Introduction
Effective leadership is a central performance element that is critical in ensuring improved productivity in institutions especially in the current competitive business environment. Indeed, Leaders should embrace dynamism in their leadership styles by understanding their employees and creating policies that are development oriented.
They should set attainable, realistic and specific operating goals that are sustainable. They should also foster stakeholder participation in decision making, institute proper communication channels, adopt technology and treat employees with dignity (Sapp, 2004).
Leaders who compromise on these elements always fail to achieve their set targets. This is because autocratic style of leadership does not provide effective growth incentives as evident in the Robert Nardelli’s case. The renowned US businessperson, who worked as CEO in various organizations was criticized for his autocratic leadership style.
Various stakeholders in all the institutions that he headed criticized his idea of centralizing authority and decision-making. The CEO was a task oriented person but with limited human orientation traits.
He practiced contingency concepts of leadership that did not go well with most stakeholders in the companies where he worked. This paper gives credible information pertaining to leadership ideals of Robert Nardelli under various trait theories.
Robert leadership style
As noted, Robert Nardelli was a renowned CEO who worked in various corporations in the US. He was a strong businessperson who was passionate about achieving his dreams through task orientation ideals. This saw him adopt autocratic style of leadership in his tenure in the corporations where he worked (Michelman, 2007).
He preferred centralized leadership style where he was the sole person who could make decisions. He did not subscribe to the leadership ideals as prescribed in various leadership theories that advocate for democratic processes.
The theories encourage teamwork, effective communication and allocation of resources. They also encourage effective delegation of duties and participation of stakeholders in policy formulation.
Albert being a task-oriented person who responded to contingency principle of leadership did not prefer democratic leadership style. He affirmed that giving too much freedom to other stakeholders is detrimental and causes unnecessary bureaucracy in leadership.
His unethical position on leadership and traits saw him abolish most structural systems that he found in various institutions where he worked (Michelman, 2007). In particular, he changed decentralized management system that he found in Chrysler and other corporations with the centralized system.
He executed this unethical move by eliminating the divisional executives and consolidating their activities. He also changed the entrepreneurial culture in the institutions by task orientation culture.
His working ideals and concerns
The manager was not concerned with improving workers condition, putting up democratic operating strategies, building teamwork and good relationship with workers. However, his action plan that is unethical under trait theory aimed at achieving high returns. He failed to understand that quality results are achievable through effective leadership where everyone feels valued.
His plans did not go well in most of the institutions since he started facing rebellion from key stakeholders especially employees whose contribution is vital in institutions. The stakeholders stated that the CEO was practicing unconventional leadership ideals that were oppressive.
They stated that his behavior and attitude was pathetic due to poor cognitive revolution (Sapp, 2004). That is he had no cognitive understanding of workers needs and felt that he was.above board in his actions.
This saw him make decisions that were unproductive and in turn led to low performance in Chrysler Company. The CEO also failed to practice noble personality traits as indicated in the traits theory. His operating traits were related to attitude and preferences that remains key secondary human traits.
This explains how introversive he was in his entire management career. Indeed, he was an introversive person who made decisions and expected everyone to adhere to the decisions (Lussier & Achua, 2010). The approach that proved futile in the long run dented his leadership credentials in US. This shows how Albert had deep-rooted autocratic management ideals that have no relevance in the current business environment.
The unethical leadership practices of Albert
As noted, criticism on Albert’s leadership style is justifiable beyond reasonable doubt since he adopted unethical management practices that are not performance oriented. This is evident since the manager failed to embrace democracy and formulation of viable operating polices or favorable strategies as spelt out under various leadership theories.
He also refused to decentralize management tasks, encourage teamwork and build proper structures to facilitate stakeholder participation in decision-making. Consequently, he did not understand the personality needs of workers’ as required under traits theory (Cherry, 2011).
He majorly focused on task execution instead of building a stronger relationship between workers as required under the contingency and situational theory. These elements explain how unethical Albert was in his leadership.
Conclusion
Indeed, leaders are the face of organizations who define the level of performance. They are tasked with the responsibility to coordinate, control, manage and monitor various activities in an institution.
They are also under obligation to make viable operating policies that hold the capacity of fostering teamwork and cordial relations. As cited, leaders who aspire to turn around performance in their institutions must adopt conventional management policies. They must also adopt democratic leadership style that is ethically driven.
References
Cherry, K. (2011). The Trait Approach to Personality. Web.
Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2010). Leadership: Theory, application, skill development. Australia: SouthWestern/Cengage Learning.
Michelman, P. (2007). Nardelli-Inspired Leadership Lessons. Web.
Sapp, M. (2004). Cognitive-behavioral theories of counseling: Traditional and nontraditional approaches. Springfield, Ill: C.C. Thomas.