The context in which an organization operates does matter regarding its success. Decisions should always be made while considering all players in the Corporation. The external and internal environments profoundly affect the performance of any organization (Butman, 2012).
Decision making calls for utmost balancing in the tasks handled at all levels of management. The leader should put into consideration the employees’ understanding situation in the organization and utilize the most appropriate decision model in the case at hand. The model may either be one that calls for involvement of all stakeholders or solely base on individual decisions. Leadership always demands adaptability on the style of leadership to be applied. A fully leader driven style or group driven one may be chosen. This may be basing on the decisions that are to be taken or also the situation at hand. Leadership refers to a process in which one person takes to influence others towards working to a given goal.
The Hersey-Blanchard leadership model suggests that it is necessary for leaders to adjust their styles. The main issue advocated in this model in making these adjustments is the follower maturity, as clearly demonstrated by their readiness to perform the existing situations or tasks at hand.
Leadership Styles in the Hersey-Blanchard
This is where the group is allowed to take responsibility for every task and decisions in
the organization. In the Alvis Corporation case, Mr. Kevin always made decisions regarding the two weeks’ vacation of the workers alone. He did not involve other stakeholders in the decision making. In this instance, his employees could not be held responsible in case there was a problem in relation to his decisions. When Mr. Kevin realized the essence of participative management, and called for a meeting, it showed he was out to adopt this style. It is a low-task, and also low relationship style.
This style emphasizes on sharing of ideas and also participative involvement of employees in decision making on tasks and also directions. Mr. Kevin went on to call a meeting to pass across the message the company wanted to employ. He went on to allow members to express their views without his interference. This was a clear application of this method. It is a low-task method and also a high relationship one.
Hersey and Blanchard advocate for leaders’ flexibility and adjustments in their styles as followers in the organization and also situations do change over time. The model implies that, in cases where appropriate styles are employed in all lower-readiness situations, existing followers tend to mature and grow in their respective abilities and also confidence.
Vroom-Jago Leadership Model
Vroom-Jago model employs decision trees and also tradeoffs for arriving at desired band of branched decisions. This model relates all leadership behavior in an organization and also participation to the decision making process. Mr. Kevin McCarthy tried to employ participation by calling on his employees to give their views on the given subject. He also presented to them the situation at hand and what was projected. This model allows the leader to pose a series of queries to which his followers respond with a Yes or No. The leader then decides on which solution best suits the organization basing on the answers received from the participants.
According to the Alvis Corporation, the case involved presentation of a situation where the organization was at and wanted the employees to be actively involved in assessing the previous decisions made and give recommendations. However, Mr. Kevin was did not participate actively in the whole process as he left the employees to air their views without his intervention. At the end of the meeting, he got their views and would work on the best applications that the company may advocate.
The predetermined leader Leadership Styles in this model include:
Autocratic I (A1)
This is where the leader takes upon him or her to influence the working in the organization by applying decisions made without any consultations. This is the case where, a leader does not involve his or her followers and counts on his or her prowess to direct the way an organization is expected to perform. Mr. Kevin, before the meeting, always applied this method in assessing the workers to go on vacation. He made all decisions basing on his preferences and never consulted any person. However, this method should be applied in cases where the decision has little impacts on the performance of the Corporation. It should also be a calculated decision.
Autocratic II (A2)
This method is solely applied in the case of Alvis Corporation. Mr. Kevin sought the views of the other members in the organization regarding the situation at hand and the desires of the top management. He, however, did not disclose the main reasons behind the seeking of their advice. He did not disclose any details of the outcomes of their views.
Consultative I (C1)
This method calls for consideration of the members decisions in the final step taken by the leader. It is not applied in the case at hand as it calls for each member to give his or her views. The Alvis Corporation case involved Mr. Kevin calling for a meeting of all his 15 employees and they were to discuss as a whole, and not on individual grounds.
Consultative II (C2)
This one allows the leader to request for all stakeholders in that department to meet and then ask for their views on a given scenario. Mr. Kevin called for a meeting of all employees within his department and gave them guidance on what the top management desired. He analyzed the current situation on the ground and requested them to give their perceptions on the best way forward. This is what this model calls for. The group meetings give a base for consideration on the final decision that the leader will take.
Group II (G2)
This model presents an open way of coming up with decisions. The leader only acts as a facilitator and does not actively make the dictate his or her views to the people. He or she ensures an ample environment exists to aid the parties involved in making decisions. This model is always adapted in cases where the manager believes that the decision pending is highly significant and that there is no eminent support from the members.
Mr. Kevin McCarthy did not involve his employees in the decision making process in the past. He did not value the strength that participatory before he decided to employ participatory management policies. On the first decision which involved vacation schedules, he did not consult on his verdicts. The Corporation had a policy of giving their workers a two weeks’ vacation. However, he did not allow any two workers to go on vacation at the same time. He took the decision main process as his sole burden and did not want to involve any other person. He believed that his view and perceptions were in the interest of the organization. He asked the employees to indicate the dates that they to go on vacation. He also considered the impacts on vacation on the Corporation’s work if different employees were allowed to rest at the same time (Safara, 2012).
Basing on application of ethics in decision making, Mr. Kevin may have applied a combination of methods in achieving his goals. Utilitarianism calls for production of maximum benefits for everyone. Although his past decision making did not employ this, his current method that is characterized by the involvement of employees illustrated this. The call for a meeting exemplified this method. He based his decisions on the final implications that would arise in the end. The desires of the top management to add extra work on employees was looked at by his workers, and they objected the idea (Butman, 2012).
The Rights Approach tries to assess the laid down rules on the best way to handle employees. The end always justifies the means. Some employees may deem their vacations being interfered with or not being offered the best time to go for a vacation. They have a right to relax and stay away from the heavy daily schedule. They also have a right, depending on the laid down policies, to decide when to go for a vacation and which time of the year. Their desires should be given priority. Mr. Kevin’s sole decision making did not respect this approach.
Justice calls for understanding each employee and giving them their desired dues. It closely relates to fairness as everyone should be considered equal regardless of their position or rank at the place of work. It calls for concentration on individual needs of the employee in order to avoid harming his or her interests at the expense of others. However, justice is relative. The notions that people may have regarded the best treatment they should be given varies among employees. Traits such as selfishness, bias and greed may hamper the ethical point of this approach. Corruption is also another factor that may interfere with the decision making process. Mr. Kevin applies this approach in a mild way as he only asks for the employees’ desired dates but does not fully put it into consideration. He goes on to make the final decisions basing on the interests of the corporation. After calling for the meeting and asking his employees to give their views on the existing policies, there is hope that he may put into consideration their desires.
Common-Good approach is where the impacts of the decisions made on all the parties involved are put into consideration. Differences in peoples’ perceptions tend to affect this method as the minority groups are finally getting an ear. It is difficult to determine the level at which people may consider a certain decision as having the interest of every person at heart.
The "free-rider problem" may also hamper this method. The decisions made may negatively affect those who deserved the best. There are also some employees who may inappropriately benefit from the considerations given to others. This may base on the ranks that workers have at the place of work. In Mr. Kevin’s case, he may decide to offer vacations to people on the basis of positions at work when in reality those at the rare deserved it. Some employees in those positions may end up missing out on their desires and others gaining selfishly. Emergencies may come in and Mr. Kevin’s policy may be considered inappropriate.
On his application of production of more goods with the same employees, it would elicit inequality and overwork on the employees. It would mean that they work extra hard, which would benefit the corporation at their expense. The lack of set procedures on rating the amount of pay each employee would get basing on the extra unit of production rendered the method inconsiderate. It was out to enable the corporation pay for the installed equipment. The working environment should also have been assessed to ensure that the new equipment would mutually benefit all the stakeholders in the Corporation (Jesse, 2012).
If I was in Mr. Kevin’s shoes, I would carefully assess the scenario. On learning that the workers were comfortable with the standards being left at the same level, I would devise a method to counter that. The inflation rates, at that moment, were high. The employees also felt the pinch that the state provided. They earned appreciable amount of money but its value did not allow them to feel its impacts. Engaging in extra work would appear as a mockery to their current state. The Corporation should have already come in handy to improve their current salaries. The employment of new equipment should not be the basis of hiding their cries. The new equipment should provide an advantage over their earlier plea of having an improved salary. I would put their plea into consideration first before the new standards (Bowden, 2011). Their base pay, depending on the financial power of the organization, should be improved. They should be comfortable with their basic salary. I would make sure that I propose to the top management to look into their basic salaries in light of the existing inflation rates. They should be added salary before coming up with the ideas of new standards. This would boost their morale and make them work better. Failing to put these suggestions in place would jeopardize the efforts of the Corporation, of achieving greater targets by using the same number of employees. Meeting the costs of the new equipment would also be a difficult goal to achieve.
The corporation should also look into the environment in which the employees worked. Their safety at work should be put into consideration. New equipment means the employees will have to learn to operate them. Since the corporation does not intend to hire new employees, the costs of teaching them should be incorporated in all their plans. The working environment may also prove dangerous depending on the equipment in question. Safety measures should be put in place. Their insurance against injury and accidents should also be revised. I would present all these recommendations to the Top management (Javins, 2011).
As the manager in this department, I would decide the best way to consider on which employees went on vacation. Considering that they were only fifteen, it would be a challenge to do without the skills of a given employee during his or her vacation. I would assess group all those employees who worked in different departments within the same bracket. I would then consider the periods of great sales in the Corporation and when there was a recession. The most valuable employees in terms of experience and skill would go on vacation during boom times, as long as effective mechanisms were in place to maintain the sales at that level. I would not jeopardize the success of the company by allowing the most effective employees to go on vacation. In cases where there would be an emergency which elicits their recall from vacation, I will ensure that they are compensated accordingly. Negotiating on the amount of compensation in regard to their necessity at that time will be core to my decision making. The other employees will go on vacation on times that are appropriate for both the Corporation and their personal interests (Alison, 2012).