as Zell was in the in-group. They were encouraged and empowered more and had a higher quality relationship with Zell than the followers in the out-group. The out-group doesn't have the same kind of relationship or compatibility with the leader, but Zell could have used this to his advantage by encouraging their feedback and ideas. What Zell needed were people who would challenge his process, but since he only had people like him in executive and other top-level positions, all he got from them was agreement. Zell did a lot of talking about change, but didn't approach change in the right way. He spent time trashing what had been done in the past, instead of using those mistakes to get followers excited for the changes that would happen in the future.
I also thought about the Contingency theory while reading this article. The Contingency theory matches leaders to the situation and is contingent on matching the leader's style to the right setting. Based of the Contingency Model, the culture that Zell created had good leader-member relations because the followers trusted and were confident in him and were loyal to him. There was low task structure because the requirements were not clearly spelled out. Zell believed in having a "fun" environment rather than a structured environment. In this situation, there was strong position power because Zell was the owner if the Tribune Company, so he was the person that everyone needed to make sure was satisfied. The preferred leadership style for good leader-member relations, low task structure, and high position power would be middle or low LPC's. Based on the outcome of Zell's leadership, it looks like there was a mismatch. I believe that there was a mismatch with Zell's style and the situation because the Tribune Company failed under Zell's leadership withing a year of him purchasing it, and went bankrupt in that time as well.
Posted by: Tara Kaeb
After reading this article, the first theory that came to mind was the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory. The LMX theory takes into account the dyadic relationship and interactions between the leader and followers. It also looks at the relationship that the leader has between each individual follower, as opposed to the relationship with the collective group. Sam Zell, owner of the Tribune Company, allowed his executive team to build a "fun, non-linear creative environment." He didn't care about job candidates with "solid newsroom experience", and he encouraged candidates who were "anti-establishment". The type of culture he created consisted of people just like him, and was almost clique-like. Everyone within the company that had the same "frat culture" view as Zell was in the in-group. They were encouraged and empowered more and had a higher quality relationship with Zell than the followers in the out-group. The out-group doesn't have the same kind of relationship or compatibility with the leader, but Zell could have used this to his advantage by encouraging their feedback and ideas. What Zell needed were people who would challenge his process, but since he only had people like him in executive and other top-level positions, all he got from them was agreement. Zell did a lot of talking about change, but didn't approach change in the right way. He spent time trashing what had been done in the past, instead of using those mistakes to get followers excited for the changes that would happen in the future.
I also thought about the Contingency theory while reading this article. The Contingency theory matches leaders to the situation and is contingent on matching the leader's style to the right setting. Based of the Contingency Model, the culture that Zell created had good leader-member relations because the followers trusted and were confident in him and were loyal to him. There was low task structure because the requirements were not clearly spelled out. Zell believed in having a "fun" environment rather than a structured environment. In this situation, there was strong position power because Zell was the owner if the Tribune Company, so he was the person that everyone needed to make sure was satisfied. The preferred leadership style for good leader-member relations, low task structure, and high position power would be middle or low LPC's. Based on the outcome of Zell's leadership, it looks like there was a mismatch. I believe that there was a mismatch with Zell's style and the situation because the Tribune Company failed under Zell's leadership withing a year of him purchasing it, and went bankrupt in that time as well.
Posted by: Tara Kaeb
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Celebrity Leaders?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110315/ts_yblog_theticket/hollywood-a-listers-urge-obama-to-support-gay-marriage
According to an article on Yahoo!, some of the most famous celebrities have taken a stand against President Obama's recent decision to no longer legally defend the Defense of Marriage act. Some celebrities such as Anne Hathaway, Martin Sheen, Ellen Degeneres, and Jane Lynch have signed a letter asking Obama to legalize same-sex marriage. Although these celebrities may not fit the typical demographic for the leaders we have been talking about, I believe taking a strong stand on such a controversial subject exhibits leadership.
I think that these celebrities are exhibiting characteristics of Authentic Leadership through their genuine approach to the situation. These 'A-listers' are exhibiting characteristics of the Intrapersonal definition stated in the textbook. Their strong stance on same-sex marriage incorporates their self knowledge and they are basing their actions on their values. Their values include equality to same-sex couples and their letter to the President exhibits these beliefs. The celebrities are leading from conviction because they have a strong, fixed belief in their opinion on same-sex marriage.
I believe that Authentic Leadership really comes through in people during situations that have been considered controversial over the years, such as legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion. Many of the leaders' actions that come from these types of situations are based on the core values of the leader.
I also believe that these stars are hoping that their legitimate power will play a part in influencing others to join the cause. Their legitimate power comes from having status. Many celebrities use their status and popularity to influence others because they are looked up to by many.
(Posted by: Kelly Yuen)
According to an article on Yahoo!, some of the most famous celebrities have taken a stand against President Obama's recent decision to no longer legally defend the Defense of Marriage act. Some celebrities such as Anne Hathaway, Martin Sheen, Ellen Degeneres, and Jane Lynch have signed a letter asking Obama to legalize same-sex marriage. Although these celebrities may not fit the typical demographic for the leaders we have been talking about, I believe taking a strong stand on such a controversial subject exhibits leadership.
I think that these celebrities are exhibiting characteristics of Authentic Leadership through their genuine approach to the situation. These 'A-listers' are exhibiting characteristics of the Intrapersonal definition stated in the textbook. Their strong stance on same-sex marriage incorporates their self knowledge and they are basing their actions on their values. Their values include equality to same-sex couples and their letter to the President exhibits these beliefs. The celebrities are leading from conviction because they have a strong, fixed belief in their opinion on same-sex marriage.
I believe that Authentic Leadership really comes through in people during situations that have been considered controversial over the years, such as legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion. Many of the leaders' actions that come from these types of situations are based on the core values of the leader.
I also believe that these stars are hoping that their legitimate power will play a part in influencing others to join the cause. Their legitimate power comes from having status. Many celebrities use their status and popularity to influence others because they are looked up to by many.
(Posted by: Kelly Yuen)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)