The Ohio state University Studies discovered four possible leadership styles bas
ID: 454184 • Letter: T
Question
The Ohio state University Studies discovered four possible leadership styles based on two dimentions of leadership behavior initiating structure (task orieantation) and consideration (people orieantation) whom you currently work or have worked in the past (it is not necessary to reveal me person's name) and respond to the following: Using the ohio state framework, describe the person's leadership style, giving specific examples of his or her leadership behaviors. Does this person have an effective leadership style? Why or why not?Explanation / Answer
1.Using the ohio state university teamwork describe the persons leadership style giving specific examples of his or her leadership behavior.
Ohio State University sought to identify independent dimensions of leader behaviour. They started with over a thousand dimensions and eventually narrowed them down to two categories that substantially accounted for most of the leadership behaviours described by employees. They called these two dimensions initiation structure and consideration.
Consideration - relationship behaviors, such as respect and trust (concern for people), Consideration is the extent to which leaders are concerned with the well-being of their followers and the extent to which leaders are personable and understanding.
Initiating Structure - task behaviors, such as organizing, scheduling, and seeing that work is completed (concern for tasks), Initiating structure is the extent to which a leader defines leader and group member roles, initiates actions, organizes group activities, and defines how tasks are to be accomplished by the group.
The Ohio State researchers defined consideration as the extent to which a leader exhibits concern for the welfare of the members of the group. This behavior is oriented towards interpersonal relationships, mutual trust, and affiliation. This dimension of leadership style is people-oriented. Some of the statements used to measure this factor in the LBDQ include:
The Ohio researchers defined initiating structure as the extent to which a leader specifies group member roles, initiates actions, organizes group activities, and defines how tasks are to be accomplished by the group. This leadership style is task-oriented. Some of the statements used to measure the initiating structure behavior in the LBDQ include:
this study was responsible for a variety of significant findings on leadership, perhaps the most important contribution was the isolation of “Consideration” and “Initiating Structure” as the basic dimensions of leadership behavior in formal organizations. These variables were identified as a result of a series of investigations that attempted to determine, through factor-analytic procedures, the smallest nuwber of dimensions that adequately describe leader behavior as perceived by the leader and his subordinates.
Consideration may be defined as behaviors by means of which the leader establishes rapport with his or her employees, two-way communication, mutual respect, and understanding. It includes behavior indicating trust and warmth between the supervisor and his or her group and emphasizes concern for group members’ needs. Initiating Structure may be defined as behaviors by means of which the leader defines or facilitates group interaction toward goal attainment. The leader does this by planning, scheduling, criticizing, initiating ideas, organizing the work, defining member roles, assigning tasks, and pushing for production. It was during the early Ohio State studies that leadership was first plotted on two separate axes as opposed to being on a single continuum.
The Ohio State and University of Michigan studies stimulated considerable interest in leadership theory and many new theories were offered such as those by Keith Davis [6], Hersey and Blanchard [7], and Blake and Mouton [8]. Most of the leadership theories had two things in common. They identified two basic dimensions of leadership and they resulted in four basic leadership styles (see Figure 1) which in effect described an Autocratic Leader (High emphasis on performance and low emphasis on people), Laissez Faire Leader (low emphasis on performance and people), Human Relations Leader [low emphasis pn performance and high emphasis on people), and Democratic Leader (high emphasis on performance and people).
2. effective leadership style
Another early and effective approach to leadership development was implementing a “360” leadership scorecard to both evaluate and enhance leadership performance. The scorecard was developed to assess
(1) values—mapped to the constructive culture styles of teamwork, excellence, innovation, and integrity,
(2) administrative competence—communication; use of personnel, space, and funds; strategic thinking; mentoring; and management skills, and
(3) change management— involvement in, enthusiasm for, and time commitment to change.
Many of the leadership retreats and Leadership Academy sessions focused specifically on developing teamwork and on the importance of “getting the right people in the right seats on the bus” before attempting to reach a destination. Substantial time and effort were spent to educate and help academic, clinical, and administrative leaders make their own units more effective, better-aligned teams and, at the same time, act as effective team players for the overall organization; that is, to be successful both as team leaders and as team player.
The overall organizational objective first identified in the turnaround process was to increase effectiveness rather than efficiency, because growing successful new programs would more likely attract engagement and buy-in, especially by faculty, than an emphasis on efficiency and cost cutting. In particular, the senior VP and the VP for research of the university developed a biomedical research (BMR) plan that was approved by the board of trustees in June 2001 as one of the top three university priorities under a recently completed (October 2000) OSU academic plan.
This BMR plan addressed each of the vision priorities: balancing (by growing) research with the missions of education and patient care; promoting alignment among components of the organization; and enhancing values of excellence, teamwork, and innovation.
1.Select a leadership team.
• Appoint a small executive leadership team to provide input and oversee strategic and tactical decision-making.
• Appoint members from both functional (academic, clinical) units and support (administrative) units.
2. Assess the challenges and opportunities.
• Objectively evaluate organizational culture.
• Solicit formal and informal input to gauge organizational structure, function, and performance.
3. Set expectations.
• Establish and clearly communicate a shared vision.
• Expect a high degree of collaboration within and among units.
4. Align structures and functions.
• Align medical school, practice plans, and hospital functional units.
• Align education, research, and clinical service missions.
• Align support services across the center.
5. Engage constituents.
• Make faculty and staff feel like part of the center at large—not just their own units.
• Engage external constituents in driving culture and performance change.
6. Develop leadership.
• Offer leadership retreats and educational programs around specific leadership themes.
• Implement “360” leadership scorecards and mentoring to evaluate and enhance performance.
7. Define strategy and track goals.
• Create a workplace of choice by encouraging a high-performance culture.
• Establish objective criteria and standards for measuring successful performance
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.