Read12
In my organization, power is most definitely defined as
formal power with a combination of coercive, reward, and legitimate power. In
the Army, most leaders have absolute power appropriate to their grade or
position. For instance, a Captain, in a Company Commander position can either
promote from E-1 through E-4, and heshe can demote the same grades, with
almost no outside interference (minimal legal reviews for punishment).
The question posed is; is power handled effectively and how
do you determine effectiveness. This can be difficult to measure because even
though everything should be consistently the same across the Army, things are
very different between each organization within the Army. I do not feel that
power is handled effectively as a whole within the Army, do not get me wrong,
there are good leaders but as a whole, I do not think our leaders powers are
used correctly. I think a combination of the above mentioned powers and expert
and referent powers would truly make our leaders more well rounded and much
more effective.
In the Army, almost everything can be measured through the
morale of the troops, it can be the most honest, and brutal form of criticisms
but in my eyes is the most effective. As leaders we are only as good or strong
as our weakest link, so no matter the power we yield, we must find ways to
promote positive work environments, and produce results. Our power is
essentially useless if we cannot give our employees purpose, direction, and
motivation.
Read 13
There are different things in organization that effect power
and leadership. Our textbook describes power as “the potential or ability
to influence decisions and control resources”.(DuBrin, 2013, p. 203) There
are seven types of power they are position power, legitimate power, reward
power, coercive power, information power, personal power, and power stemming
from ownership. I believe one of the most important type of power of being a
leader is to have personal power. A part of personal power is expert power. Our
textbook describes this as “the ability to influence others through
specialized knowledge, skills, or abilities”. (DuBrin, 2013, p. 205) So
the people in the organization that influence decisions has the power. This does not always have to
be a manager or someone of high rank. I believe that in my job in the army I
have a little bit of power givin to me by my NCO above me to make some
decisions in the shop. That goes back with empowering your employees to let
them make decisions. I believe that this goes back to be a great leader you
need to have the traits or the expert power to be that great leader, that you
can not learn this you need to just have it within yourself to takeover in
situations.
Read14
The main lesson I draw from this case regarding change
management is that sometimes change is hard to accept, and employees can be
told to change in ways they are not comfortable changing. Even though suggested
changes can come from the best of intentions and be the best idea for the
company, they might not be considered to be fair or just to the employee.
Thompson (2015) tells us that change management is a structured approach for
ensuring that changes are thoroughly and smoothly implemented, and that the
lasting benefits of change are achieved (para. 4). According to this definition,
the changes Mr. Siegel is trying to achieve are going to be hard to implement
smoothly.
Machiavellian tendencies are tendencies to manipulate people
for gain. Most of the time the gain is personal, but in this case it is a gain
for the company. CFI Westgate enacted a ban on smoking in 2003, and since that
time health premiums have increased at an average of 5 percent at Westgate,
much lower than increases at other companies (DuBrin, 2013, p. 265). This
approach would say to me that Machiavellian tendencies are working for this
company. Although they were successful in lowering the health premiums, I
wonder what effect this had on morale and how many good employees they lost
Read 15
What I gather from this change is this looks like a fast way
to destroy a very growing company. The leaders chose to follow a less ethical
approach to changes. Putting what they feel is best for everyone instead of
having a utilitarian approach where it is for the greater good (Gilbert, 2012).
These leaders used their power like position and coercive to get their
employees to buy into the new policies.
They did try to offer a reward for reaching their goal, but the approach
to inform people of these new changes was way to direct. It seemed that the leaders did not consult
with anyone else’s thoughts or feelings on this new change. It worked well for
them and I bet we can save money on Health care cost. The health care cost was
a saving and maybe the only up front positive.
Machiavellian tendencies are not the answer to making
changes to a business. Machiavellians are people who ruthlessly manipulate
other (DuBrin, p.254). Forcing or
bullying employees into performing task or staying until the task is completed
without compensation destroys morale of a team.
