From the case study analysis, Executive A can be described as a level 5 type of a leader. Collins (2001) argued that level 5 type of leader is one who channels his or her ego needs away for the benefit of the company and in building the ultimate goal of the company. The leader blends personal humility with professional will, which are the two attributed critical elements in leadership of an organization.
In fact, Executive A encourages employees to work in the interest of the organization. Collins (2001) also adds that a level 5 type of leader is ambitious and would do anything to see the company succeed. This type of leader wants a company to succeed whether he is around or not by everyone being responsible for his or her own actions.
Executive A also accepts responsibility and takes charge when he commits a mistake as he develops strong leaders through role play in the company. His behaviour is ideal for establishing growth in an organization. The case study reveals that there were hefty losses in the company and its stock had gone done to $23 a share.
During Executive A’s tenure, there was a change and the share rose by 105%. This time, the company revealed a huge profit after Executive A became CEO. He is also noted that he gives credit for the company’s success to other leaders in the organization showing how much he trusts and develops other leaders.
Leader B in this case can be described as a transactional type of leader. Transactional leaders have been given diverse definitions by scholars as they apply them in different contexts. However, the most outstanding definition is by Oshagbemi & Ocholi (2006) who argued that this type of leadership depends on rewards and punishments for a company’s success.
The leader stipulates or creates clear structures that outline rewards and punishment systems in a given company. The reward system acts as a motivator among employees and guides their conduct within the company (Robbins & Judge, 2007). Leader B holds everyone responsible when things go wrong. He ensures punishment is used in case of such failures. Leader B uses rewards to motivate subordinates, and this describes him to be a transactional leader.
Leader C in the case study can be argued to be a transformational leader. A transformational leader is one who identifies approaches to change other individuals with the social systems. Leader C acknowledges that employee can succeed after great inspiration because it develops passion in them to work towards the company’s vision.
A transformational type of leader acts as a catalyst for change in an organization (Oshagbemi & Ocholi, 2006). In describing this type of leadership, Oshagbemi & Ocholi (2006) noted that transformational leaders work hard to develop others through setting particular goals. These types of leaders are not selfish in holding the top positions but actually have the desire to have others take their positions by training and developing them on effective leadership.
Given the diverse leadership characteristic, leader C is ideal to succeed Executive A and become the CEO of the company. His professional will and humility transcend use of rewards and punishment as the case with leader B and it is close to the strategies used by Executive A. His approach would be better suited that the transactional type of leader who uses rewards. In fact, Leader C does not practice different from the approaches adopted by Executive A of humility and professional will.
It is worth noting that leader B and leader C style of leadership would affect the corporation different. For leader B, the corporation will have to develop robust structures and establish polices to guide the newly established systems of rewards and punishments.
In this case, the corporation will have to bank on rewards and punishments to ultimately motivate the employees and reach its goals and objectives (Robbins & Judge, 2007). However, this style would create a form of competition and lower levels of teamwork among subordinates because of the need to win over rewards in the activities within the corporation.
It would however, work for the benefit of the corporation as this would facilitate high productivity from everyone in pursuit for rewards. The employees would also reduce chances of making mistakes in fear of being held responsible and punished meaning that the corporation would benefit massively from this type of style. However, Leader B is not ideal to succeed Executive A, in leadership in the corporation.
Leader C would be the most ideal in building strong grounds for the future goal attainment within the corporation thus he is best suited to take over as the CEO of the company after Executive A. In case leader C takes over the leadership of the corporation, subordinates would be much involved in the management of the corporation. This would insinuate more team work within the corporation with everyone transcending their own self-interest to benefit the organization (Robbins & Judge, 2007).
The corporation would also grow continually with the highly set expectations for subordinates bringing in a form of development within the corporation. The corporation would also build more leaders under this type of leadership as everyone would not be interested in self growth but overall development. Decisions would also be made comprehensively and accepted by everyone because of the level of participation in the entire process by all employees.
References
Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review, 1(2), pp. 123 – 128.
Oshagbemi, T. & Ocholi, S. (2006). Leadership styles and behavior profiles of managers. Journal of Management Development, 25(8), pp.748 – 762.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational behavior (12th Ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall. ISBN: 9780131890954.