Abstract
This case study paper explores the challenges faced by leaders in different organizations. The characters of unethical charismatic leaders, which make them withstand critics and have avid followers, are highlighted in the first case study. In addition, factors that limit the board of directors and the chief executive, in making of decision that influence the running of an organization, are discussed in the second case study.
Introduction
Charismatic leaders have the ability to win many followers on their side. They create a strong emotional bond with their followers. On the other hand, unethical charismatic leaders can lead their followers towards pursuing and endeavoring in detrimental visions and goals. On this first case study, the characters of these leaders that make them cope with criticisms are outlined.
The upper-echelon of leadership in an organization includes the chief executive office, the president, the board of directors and the executive managers. These top management executives create the policies of the organization and identify new opportunity in the market.
They interact with the external factors and internal factors that affect the operation of the organization. These leaders face tough challenges as they conduct their duties. These challenges are enlisted in the second case study of the Board of Directors (BOD) and CEO’s.
Standing up to a Charismatic but Unethical Leader
Charismatic is the ability of person to possess extraordinary power to attract other people. In this case, a leader can command a large following by virtue of being charismatic (Nahavandi, 2011, p. 215). A strong bond holds both charismatic leaders and their followers together. This bond created can cause them to participate in ill-mannered activities at worst the followers can commit suicide.
Both ethical and unethical charismatic leaders have some common characters. They all have self-confidence and enthusiasm in their service. In addition, they use their oratory skills to present their message and drum support from their followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 320).
In addition, they are truly passionate about actions and use “catchy” words to draw support from people who join them in their vision. In the same breath, they create witty messages that they present to their followers to win them (Nahavandi, 2011, p. 255).
They also portray themselves, as a role model, to their followers by following what they believe in, fearlessly. Therefore, their followers imitate them in all dimensions of their life. Moreover, they use a unique symbol in order to enhance their popularity. For instance, Hitler used a symbol of raising a finger in order to gain popularity.
Followers of these leaders pay their total loyalty to them. They imitate them in all aspects of their life such as dressing style, mannerism and behavior (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 315). They have confidence in their ideas and vision; therefore, they obey all their instructions without questioning. The leaders transform their followers’ perception making them embrace their ideals and convictions.
Charismatic unethical leadership can arise because of existence of crisis. In this case, a group of people realizes that there is a crisis in the offing and a leader seizes such an opportunity and volunteers to lead them out of the woods by giving them the sense of direction (Nahavandi, 2011, p. 265). In fact, such groups are prompted to give a person who seems to understand their goals, leadership position.
On the other hand, the unethical and ethical leaders have some differences. Most of the unethical charismatic leaders are driven by selfish motives and goals. They exploit their followers as they endeavor to achieve their goal (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 329).
Furthermore, they rule with an iron fist. Anyone with dissenting views is either ex-communicated from the group or in the worst scenario killed in cold blood. Given that the followers of these leaders have a strong sense of loyalty to them, they are misled towards unrealistic goals and vision.
They exaggerate on an imminent crisis, and the followers will in turn support them without having clear details about crisis (Nahavandi, 2011, p. 333). Moreover, they do not develop a successor thus their group has no future. Lastly, their emotional bond formed between them, and their followers leave no room for moderation in the event that they are provoked.
Conclusion
The emotion bond, formed between the charismatic leaders and their followers, can have equally negative repercussions as well as positive ones. These bonds may make the followers act blindly, in the act of showing loyalty to their leaders, consequently being involved in catastrophic activities.
The Board of Directors (BOD) and CEO’s
The Board of directors and CEO’s in a company create the strategic objectives of the organization (Nahavandi, 2011, p. 244). They also oversee the entire operation of the organization. In addition, they deal with both internal and external factors that affect the business. Some of the challenges they face as they deliver their duties include:
External Environment Factors
These factors include market growth, legal constraints and government policies. If there is no increase in units sold of product and services and there is no indication that the demand will increase, then the upper-echelon management has no choice but to change production strategy and readjust to lower production (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 327).
Legal constraints such as, international trade unions barriers, investment bureaucracy, safety and health regulation limit the leaders’ freedom of taking actions. New government policies, such as increase of tax rates and license fees of running business issues, can trigger the leaders to change plan in order to meet the requirement.
Internal Factors
In the event that uncertainty and crisis arises in an organization, all the employees await for leaders to offer a solution to such a problem and give direction (Nahavandi, 2011, p. 295).
Unfortunately, organization’s policies, strategic plan, rules and firm culture can force the leaders not to act outside their parameters’. In this case, the leader should stay calm in moments of crisis and try to figure out the means of coming from the impending crisis.
The size and structure of the organization affect the freedom of making the decisions of a leader (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 334). The larger the organization is, the more the decision will be decentralized among the different levels of management and operation.
Thus, less effect will be felt, on the lower levels of the management, after decisions have been made at the high management level (Nahavandi, 2011, p. 217). On the other hand, for small organizations, the effect of a decision made by the top management is felt easily on low-level management.
In addition, the life cycle of the organization also affects the decision of the top management (Nahavandi, 2011, p. 243). Decisions made by management of young organizations are spread easily across all other department compared to the decisions made in a grown organization.
Demographic and Personal Traits
Older CEOs avoid taking risks and choose to maintain the status quo as compared to younger CEOs who are eager to take on new challenges and take quite a number of risks (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 321). The older CEOs dread new challenges, which deny them their comfort, while for young leaders, it will be an opportunity to explore and learn new things, which they would embrace.
Challenge Seeking
These executives are open to challenges, innovation, transformation, and risk taking. They can easily take risks, undertake a new project and use new methods and procedures in production of new products (Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 336). Challenge seekers are visionary and fearless.
Need for Control
The need for control is determined by the realization of the importance of giving up control. The degree of need of control is measured by the extend which the executives delegate duties and allows for independent decision to other members of the staff (Nahavandi, 2011, p. 230).
The executive should be tolerant and trust the persons that are assigned specified duties. This practice enhances employee involvement and brings in new diverse ways of operation.
Conclusion
Delegation of duties and involvement of employees in decision making in the organizations’ daily operation enhances the harmony of the employees and the executive managers. Moreover, it will be easier for the employees to implement decisions that they have contributed to because, in essence, they will be implementing their ideas, which gives them a sense of ownership.
References
Avolio, B., & Gardner, L. G. (2005). Authentic leadership development. Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
Nahavandi, A. (2011). The art and science of leadership (6th ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.