Leadership is cautiously defined by McShane as the process of influencing people and providing an environment for them to achieve team or organization objectives. Effective leaders can help individuals or teams define their goals and identify ways to achieve them. Effective leaders also create conditions that enable others to realize their potential in the workplace. (McShane, 2002). Leadership styles will influence the effectiveness of the change management process by recognizing and varying the style with the specific situation.
The identification of when to give directions, times to empathize, times to use stretch goals, and times to involve subordinates in decision making will influence the effectiveness of the change management process under the guidance of specific leader. The Directive leadership style or task-oriented leadership is effective when clarification of performance goals, the means to reach the goals, and identification of the standards used to judge reaching the goals is needed by the organization undergoing the change.
The Supportive leadership style is effective when the need is for a leader that is understanding, approachable, friendly, and is able to guide the employees involved in organizational change through stressful situations while treating them with equal respect and showing concerns for their needs and well-being. The Participative leadership style is effective when employees undergoing change are motivated by involvement with the decisions beyond their normal work activities.
The Achievement-oriented leadership style is effective when employees are motivated by encouragement to reach their peak performance and the leader shows a high degree of confidence in their ability to set and achieve change goals. Task structure, team dynamics, employee skill and experience, and locus of control are contingencies that will impact the effectiveness of the leaders impact on the change management process. (McShane, 2002).
Simulation Results and Organizational Impact Execution of the simulation multiple times clarified the importance of managing the intervention process by unfreezing the current conditions, implementing change, and re-freezing the process to allow stabilization. The simulation also yielded the results that implementation of multiple leadership styles can actually produce very similar results. The first step of the strategy was to select an action plan for implementation.
Selection of the plan that focused on widening span of control, delegating decision making responsibilities to team leaders, delegating apprasial responsibilities to team leaders, and setting up process groups in combination with evaluating the employee’s competencies and skills, analyzing the work processes and performing process re-engineering, redefining roles and tasks, and nominating a team of senior managers to address concerns yielded results where the employees requesting pay increases as they were being approached by competition attempting to acquire their skills.
When an implementation of a plan that focused on identifying key technologies like project management automation software, promoting employee technology forums, and implementing industry benchmarks and certification was combined with the same the same actions of evaluating employee’s competencies and skills, analyzing the work processes and performing process re-engineering, redefining roles and tasks, and nominating a team of senior managers to address concerns; the change process yielded results where the employees were more satisfied and the issue of losing expensive talent to the competetion was not a primary issue.
There was still the need to mix this solution with restructuring of the teams to benefit from the recent skill set retooling of the employees.