Biblical Leadership & Ethics

1. Develop 4 scenarios involving completely different work environments that would be appropriate for a D1, D2, D3 and D4 employee. Briefly describe each employee, giving them a personality, behaviors, attitudes and relevant skills consistent with their type. Once you have developed each employee, provide them with a leader whose style is appropriately suited for them, and describe the leader in the same ways. If you prefer, some of your leader/follower scenarios may be built on parent/ child or teacher/student relationships.

D1: Don has just been hired as a department manager for a small company. His prior occupation was pastor of a small church, where he used almost none of the technical skills needed in this manufacturing environment. He was quiet, and non-confrontational especially relating to any technical subject; he always second guessed himself. Fortunately, his boss has made sure that all the instructions for accomplishing the day to day tasks are current and up-to-date. After going through the full list of tasks ahead for that day, he instructs Don to read the instructions carefully and ask any questions that he may have. Together, they go through the instructions for the first set of tasks and Don is able to get clarification for each point that seems ambiguous. His boss reminds Don where he can be found and that if at any point he needs clarification, just ask additional questions until it is clearly understood.

D2: James has been working as a CAD drafter for four and a half years. He is older than most of the people he works with. He is happy to be assigned tasks that are the same from day to day with little variation. When he is asked to work outside his comfort zone, he shuts down, gets grumpy, and irritable. He knows quite well how to work within the drafting software, but lacks the mechanical aptitude to understand complex behavior of non-standard mechanisms. His manager needs him to complete some work that is more difficult than what James is used to, but he is the only one available to complete the task before the due date. Knowing that James may need additional help with a particular piece of the task, his manager takes additional time to tell him that he is capable and gives some general direction on how to accomplish the specific troublesome task. His boss then tells James that when he gets to that piece he would like to come back and see how he is progressing and offer any needed assistance.

D3: Kenneth is a clerk in a deli at the local supermarket. He has worked there for six years and is the now the senior worker. The only one in the department with more experience is the manager. He is confident and loves his job. He is very personable, and loves to help people. As a great planner, he has been supervising the night shift very successfully for the last 2 years. Kenneth's boss just got Jury Duty for the next 10 days and will only be able to be there over the weekend. Mr Jury Duty has seen Kenneth train all the current employees to do every part of their jobs. Kenneth is a great teacher because he is able to explain the how and why of each function. To assure Kenneth that things would run smoothly, he gave a few words of encouragement and leaves a checklist of the major things that must be done that Kenneth is not usually responsible for. The he leaves with one last word of confidence.

D4: Ben has worked as an auditor for 23 years. He doesn't want anything more than the job he started at, Auditor 1. It is comfortable, it pays the bills and there is virtually no stress. In fact, he can almost do his job while sleeping, but tries hard not to prove that. His superior is a 21 year old kid just out of college, who is officially an Auditor 2. He was only an Auditor 1 for three months before he was promoted because he was a ladder climber and had high aspirations. Both of them understood the circumstances and dealt with each other as such. Ben was assigned an audit, then did all that needed to be done. As for his “boss”, he used the work review time as an opportunity to gain understanding and experience that this 23 year veteran exuded.

2. Looking at any one of the 4 scenarios you developed, explain why the leader/follower pairing is appropriate given the circumstances, and anticipate what direction the leader will try to move the follower given the fact that their relationship is successful.

Kenneth (D3) had a boss that knew he was more than capable to do the job that needed to be done. He was also perceptive enough to know that Kenneth may be uncertain of his ability to make sure all the tasks get completed. So he left a tool, the checklist, to ease Kenneth's mind and give Kenneth the assurance that all was being cared for, that nothing was being forgotten. Kenneth's department manager was training him to be able to take over his job.

3. In this same situation, explain what step the leader might appropriately take toward restoration if the follower's performance declines.

If declining performance is noticed during the weekend return of Mr. Jury Duty, he will be able to assess whether additional tools should be left or if other, more detailed instruction could be put in place for the next five day absence. He should be able to encourage Kenneth in the specific area of need. Then give some specific pointers on how he has done things that has mitigated the problems currently faced by Kenneth.

4. Discuss how application of Situational Leadership is meant to be generative and redemptive in its design as opposed to static or maintenance-oriented.

I believe that the whole premise for this style of leadership is that for every situation you must independently asses the need and react with the appropriate style. As people change and grow they may move into different categories and need to be managed with respect to the new situation. The originators describe the model as a way in which to analyze the situation and react in a predictable manner to ensure the best possible outcome.

5. Finally, looking at Situational Leadership in your own work/life context, can you see examples where leader/follower styles are in conflict? Describe one briefly, and how you might counsel the leader to modify their style to help resolve conflict issues.

Yesterday, I saw a great example of conflict where the owner of my place of employment walked by a group of engineers who were in the middle of a design review for manufacturability. The owner did not know what the meeting was for but immediately jumped into the discussion and laid out the plan on the best way to make the part. Unfortunately, his taking charge got the entire group off track of the goal, and caused some resentment and frustration with the person who was leading the meeting. I had a conversation with the group later in the day and they all respect the opinions of the owner and desire his input, but by jumping in and taking over meeting they were reduced to feeling worthless. After all, we hired these engineers to do the design work. By giving such a detailed plan (which was opposite the direction the group was moving) it made them all feel as if he thought they were stupid.

The counsel I would give to the owner is that we all appreciate the input and desire him to be part of the process, but he needs to present his ideas and allow them to fuel the brainstorming of the entire group. I have given this advice and it must not be the correct advice for this situation, because he has not changed. But... it is his company, he can do what he wants. It just will not be as successful as it could be.

Biblical Leadership & Ethics

1. The founding partners of KRW claimed to be strong on integrity and responsibility to their clients. How were those values aligned with their organizational actions?

In the beginning their actions were not aligned. Some of the misalignment may have been related to the relatively new business. Their ideals were possibly untested and they had not thought through the process of ‘what to do if …’ What was clear from the story is that the first reaction to a stressful and new situation was not the most moral response. They were thinking only of themselves and not what those choices would do to others. If they had been honest with themselves they may have looked at the goals of their business and realized that they were very selfish. That may be acceptable if there is only one or two people in the company. As they grew, their goals or attitude of “let’s have fun and make money” did not grow with them.

2. How did KRW owners handle organizational responsibility during their first financial crisis?

The owners of the company were thinking of their goal; to “have fun and make money”. Unfortunately, they acted as if that were their only responsibility when the first real financial crisis was upon them. In their minds the objective of their business was at stake so they went to the first solution that may have alleviated their soon expected failure to meet their goal. They laid off most of their workforce. Their decision was shortsighted and not fully founded. They gave severance packages to the workforce and in some cases, had hired them back before they had even burned through the severance money. That says to me that those workers were paid to sit at home under pretty stressful circumstances. KRW could have done much better to have continued to employ those workers but refocused them on building the business. They would have gotten something for the money paid out and improved their business at the same time. But hindsight is 20/20.

3. What action finally triggered a fundamental realignment of KRW’s priorities? Was it proactive or reactive?

After, once again, pushing their staff beyond breaking point, one of the managers laid down the law. In essence, the staff declared, 'we are valuable assets and you must treat us as such. We will continue to work hard for you if you will exhibit the values you strive to teach; having integrity and doing the right thing.'

The change was simply reactive. The owners did not objectively look at the organization to evaluate how to improve the labor problems, so when it came to a head they had no alternative than to change into what the employees were asking for. After all, it was not outrageous things being demanded. If they were to put the same goal to the company as a whole, it would have been a much easier realization to see that unmeetable expectations and overburden do not equate with “having fun and making money”. If they had looked at the company in this way, they may have seen the problem and corrected it in a proactive manner.

4. What role did KRW owner/partners play in re-articulating organizational values?

According to the article it was the employees who grabbed onto the rudder and started to steer in a new direction. They seemed to be able to clearly articulate what their individual goals were. When the individual goals were evaluated together they seem to meld into one new mantra: “do the right thing”. It appears the company knew the theories and was able to teach them, but putting them to practice in a business model was outside their ability.

5. How did KRW owners handle organizational responsibility during their second financial crisis? What had changed?

During the second financial crisis they were able to make better choices. Some of this likely was the experience they had gained; they did not want to make the same mistakes. But also, the culture had changed. It was no longer an institution focused on profit of owners only, but the wellbeing of the entire company. Owners/executives even sacrificed their own money to make sure those who had truly shaped the organization were able to remain employed for as long as possible. Times were tough but loyalty was very high. In part because they were able to make a difference, but also because the owners were now living what they sought to teach and were looked up to.

6. In the end, how well did KRW leadership come to embrace their responsibility to serve others?

Once the cultural change took place it appears that the leadership was able to see the results of behaving according to the ethical compass. Although the change was lead by staff, it was adopted throughout the rank and file. Each person in the organization was able to see the value that the company had for society and see their dreams coming true; “make the world a better place”. Leaders were so effected by the changes they made personal sacrifice for those who worked for them.

7. In this case, how would you assess the impact of moral realignment on organizational long-term viability?

Moral realignment was essential for them to continue doing business. The “train wreck” really happened while they were experiencing a time of growth and success. They did not have any mechanisms in place to deal with the reality of growth. They needed more work done, but did not have the skills or trained resources to do it. The first ditch solution: put more pressure on the good workers you have to become more productive. When stress is high and a multitude of tasks are ahead you can rarely work efficiently without some accountability and prioritization. In this case the owners were called on the carpet to be accountable to the actions of not giving proper resources for the work at hand.

8. How might this scenario have played out differently if KRW leadership had acted in alignment with positive established principles and values from the beginning? What would you have done?

KRW ended up as a good organization which valued the people and customers they worked with. If they had started off on that road, they may have arrived sooner. Instead of wasting money and time during the first financial crisis, they may have been able to focus on internal processes that would ensure smooth growth and a full declaration of goals, values and missions. With the direction declared each employee would have been able to make each choice in harmony with the company. Maybe they would have had a plan in place to implement if another financial crisis were to present itself. Then in 2001, they would have enacted the plan and made the modifications needed to ensure their success.

If I were at the helm, I may have made some of the same mistakes. Ethics being the center of focus for now, I would like to say that being selfish and ignoring the impact of my decisions on others would not be one of them. It is truly hard to say what I would have done, I have one advantage over them, I see the entire story knowing how it ends. How wonderful would life be if we knew the outcome of each decision? Fortunately, we do know the end of one story: Christ wins and we spend eternity with Him!