Respond to discussion 5
Respond to all questions.
Cecilia
Discuss Beer’s model for organizational change.
Michael Beer’s model for change is a roadmap for leaders wanting to implement an organizational change initiative as well as determine why change fails” (Hughes, 2022, p. 560). The formula used is C = D x M x P > R. The multiplication component is based on change, but if the dissatisfaction is increased without a plan, little change will occur. The C is based on the amount of change. The D represents the follower’s dissatisfaction with the way things are going. The M represents the model for change which includes the future vision of the leader, the goals, and what is needed to change to create a new vision. The P represents the who, what, when, where, and how of developing and implementing the plan. Lastly, the R represents the resistance. Although people may be resistant to change, a good change plan will take this into consideration.
Can leaders lack intelligence (Chapter 6) and still be seen as charismatic?
How about a person who lacks intelligence should not be a leader? According to Hughes (2022), a charismatic leader is a passionate person who is driven, points out problems, and creates a vision of a different outcome. Oxford defines intelligence as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills, so I am not too confident that a person who lacks the ability to learn and apply knowledge is capable of creating a vision for me to follow. Now, a person who lacks intelligence can be passionate and driven. Then I thought about it some more. If intelligence is the ability to learn and acquire knowledge, I do believe it is possible. We have the ability to learn, so I guess we can learn to be intelligent. Therefore, I agree that a person who lacks intelligence can be seen as charismatic. However, there must be an effort made to be intelligent.
Which was the most effective strategy during the coronavirus pandemic – the rational or emotional approach to organizational change?
A rational leader operates with facts and not feelings. Whereas an emotional leader according to Saylor.org is a leader who is able, capable, or skilled to perceive, assess and manage the emotions of oneself, others, or a group” (Saylor.org, 2023). I think during the pandemic it was necessary to be both emotional and rational. The pandemic was a scary time for many because there were so many unknown factors, and the situation was new to many. As an educator, I witnessed parents sending their children to school even though they were exposed to the virus. In most cases, I received emails stating the child was exposed but was not showing any symptoms so they will be sending them to school. I am sure it was because students were missing instruction and parents had to work. Unfortunately, in this situation, a leader needed to be rational more than emotional. Allowing the children to come to school put many others at risk. Especially when reports stated children could fight the virus more than the adults that were responsible for them. On the other hand, a leader can empathize with the emotional side of this situation, because parents needed to work, and the children needed to be in school.
Identify and discuss the common characteristics of “Charismatic “and “Transformational” Leadership.
There were several common characteristics between a charismatic leader and a transformational leader. Both leadership styles are similar: “their vision and values, rhetorical skills, ability to build a particular kind of image in the hearts and minds of their followers and personalized style of leadership” (Hodges, 2022, p. 581). Additionally, both leaders are capable of helping a group move from one place to another, meaning they are naturally future-oriented.
Robert
Discuss Beer’s model for organizational change.
Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2022) highlight the practicality of Beer's model, stating that it “provides a road map for leadership practitioners wanting to implement an organizational change initiative, as well as a diagnostic tool for understanding why change initiatives fail” (p. 561). It has four components as they relate to change. The components are dissatisfaction, model, process, and resistance. There is a recognition in the model that organizational change is a significant event often done over months and years. Therefore, a leader must understand a change model like Beers to take advantage of opportunities and overcome obstacles to change. For instance, in the absence of dissatisfaction among organizational members, what would prompt them to initiate a change? Leaders can promote and harness dissatisfaction to promote the desired change or model.
Leaders must understand the dynamics and interplay between dissatisfaction, model, resistance, and process to guide their organizations during change. More examples include dealing with resistance and involving key stakeholders in the equation of change. The beer model focuses on the change as an internal process. Other models focus on change as an external process or a top-down approach. The Lewin model of change is very linear and not dynamic and sees change as moving from one state to the next.
Can leaders lack intelligence (Chapter 6) and still be seen as charismatic?
Every leader must cross a threshold or baseline of intelligence to be effective. The simple answer to the above question is that leaders can still be perceived as charismatic without high intelligence. However, making a definitive assessment based on how one defines intelligence and charisma is challenging. Both attributes are multi-dimensional, involve many variables, and are prone to subjective definitions that make this assessment opaque.
This question prompted an examination of a historical leader, Ulysses S. Grant, where one could make the case regarding his intelligence deficiencies related to his grades at West Point and his track record in business before the Civil War. According to Twain (2009), “he made an unsuccessful attempt at farming, followed by a failed stint in a St. Louis real estate office. In 1860, the Grants moved to Galena, Illinois, where Ulysses worked in his father's leather goods business.” Essentially a clerk in his father's shop, this clerk would become the overall Union Commander during the Civil War. Ulysses S. Grant possessed two traits unrelated to conventional intelligence: grit and the ability to discern events and take action during the “fog of war.” These qualities inspired trust and confidence in his subordinates. Following Weber's observations on charismatic leadership, Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2022) stated that “charismatic leaders come from the margins of society and emerge as leaders in times of great social crisis” (p. 576 ), illustrating Grant's unconventional rise to prominence during the Civil War.
Which was the most effective strategy during the coronavirus pandemic – the rational or emotional approach to organizational change?
Assessing the success of any particular strategy proves challenging, especially in the early stages of the pandemic, due to our limited understanding of the coronavirus's mortality rate, airborne transmission, mask efficacy, and the effectiveness of social distancing. Whenever a leader tried to use a rational or systematic approach to combat the coronavirus, the information would suddenly change, and that rational approach appeared brittle and irrational. Conversely, other leaders would use an emotional approach as they attacked using masks or closed schools. Some change agents used this opportunity to whip up emotions; their followers were devoted to the cause of things returning to normal.
Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2022) underscore that leaders who communicate a compelling vision can “generate high levels of excitement among followers and build particularly strong emotional attachments. The combination of a compelling vision, heightened emotional levels, and strong personal attachments often compels followers to put forth greater effort to drive organizational or societal change” (p. 574). Combined with a compelling vision, this power of emotion was clearly at work in these circumstances. As a result, various strategies' efficacy, rational or emotional, fluctuated throughout the pandemic, marked by alternating periods of success and failure. A thorough historical examination will ultimately reveal which strategies proved most effective.
Identify and discuss the common characteristics of “Charismatic” and “Transformational” Leadership?
One must define charismatic and transformational leadership before diving deeper into their common characteristics. Transformational leadership, for instance, is described as a leadership style that empowers individuals to enact positive change through grand visions, inspiration, and a call to action (Baker & Miller, n.d.). “Charismatic leaders are seen to have inspiring visions, being able to enthuse their followers and get them to identify with the vision through their powers of persuasion and ability to influence the emotions of followers.” ( Oxford Reference, 2023)
They share common characteristics, including vision, communication skills, image and trust building, and personalized leadership. Certainly, categorizing any leader into one specific type presents a challenge. However, we can more likely view Abraham Lincoln as a transformational leader than a charismatic one. He steered the country through the Civil War and abolished slavery. On the other hand, people would view Bill Clinton as a charismatic leader known for his ability to connect with followers on a personal level.
