Introduction
Gene One is
a Bio tech company that has recently entered into the bio tech industry with a revolutionary
technology to curb diseases in tomatoes and potatoes. The company has recently
grown in customer base and currently records $400 million in assets. Its
success has been majorly attributed to its ground breaking technology that
enables its clients consume home grown products, free from chemicals. The
technology has also made farmers grow crops without necessarily using
fertilizers and this is a new development from contemporary farming methods.
The company’s growth has also been experienced within a few years considering
its penetration into the industry happened as recent as 1996.
Gene One now commands strong stock
indices in Wall Street considering an evident surge in bio technology interest
among the general public and investors. The company’s strong leadership in food
and drug administration has also increased investor confidence in the company’s
future performance, only adding to the increasing company profile. Recently,
there have been managerial initiatives within the company regarding future
prospects of the company in light of increasing demand and attainment of the
company’s growth focus. As a result, the company’s Chief Executive Officer, Don
Ruiz, together with management have decided to device a clear strategy to
propel the organization to success in the next three years.
The time seems right for the
organization and proper consultation have been made with the relevant
stakeholders together with investment partners. The company is optimistic that
it will embrace the opportunities that exist in the future without much
hurdles. Nevertheless, as part of this long-term strategy, the company needs to
raise more capital through an Initial Public Offering and rejuvenate its
marketing and advertising campaigns to attain its long term objectives. In this
regard, the company needs to establish a strong leadership team and strategy to
propel Gene One to high success levels. It is for this reason that this study
seeks to establish options for implementing a leadership change within the
organization as a component towards attainment of the overall organizational
goals.
Leadership
Styles
Leadership styles are
essentially tailored towards implementing plans, providing direction and
generally providing motivation to employees. It is a managerial norm that
leaders shouldn’t adopt only one leadership style. Research studies have also
showed that failed leaders have been synonymous with the use of one leadership
style. However, management should be careful because it needs to analyze the
situation which warrants the leadership style. Considering Gene One has never
experienced any IPO as a company before, it is important that the company
management show the way.
Considering Gene One wants to
initiate an initial public offer (IPO) it is important that management takes a
proactive role in ensuring the organization works in tandem to the success of
this initiative. Because of the complexity of undertaking an IPO, Gene One
would be better placed if it undertakes an authoritarian form of leadership.
However, since the company expects to rejuvenate its marketing and advertising
campaigns, the company should compliment its authoritarian leadership style
with a participative approach (Rothstein, 2010, p.
263).
Authoritarian
(Autocratic) Leadership
This leadership style is common when management
wants to tell the employees what to do and also define how they want tasks to
be accomplished. Normally, this is done without the input of lower level
employees. Research studies point that that this type of leadership should be
majorly used when motivational level is high in the organization, when the
management has adequate information and when there is little time. Concerning
the IPO, management is better placed to deal with this situation because the
necessary expertise is at its disposal. In other words, they are better placed
to consult financial consultants on the strategies that should be adopted to
make the IPO a success. In this manner, they should communicate to lower level
employees about the recommendations they have arrived at and also show them how
they expect them to be done (Rothstein, 2010, p. 263).
Thirty two months is enough time for
the organization to adopt change and implement new strategies; time should
therefore not be a huge constraint. The company has also been experiencing
considerable growth in its last few years of operation preceding the IPO and
motivational levels are assumed to be high enough for lower level employees to
adopt this leadership style. Authoritarian leadership is therefore likely to be
a good strategy in making the IPO a success and implementing leadership change
in this regard.
Participative (Democratic)
Leadership
This is an all-inclusive leadership style that seeks
to bring employees on board while strategizing how change can be implemented in
the company. Nonetheless, the managers should have the final decision in the
matter. Considering the company is undertaking an effort to rejuvenate its
marketing and advertising campaigns, the company should adopt a participative
approach to leadership. The fact that employees are consulted in this type of
leadership does not show weakness on the part of the management. The nature of
marketing and advertising is all-inclusive and involves the participation of
all employees. This is the justification of the participative leadership style (Rothstein, 2010, p. 263)
In this participative leadership
style, the views of the employees will be sought and the management would also
throw in its contribution form time to time. Management would also be entrusted
with the responsibility of moderating the views of the employees to come up
with a harmonious marketing and advertising strategy. This method is likely to
be fruitful because as management of Gene One, individuals are not expected to
know everything that pertains to the marketing and advertising strategies. This
is why the company needs to seek the services of knowledgeable and skillful
employees. There is a mutual relationship here because the management would
benefit by making comprehensive and well thought out decisions while lower
level employees would have the opportunity to be part of the decision making
process (Rothstein, 2010, p. 263).
Leadership
Structure
Gene One will have to incorporate a
leadership structure that is clear on the way decisions are made. The
leadership styles to be incorporated will involve the top-down and bottom-up
approach. The top-down approach will be used to implement the autocratic
leadership style and the bottom up approach will be used to implement the participative
or democratic leadership style. In the top down approach, the management will
be the decision making organ and the Company CEO will be the final decision
maker. This type of leadership structure disseminates power in the sense that
authority is delegated to individuals in the management hierarchical structure.
It also provides a high level foresight and is efficient. The bottom-up
approach will be beneficial in implementing the participative leadership style
because it will incorporate joint involvement of all members of the
organization. This approach is advantageous because it imposes a positive
feeling on the part of employees and more experimentation can be done regarding
developed strategies (Connerley, 2005, p. 152).
Conflicting
Options in Leadership Change
One of the most common observations before any major
change happens in an organization is that organizational members and more
especially the leadership team will always have conflicting ideas for change
implementation. Gene One is no different. Group members have had opposing views
towards implementing change in the organization; this does not necessarily mean
it is a bad thing but there is a concise need to merge divergent views.
Research studies have noted that divergent views are partly constructive
because they give different aspects towards attainment of a single objective. Undoubtedly,
the different opinions in the organization have a positive aspect to it because
they provide stability and predictability to human behavior. However, these
divergent opinions can be a source of functional conflict in implementing the
overall leadership change in the organization (Harari,
2003, pp. 7-10).
Options
for Merging Divergent Views
Education and
Communication
Considering the leadership team has divergent views
towards leadership change, it is important that every team member is educated
about the common strategy and the importance or merits of it. This strategy
will most likely enable them see the logic for adopting the recommended
strategy. Communicating the recommended strategy will also help the
organization wade off internal resistance in two levels. First of all,
communicating the change strategy to both the leadership team members and
general employees would help clear up any misunderstanding and therefore
eliminate any opposition towards the adoption of the common strategy. Secondly,
if all stakeholders are educated about the overall need for change, it will be
better understood. In other words, this will be like a tool to sell the need
for change in the organization. Research studies have also attested to the fact
that the need for change needs to be properly packaged and sold to every
stakeholder in an attractive way so that every member would adopt it (Litchtenberg,
2007, p. 649).
Participation
It is quite difficult for team
members to oppose a view that they helped develop. It is therefore important
that Gene One incorporates everyone in adopting the leadership change strategy
to minimize any future challenges in its implementation. Assuming the
participation process will be complimentary to the overall strategy
development, the quality of the final strategy is likely to be high,
irresistible and committal. However, the management should brace itself for
possible lack of compromise and a lot of time consumption in reaching a
compromise (Litchtenberg, 2007, p. 649).
Building Support
and Commitment
Gene One should brace itself for slow adoption of
leadership change especially from lower level employees at the initial stage of
implementation process. However, this challenge may also be experienced by part
of the leadership team, especially those that are in disagreement to the
adoption of the overall strategy. It is however important for the organization
to note that change agents can offer support for adoption of new change. In
this regard, it is vital for the organization to facilitate a short
intermediary period where managers and other employees can take a break before
the new changes take effect. This comes out of change analysis researches that
show that middle level managers who never feel emotionally part of the change
process openly oppose change (Litchtenberg, 2007, p. 649). The short
intermediary and adjustment period can also be supplemented with counseling or
therapy sessions for all employees which would eventually enable them accept
change.
Negotiation
Negotiation would eventually create a compromise
between warring factions. It is probably wise for the majority team to exchange
something of value to the minority team who don’t share the same opinion so that
a compromise can be reached. For instance, if there are a few powerful
management team members who don’t share the majority view, a small package in
the change process can be negotiated to bring them on board. However, this strategy
has its own shortcomings becomes it may create an avenue for black mail
especially when powerful individuals are involved. Moreover, its potential high
costs are an important consideration (Litchtenberg, 2007, p. 649).
Manipulation and
Cooptation
Manipulation should probably be used when all other
avenues of reaching a consensus have failed. Depending on the situation, Gene
One management would have to perpetrate false rumors about some of its managers
to petition other employees to side with them. The management would also
probably have to twist or distort facts such that they are packaged in a way
that is obviously attractive to every person. This might not entirely be the
true situation.
Cooptation on the other hand is a
milder form of manipulation that management would have to adopt because it
entails participation. In essence, the management would have to buy off the
opposing team. This strategy can be best carried out by powerful managers in
the organization. This can be done by reserving a position in the overall
managerial change process if the opposing individuals endorse the change
process. This option does not seek to improve the change process and neither
does it seek a better decision, instead, it only aims at getting endorsement
from a few key players. This change tactic is probably easy and inexpensive if
it works out but it may also backfire if something goes wrong. For example, if
the opposing managers realize that they are being used, they may turn against
the whole change process and the credibility of the other managers may fall
considerably (Litchtenberg, 2007, p. 649).
Selecting People
who’ll accept Change
The personality of the managers is
probably the biggest deterrent to accepting change in an organization. For this
reason, Gene One should put on board those individuals who have more
experience, are flexible, have a positive attitude and are willing to take
risks because they are more likely to embrace change and pose less opposition
towards the overall implementation of the change process. This conclusion comes
about from research studies done in the United States (US), Asia and Europe
purporting that those managers established to have a positive self concept and
had a high tolerance level were better placed to adopt organizational change (Litchtenberg,
2007, p. 649).
Coercion
This approach is probably not ethically correct because
it involves issuing threats to those opposing change in the organization. It is
probably the last resort Gene One should use and has an undetermined rate of
success but it has been proved to work in some cases. Gene One could adopt the
method of threatening the careers of resistors or threatening to transfer them
to other locations if they don’t accept change. Alternatively, the company
could use milder threats such as giving poor recommendation, loss of promotion
positions and negatively evaluating resistors in terms of performance. The
merits and drawbacks related to this strategy are probably varied but they are
more or less the same as the tactic of manipulation and cooptation (Litchtenberg,
2007, p. 650).
Conclusion
One of the most difficult decisions in any
leadership position is facilitating change in the organization. People tend to
have divergent views regarding change and how it should be implemented. In this
regard, Gene One company should use the tactics of education and communication,
negotiation, participation, building support and commitment, selecting people
who’ll accept change, manipulation, cooptation and coercion, in that order to deal
with divergent views in the organization. It is also critical that the company
adopt the top-bottom approach and bottom-top approach to implement the
strategies of autocratic and participative leadership styles respectively. The
company can therefore facilitate change in this manner to achieve the objective
of achieving a successful IPO and a turn around in marketing and advertisement.
References
Connerley, M. (2005). Leadership
in a Diverse and Multicultural Environment: Developing
Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills. London: SAGE.
Harari, O. (2003). The
Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell. New York: McGraw-Hill
Professional.
Litchtenberg,
G. (2007). Organizational Change and
Stress Management. London: Prentice Hall.
Rothstein, M. (2010). Self-management
and Leadership Development. San Francisco: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment