At the beginning of the year former Gov. George Ryan's wife became extremely ill. She was hospitalized and on her deathbed. Former Gov. Ryan petitioned the courts for a temporary release to be allowed to go and visit his wife. There was a big uproar as to whether or not he should be allowed to do this? I am sure that there are many people who are in jail who's loved ones pass away while they are incarcerated. These people never get a chance to say goodbye or visit them one last time so why should George Ryan be allowed to do so?
Personally I don't think that he should be allowed to do so. In the end he was able to sneak in a visit before the public found out. In this situation there are many different types of power that I believe were used. And the one thing that comes to mind is Chapter 13 of our book titles "Power and Politics" because in this scenario it is both.
A former Governor visiting his ailing wife. In my opinion one of the reasons he was released was because he was a former governor. Or a better speculation, because he was a former authority figure. In this instance he was using legitimate and referent power. He used the position that he formerly held and relied on the degree of which the judge preceding over the case admired him for his previous profession.
Do you believe that there were other forms of power used here?
Ex-Governor Ryan also had very strong ties to the people helping him and the people around him to use his referent power in order to get the outcome that he wanted. Was it right? In my opinion no, I do understand that he wanted to see his wife but I also believe that I could almost bet he got a little kick out of being able to seeing his wife outside of jail and knowing that he still had that kind of influence.
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Jack Welch's Charismatic Leaderhip
The article I found talks about Jack Welch, the former chief executive of GE, and his leadership style. There is no doubt that Welch had displayed an extreme amount of charismatic leadership during his reign at the company. This can be related back to chapter 12 of our textbook titled Leading People Within Organizations.
Chapter 12 describes charisma as "behaviors leaders demonstrate that create confidence in, commitment to, and admiration for the leader." I think it is clear that Jack Welch has done this through his leadership. I do find the article very contradicting though. It seems at times that Jack is being praised for his charismatic leadership, and at other times he is being looked down because of it. Charismatic leaders often go wrong, so to speak. They have a way of building trust and an image for themselves, that can be used negatively, but I'm not sure I believe that he has abused his power.
Along with being a charismatic leader, I also believe Welch has been a transformational leader. He continually is trying to inspire and motivate his employees to be the absolute best that they can be. In order to be a transformational leader you must possess four things: charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. It is clear that Welch has displayed all four of these characteristics. The question is, has he abused his power?
I do think that it was wrong for Jack Welch to accept large gifts such as a rent free apartment, sporting tickets, and the use of a private jet. However, I do believe that the use of many of these things allowed Welch to take on a persona and appear to the public as such a great charismatic leader.
So, what do you think? Was Jack Welch wrong in taking the gifts, or did it help his leadership by building a facade that encourages others to follow him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/13/opinion/good-charisma-bad-business.html?src=pm
- Kelly Moran
Chapter 12 describes charisma as "behaviors leaders demonstrate that create confidence in, commitment to, and admiration for the leader." I think it is clear that Jack Welch has done this through his leadership. I do find the article very contradicting though. It seems at times that Jack is being praised for his charismatic leadership, and at other times he is being looked down because of it. Charismatic leaders often go wrong, so to speak. They have a way of building trust and an image for themselves, that can be used negatively, but I'm not sure I believe that he has abused his power.
Along with being a charismatic leader, I also believe Welch has been a transformational leader. He continually is trying to inspire and motivate his employees to be the absolute best that they can be. In order to be a transformational leader you must possess four things: charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. It is clear that Welch has displayed all four of these characteristics. The question is, has he abused his power?
I do think that it was wrong for Jack Welch to accept large gifts such as a rent free apartment, sporting tickets, and the use of a private jet. However, I do believe that the use of many of these things allowed Welch to take on a persona and appear to the public as such a great charismatic leader.
So, what do you think? Was Jack Welch wrong in taking the gifts, or did it help his leadership by building a facade that encourages others to follow him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/13/opinion/good-charisma-bad-business.html?src=pm
- Kelly Moran
Leadership
Leadership is a quality that I believe everyone in business is striving for. All throughout our classes we have analyzed what it takes to be a good leader and how important it is to have these traits. In this class, we have discussed whether we are born with the qualities it takes to be a leader or if it is something that we can learn. Chapter 12 in our book is all about how to lead people in organizations. Here, there is a discussion about formal and informal leaders, personality traits leaders seem to have, etc.
In one of my sociology classes, we were discussing two different kinds of leadership: what we all perceive to be leaders and leadership as convening. We all picture typical leaders as having the ability to get things done through others, they provide direction for their followers, they possess certain qualities to make them effective leaders, and they are at the top of organizations. But what if we were to change our view of leadership: leadership as convening? Here the leader doesn't focus on people having special characteristics or abilities, leaders are just ordinary people that are willing to make change happen. They work to make people become engaged in the cause and focus on making everyone accountable to the work that needs to be done. It is a concept of shared ownership, encouraging others to take charge, be creative and listening to all of the ideas presented. All in all, the leader is a facilitator, not a director.
What would happen if we would change how we view leadership, turn it upside down literally. What if we put the leader at the bottom? We always view leaders as looking down on others because they are the face of the change, but what if we would put them at the bottom? Could a leader become the encourager that pushes everyone ahead instead of pulling everyone up to their level? It's just a thought, but I honestly that we could change how the world views business leaders if we make the idea more accessible, see our leader as a support instead of something that we have to measure up to. This would also create more accountability for everyone in the organization. Would this solve some of the corruption in corporate America or would new problems come into light because of this methodology? Should we strive for this kind of change or is our view the right way to see things?
Casey Zimmerman
In one of my sociology classes, we were discussing two different kinds of leadership: what we all perceive to be leaders and leadership as convening. We all picture typical leaders as having the ability to get things done through others, they provide direction for their followers, they possess certain qualities to make them effective leaders, and they are at the top of organizations. But what if we were to change our view of leadership: leadership as convening? Here the leader doesn't focus on people having special characteristics or abilities, leaders are just ordinary people that are willing to make change happen. They work to make people become engaged in the cause and focus on making everyone accountable to the work that needs to be done. It is a concept of shared ownership, encouraging others to take charge, be creative and listening to all of the ideas presented. All in all, the leader is a facilitator, not a director.
What would happen if we would change how we view leadership, turn it upside down literally. What if we put the leader at the bottom? We always view leaders as looking down on others because they are the face of the change, but what if we would put them at the bottom? Could a leader become the encourager that pushes everyone ahead instead of pulling everyone up to their level? It's just a thought, but I honestly that we could change how the world views business leaders if we make the idea more accessible, see our leader as a support instead of something that we have to measure up to. This would also create more accountability for everyone in the organization. Would this solve some of the corruption in corporate America or would new problems come into light because of this methodology? Should we strive for this kind of change or is our view the right way to see things?
Casey Zimmerman
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Community in an Organization
One of my sociology classes is all about community. One of the main ideas is that communities can either be "stuck" which is where members turn on each other and only focus on the problems or they can be "restorative" where everyone comes together and focuses on their strengths.
Lately, I have realized more and more that an organization is a community that all of us choose to be a part of. Are organizations working to have their employees focus on what people can do and not what they can't? We have talked a lot about the environment of a workplace and how to get many different personalities to work together. With diversity, we talked about how it will either generate new ideas and take the company to whole new levels, or it will cause conflict between the members.
As I stated, we all choose to be part of this organization's community and we can choose to leave, but how do we make sure that we are choosing the right community to be a part of? In Chapter 2 of the book, it talks about person-organization fit and how it is important to match a person's personality traits, values, and goals to that of a company. I believe this is so important because if it is a good fit, both the organization and the person can benefit from coming together. The individual will be able to grow and thrive in the environment. From this, the organization will also thrive because the people working there want the whole organization to succeed; it will create an emotional attachment from the individual to the company.
There can be serious consequences if a person is not compatible with the organization: Employee burnout, creation of a hostile environment, conflicting personalities. How many times has corruption and bad decision making come from a person just not being a good fit for their company?
So, I guess the question is: how do organizations choose the people that will best fit the community of the organization? I don't know if there is an actual way to determine this, but are there ways to do it after people are already in the job? Are we encouraging people to stay where they aren't happy, just because they can do the job competently and the organization doesn't want to work to find someone else to fill the position? How much more productive would corporate America be if everyone was with an organization's community that they fit with? How many problems in the business world are because of this reason?
Many of these questions have no answer, but it would be interesting to me what would happen if we could get every worker into an organization that they were compatible with. Could we change how people view their work? Would people want to go into work instead of dread it? How many corruption problems and bad decisions could we avoid if we could make everyone feel like they are an important part of the organization, if we could increase loyalty?
Casey Zimmerman
Lately, I have realized more and more that an organization is a community that all of us choose to be a part of. Are organizations working to have their employees focus on what people can do and not what they can't? We have talked a lot about the environment of a workplace and how to get many different personalities to work together. With diversity, we talked about how it will either generate new ideas and take the company to whole new levels, or it will cause conflict between the members.
As I stated, we all choose to be part of this organization's community and we can choose to leave, but how do we make sure that we are choosing the right community to be a part of? In Chapter 2 of the book, it talks about person-organization fit and how it is important to match a person's personality traits, values, and goals to that of a company. I believe this is so important because if it is a good fit, both the organization and the person can benefit from coming together. The individual will be able to grow and thrive in the environment. From this, the organization will also thrive because the people working there want the whole organization to succeed; it will create an emotional attachment from the individual to the company.
There can be serious consequences if a person is not compatible with the organization: Employee burnout, creation of a hostile environment, conflicting personalities. How many times has corruption and bad decision making come from a person just not being a good fit for their company?
So, I guess the question is: how do organizations choose the people that will best fit the community of the organization? I don't know if there is an actual way to determine this, but are there ways to do it after people are already in the job? Are we encouraging people to stay where they aren't happy, just because they can do the job competently and the organization doesn't want to work to find someone else to fill the position? How much more productive would corporate America be if everyone was with an organization's community that they fit with? How many problems in the business world are because of this reason?
Many of these questions have no answer, but it would be interesting to me what would happen if we could get every worker into an organization that they were compatible with. Could we change how people view their work? Would people want to go into work instead of dread it? How many corruption problems and bad decisions could we avoid if we could make everyone feel like they are an important part of the organization, if we could increase loyalty?
Casey Zimmerman
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Power - Too Much?
Power - In class we defined power as the ability to influence the behavior of others to get what you want. However we also learned in class that there are different kinds of power and different was to influence people using power.
There is legitimate power, which comes from one's organizational role or position. Reward power which is the ability to grant a reward, such as an increase in pay or a bonus or even a promotion. Coercive power which is the ability to take something away or punish someone for non complying with what you ask. Expert power which comes from skill and/or knowledge. And last but not least, Information power which comes from access to specific information.
I can think of times when I have demonstrated all of these types of power. Not all in a good way though. I believe that there is a good way to demonstrate all of these types of a power, a positive way, but on the other hand there is also a negative or bad way that doesn't paint a very good picture of the person in power.
For example this may not sound like a lot to some but I am helping potty train my niece. We use a reward system for every time she goes on the big potty and not in her diaper. If she goes on the big potty she gets stickers or a piece of candy. This makes her want to use it more. However with her mom if she goes in her diaper then sometimes her mom will make her sit on the potty for 5 minutes to try to make her realize what she did wrong. I don't think that this helps, I think that this is using the reward power system to the maximum in a negative way. At my house she isn't punished for not going on the potty but she isn't rewarded either. She only gets the reward when she goes on the potty, when she doesn't go on the potty she gets sad when she realizes she won't be getting and stickers or a piece of candy. In my opinion I think that her sadness if enough to make her realize that next time she wants to go on the potty. With my sister though I feel that she will just feel shame for not going on the potty. What do you think?
Can you think of a time you displayed one of these uses of power? Was it positively or negatively?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
There is legitimate power, which comes from one's organizational role or position. Reward power which is the ability to grant a reward, such as an increase in pay or a bonus or even a promotion. Coercive power which is the ability to take something away or punish someone for non complying with what you ask. Expert power which comes from skill and/or knowledge. And last but not least, Information power which comes from access to specific information.
I can think of times when I have demonstrated all of these types of power. Not all in a good way though. I believe that there is a good way to demonstrate all of these types of a power, a positive way, but on the other hand there is also a negative or bad way that doesn't paint a very good picture of the person in power.
For example this may not sound like a lot to some but I am helping potty train my niece. We use a reward system for every time she goes on the big potty and not in her diaper. If she goes on the big potty she gets stickers or a piece of candy. This makes her want to use it more. However with her mom if she goes in her diaper then sometimes her mom will make her sit on the potty for 5 minutes to try to make her realize what she did wrong. I don't think that this helps, I think that this is using the reward power system to the maximum in a negative way. At my house she isn't punished for not going on the potty but she isn't rewarded either. She only gets the reward when she goes on the potty, when she doesn't go on the potty she gets sad when she realizes she won't be getting and stickers or a piece of candy. In my opinion I think that her sadness if enough to make her realize that next time she wants to go on the potty. With my sister though I feel that she will just feel shame for not going on the potty. What do you think?
Can you think of a time you displayed one of these uses of power? Was it positively or negatively?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Employee Decision Making in a Business
I work for a company with many different supervisors, myself included, and one manager. With each supervisor and my manager we each have different decision making styles when it comes to our job and different aspects of our job.
Our manager demonstrates an authoritarian decision making style. I understand that she is the manager and it is her responsibility to keep order and to keep things running smooth. However with this type of decision making style I feel as though it is easy for someone to become to absorbed in it. By absorbed I mean that at times I feel that she doesn't make the best decisions for her employees or for the owners, she just does what suits her and is best for her. One example of this is that on a Saturday she wanted to go home early because she had come in during another day during the week to cover a shift for someone who was let go. She wanted to go home early because she had family in town, no other employee would be allowed to go home early, she wasn't either. But instead of working like a manager should, during a busy rush she left to go to Hallmark because she didn't want to go when she got off at 4pm because she had to leave right away. Possibly understandable if she hadn't already had a 30 minute break 2 hours before that when she could have done that then. Then after she got back from Hallmark she stayed in the back room for at least 20 more minutes signing the card and eating more, while we still had a line of customers. Times like this is when this decision making style is not ideal. I feel if we had more of a democratic decision making we would have had more authority to tell her that this is unacceptable however since she is the manager no one felt as though it was their place, not even the supervisors to say anything.
However when it comes to closing responsibilities on the contrary to my manager I have more of a democratic and laissez-faire decision making style. I leave it up to my employees to decide what each one of them will be doing for the evening (dishes, cleaning the floors, or cleaning the front of the store). I only intervene if I feel that a certain employee can't accomplish what they have picked to do or if the employees can't decide amicably by themselves, which rarely ever happens. I feel then that the employees have more pride in what they do because they decided. I also make sure if it okay with all of them and that they all feel comfortable before leave the floor to have my break or handle something else. I feel as though this is more effective and keeps the employees and myself happier because I am not flaunting my power in their face.
Which decision making style would you prefer if you were the subordinate? Do you think that my manager is right with her decisions or wrong?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Our manager demonstrates an authoritarian decision making style. I understand that she is the manager and it is her responsibility to keep order and to keep things running smooth. However with this type of decision making style I feel as though it is easy for someone to become to absorbed in it. By absorbed I mean that at times I feel that she doesn't make the best decisions for her employees or for the owners, she just does what suits her and is best for her. One example of this is that on a Saturday she wanted to go home early because she had come in during another day during the week to cover a shift for someone who was let go. She wanted to go home early because she had family in town, no other employee would be allowed to go home early, she wasn't either. But instead of working like a manager should, during a busy rush she left to go to Hallmark because she didn't want to go when she got off at 4pm because she had to leave right away. Possibly understandable if she hadn't already had a 30 minute break 2 hours before that when she could have done that then. Then after she got back from Hallmark she stayed in the back room for at least 20 more minutes signing the card and eating more, while we still had a line of customers. Times like this is when this decision making style is not ideal. I feel if we had more of a democratic decision making we would have had more authority to tell her that this is unacceptable however since she is the manager no one felt as though it was their place, not even the supervisors to say anything.
However when it comes to closing responsibilities on the contrary to my manager I have more of a democratic and laissez-faire decision making style. I leave it up to my employees to decide what each one of them will be doing for the evening (dishes, cleaning the floors, or cleaning the front of the store). I only intervene if I feel that a certain employee can't accomplish what they have picked to do or if the employees can't decide amicably by themselves, which rarely ever happens. I feel then that the employees have more pride in what they do because they decided. I also make sure if it okay with all of them and that they all feel comfortable before leave the floor to have my break or handle something else. I feel as though this is more effective and keeps the employees and myself happier because I am not flaunting my power in their face.
Which decision making style would you prefer if you were the subordinate? Do you think that my manager is right with her decisions or wrong?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Leading People
Today in class we covered chapter 12 of our textbook titled "Leading People Within Organizations," but we really focused on leading people and leaders. Traits of a leader good and bad and different behavioral approaches to leadership. When thinking of a leader numerous people come to mind, good and bad. However, one person who I never understood how they became a leader was Adolf Hitler. It is unfortunate to say that Adolf Hitler was a good leader who did bad things, I don't even think the word bad is terrible enough for the things he did, nevertheless that is a different subject.
Hitler's general mental ability for leadership was astonishing. He was also very conscientiousness of what he was doing and how he was manipulating people, he has a high degree of extroversion and needed it in order to do what he did. People liked him, people trusted him, they enjoyed his company and because of this they hung on every single word that he said. Because of these different characteristics he became a very successful task-oriented leader. He had a role for everyone, everyone played a certain role, even the Jewish people. They played the role of scapegoat to his plan to control.
Hitler also demonstrated the perfection of the authoritarian decision making process. He concocted a plan and executed it with precision and intellect. I know that Hitler is not someone we think of when we think of good leadership qualities and skill however if you take a minute to sit back and think about how much he must have planned and how agreeable he must have been for people to go along with this preposterous plan I think you will understand what I am saying.
Do you agree or disagree with me?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Hitler's general mental ability for leadership was astonishing. He was also very conscientiousness of what he was doing and how he was manipulating people, he has a high degree of extroversion and needed it in order to do what he did. People liked him, people trusted him, they enjoyed his company and because of this they hung on every single word that he said. Because of these different characteristics he became a very successful task-oriented leader. He had a role for everyone, everyone played a certain role, even the Jewish people. They played the role of scapegoat to his plan to control.
Hitler also demonstrated the perfection of the authoritarian decision making process. He concocted a plan and executed it with precision and intellect. I know that Hitler is not someone we think of when we think of good leadership qualities and skill however if you take a minute to sit back and think about how much he must have planned and how agreeable he must have been for people to go along with this preposterous plan I think you will understand what I am saying.
Do you agree or disagree with me?
Posted By: Amy Beagles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)