Case Study Evaluation and Analysis using Leadership Theories and Concepts

Introduction leading is one of the roughly important particularors that determine the overall surgery of an transcription (Lussier &038 Achua, 2012). As argued by Hogg,forefront Knippenberg and Rast (2012), how leading in organisations delegated duties, actualize for decisions and interact with some other members either positively or negatively affects employee emergeput and thereof influences the attainment of the overall organisational objective. This publisher presents an outline of leaders at EEF, a social station organisation that is a counterpoint to the business deal Union movement and was founded with the aim of back up employers in the United Kingdom. Among the bring out concepts turn to in this analysis atomic estimate 18 the key leaders theories cig bet be applicable to this reason and challenges encountered in the leading member.The percentage of leadership at EEFAs an organisation that represents the interests of numerous employers around the U nited Kingdom, the leading at EEF is obligated to ensure that it establishes the unavoidably of its members and efficaciously addresses them. The role played by EEFs lead is exhibited by the fact that it addresses its members needs by dint of providing them with advice, guidance and comport that impart enable them to efficiently and impellingly manage their businesses. EEFs leaders is to a fault act towards ensuring that the familiarity is flexible plenteous to maintain its relevance in its aid delivery by implementing the ask intensifys. rough of the metamorphoses included the transformation of the bon tons legal view from a league to a limited comp whatsoever by guarantee in 2009 to ensure that that its status as a non-profit was protected. The other change that was employ by the companys leadership in the identical family was converting it into a single integrated study entity from its original regionalised organize. This integration resulted into the ap pointment of a nonher(prenominal) CEO who was expected to lead the company under its new banner of sensation EEF. All these changes were do by the company with the aim of addressing the ?7 trillion freeing experience in 2009, which was the get-go it had forever experienced since it was founded. A regional police squad leader of the companys gross sales aggroup, tom Jones, was also appointed to wangle the now consolidated squad. These strategies that were implemented by the companys top leadership to ensure that the company remains on track highlights one of the key roles of leadership in an organisation, which is decision do. Whereas the ?7 million loss that was suffered in 2009 might stick out highlighted flaws in the leadership of EEF that year, the immediate changes that were do show the commitment of the companys leadership towards its solid performance.Analysis of tomcat Jones Leadership using Leadership TheoriesThe character Theory of LeadershipFrom the cas e, Jones was selected out of the other applicants who were earlier in charge of the regional sales functions. Out of these was an applicant who had expected to be selected as the team up leader because of his long-run experience with the company. The trait theory of leadership can be used in explaining this selection. According to the trait leadership theory, good leaders possess a variation of characteristics and personal traits that enable them execute their leadership responsibilities well. These include integrity, assertiveness, empathy, truthfulness, openness, likeability and decision making skills (Colbert et al., 2012). The applicant mentioned in the case who had served for long as the leader of a regional sales team could have possessed some(prenominal) of these traits, but not as many an(prenominal) as Jones exhibited. Some of the traits exhibited by Jones as highlighted in the case included openness, honesty and good decision making skills.The behavioral TheoryTh is theory focuses the behaviour of leaders as they guide their followers towards attaining the overall organisational objective, and classifies leaders as participatory, overbearing or laissez faire (DeRue et al., 2011). Democratic leaders ar characterised by the fact that they involve other team members in the decision making process. The suggestions that dumbfound the most support from team members atomic number 18 adopted as final decisions. Whilst this ascend is lauded for ensuring effective team charm, it becomes challenging to reach a final decision when the suggestions provided are many and differ widely (Lussier &038 Achua, 2012). Autocratic leadership involves making of decisions without any prior character reference or contact of team members. This court has been regarded as being ineffective for teamwork kinetics and team agreement. It is however considered ideal in situations where decisions need to be urgently made (Bhatti et al., 2012). The Laissez-faire ap ostrophize to leadership is carried out by allowing other team members to make most of the decisions with minimal interference from the leader. This tone-beginning is mostly applicable when team members are highly skilled and capable of one by one making good decisions. However, leaders who pick out this approach might at generation be mistaken for being superfluous (Lussier &038 Achua, 2012). Jones leadership approach was characterised by openness, which contributed towards his word meaning of a collaborative team grammatical construction approach that involved sharing of teaching and ideas, which matches with the democratic approach. Jones also valued the experiences and ideas of other team members. By applying this leadership approach, the team was able to identify the major issues, which were posterior prioritised according to their urgency. Transactional vs. Transformational LeadershipLeadership can also be classified as either transactional or transformational. Transa ctional leadership is based on the supposal that individuals are motivated by penalization and reward. It also assumes that the best way in which social systems can work is through the cheek of a clear range of command (Carter et al., 2013). According to Bono, Hooper and Yoon (2012), transactional leaders work by clearly setting structures or rules by which their followers are required to abide, as well as rewards to be expected when they are adhered to. Whilst they are not usually mentioned, formal discipline systems and punishments are also well understood by their followers (Carter et al., 2013). This is as opposed to transformational leadership where leaders develop constructive visions for the organisation, cope them to their followers, find the way forward on how to implement the vision and lead the implementation of the vision (Wright et al., 2012). The diagram below depicts the differences surrounded by Transactional and transformational leadership.Table 1 Transactiona l vs. Transformational leadership (Adopted from Lussier and Achua (2012)Jones involvement of the team at EEF, formulation of incumbent changes to transform the company and offering some(prenominal) personal and professional support to his team to enable them achieve these changes matches with the transformation approach to leadership. Among the changes that were identified as indispensable for EEF were the establishment of new geographical sales areas and their respective(prenominal) sales representatives, implementing the necessary forecasting and report processes, and ensuring that the existing CRM systems are upgraded so as to attain consistency in the mensuration key performance indicators. Jones embarked on achieving these changes by leading the change in the organisational finis by encouraging team members to be more corporate minded and committed to problem solving. He also embarked on building corporation and trust at bottom the team he was leading. These characterist ics of Jones leadership throw out verify his transformational leadership approach.Leadership challenges from the nerveThere are several challenges that can be identified from the provided case on EEF. One of these was the loss that was incurred in the 2009 pecuniary year, which triggered the transformation of EEFs overall structure. The changes that were implemented further triggered challenges that are typical to any change process in organisations. The first was ensuring that he addressed the feelings of the applicants who lost on their applications as team leaders and creating a formidable team. Given that they all held same regional position before, it can be concluded that their capabilities were almost the same. Therefore, the most effective approach that could be used by Jones in addressing this was involving them in decision making through a highly democratic leadership style (DeRue et al., 2011). By cunning that their opinions are valued by their leader, they will be mo tivated and committed towards attaining the craved organisational objective (Lussier &038 Achua, 2012).The other challenge was in regards to the transformation of the organisations structure from being regionally based to a unit national structure. In tack together to attain this overall change, there are several change management archetypes that could be used. One of these is the 8 step good example of organisational change, which was proposed by Kotter (1996). It divides the whole change process into eight stages that are more pliant and all contribute towards the attainment of the in demand(p) outcome of change. These stages are explained in duck 2 below. Whereas this approach to organisational change has been support by a wide number of researchers, it has also received criticism. For instance, OKeefe (2013) pointed out that the beat assumes that change is a one-dimensional process and does not account for challenges or changes that might be encountered in the change pro cess.Table 2 Kotters 8-stage model of organisational change (Kotter, 1996)ConclusionIn conclusion, this paper has presented an in-depth analysis of leadership at EEF in regard to the changes implemented with the aim of recovering from its poor performance that was registered in 2009. In the analysis, leadership concepts and theories have been referred to and their applicability to the case has been explained. Among these are the trait and behavioural theories of leadership, transformational and transactional leadership models and Kotters 8 stage model of leadership. Even with the few mentioned challenges that were highlighted in the case, it has been shown that Tom Jones leadership approach was ideal for the EEF as it set out to implement the necessary changes in its functional and organisational structures.ReferencesBhatti, N. et al. (2012) The impact of autocratic and democratic leadership style on job satisfaction. International Business Research, 5(2), pp.192-207.Bono, J.E., Ho oper, A.C. &038 Yoon, D.J. (2012) rival of rater genius on transformational and transactional leadership ratings. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), pp.132-45.Carter, M.Z., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. &038 Mossholder, K.W. (2013) Transformational leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous incremental organisational change. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 34(7), pp.942-58.Colbert, A.E., Judge, T.A., Choi, D. &038 Wang, G. (2012) Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality The mediating role of contributions to group success. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), pp.670-85.DeRue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N.E.D. &038 Humphrey, S.E. (2011) mark and behavioral theories of leadership An integration and meta? analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), pp.7-52.Hogg, M.A., Van Knippenberg, D. &038 Rast, D.E. (2012) Intergroup leadership in organisations hint across group and org anisational boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), pp.232-55.Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading change. Cambridge, MA Harvard Business School Press.Lussier, R. &038 Achua, C. (2012) Leadership Theory, application, &038 skill development. Mason Cengage Learning.OKeefe, K. (2013) Where Kotters 8 Steps Gets it Wrong. Online Available at http//www.executiveboard.com/communications-blog/where-kotters-8-steps-gets-it-wrongAccessed 18 December 2014.Wright, B.E., Moynihan, D.P. &038 Pandey, S.K. (2012) Pulling the Levers Transformational Leadership, public Service, Motivation, and Mission Valence. Public Administration Review, 72(2), p.206215.