A competent leader mobilizes their followers to pursue desired objectives. Numerous leadership styles are at the disposal of organizational administrators. Nevertheless, for a leader to be successful, they must use a management style that guarantees job satisfaction. Belias and Koustelios (2014, p. 49) define leadership style as “the relative consistent pattern of behavior that characterizes a leader”.
Competition in the business world demands a leader to have knowledge of the complexities attributed to the fast changing international environment. Research shows that the leadership style that a leader adopts can promote or hinder innovation (Fiaz et al. 2017). As Belias and Koustelios (2014) put it, leadership is vital in assisting employees to realize their full potential. Some of the management approaches that institutional directors can adapt include transformational leadership style, transactional leadership style, Autocratic leadership style, and charismatic leadership style among others. This paper will discuss the leadership styles that Walt Disney and Henry Ford exhibited. There were similarities and differences in the leadership approaches that the two leaders applied.
Walt Disney
Walt Disney was the founder of Walt Disney Corporation and the architect of Mickey Mouse. He developed interest in art at a tender age and could draw pictures and sell them to his neighbors. Disney enrolled for a course in art at the Chicago Art Institute, which enabled him to advance his drawing skills. After failing to join the military, he decided to pursue art as a career, and that is when he learned about animation.
He began to create short animated movies for local customers in Kansas City. The production of cartoon dubbed Mickey Mouse led to Disney becoming popular in the animation industry. His success was attributed to the use of both charismatic and autocratic leadership styles. In 1936, Disney understood that it was difficult to build a company without rallying employees behind his vision. Consequently, he used his charisma to pick staff and create a team comprising experienced imaginative workers. Cemal et al. (2014) argue that charismatic leadership entails instilling certain behaviors in employees through persuasion, articulate communication, and force of personality.
The dedication and fervor to one’s cause drive charismatic leaders (Gebert, Heinitz & Buengeler 2016). Disney devoted his time to art and had a dream of becoming a leader in the animation business. Consequently, he worked hard to persuade experienced artists to join his company. He pledged to assist them to advance their skills by meeting part of their learning expenses. Moreover, he established a good working environment to encourage artists to work for him. Goldsby and Mathews (2018) allege that Disney created a family-like working atmosphere where every worker was an integral part of the company. In some instances, he organized barbecue at his house whenever employees achieved a particular target.
Charismatic leaders appreciate the importance of building trust amid workers. They acknowledge that it is difficult to promote cooperation and commitment without trust (Iqbal, Anwar & Haider 2015). Disney leveraged his charisma to ensure that employees trusted him. Inviting workers to his residence did not only result in them trusting him but also developing a sense of caring. Disney was close to his employees and preferred to relate to them in an informal way.
For instance, he encouraged workers to refer to him as “Uncle Walt” or simply “Walt” (Goldsby & Mathews 2018). This level of interaction led to employees feeling appreciated. His sociability and family-like connection with artists led to workers having confidence in Walt Disney Corporation and its aspirations. The employees were dedicated to working for the company to enable it to achieve its vision. At times, staff could work long hours without compensation. Disney’s charismatic leadership resulted in workers having confidence in their work.
As Walt Disney Corporation continued to grow, it relocated to a new studio. The relocation was meant to enable the company to diversify and increase its products and services. Shortly, after shifting to the new studio, the unexpected happened. Disney transformed from a charismatic to an autocratic leader. The leader who was close to his employees became quite controlling and serious. He stopped treating employees as family. Goldsby and Mathews (2018) allege that any worker that contradicted Disney’s views risked being fired.
Moreover, he did not give employees an opportunity to express themselves. Whenever Disney was not pleased by what an employee said or did, he could dismiss the worker right away (Petterson & Mujtaba 2014). The employees started to fear him and could avoid the lobby whenever Disney was passing. In addition, Disney was biased and did not hide his hatred against African Americans and Jews. At one point, he dismissed a Hindu employee because he was too black (Goldsby & Mathews 2018). His strictness led to the company losing many experienced workers.
One of the features of autocratic leadership is that a leader does not value employees’ contribution. Organizational leaders make all the decisions and they hardly entrust employees with critical tasks (Fiaz et al. 2017). Disney made decisions on all matters that affected the company. Even though he gathered information from workers through surveys, the employees’ opinions never mattered to him. He always dictated his terms and did not accommodate criticism. Disney stopped appreciating the effort of his followers. Moreover, he was unhappy with almost everything that employees did. Some employees stated that it was difficult to tell how he would react to their actions. Consequently, the workers were careful not to annoy him, and this affected their productivity. They could not discharge their duties freely because they were afraid of not meeting his expectations.
An autocratic leader takes credit for everything that happens in an organization. Such a leader does not appreciate the work of their followers (Yildiz, Baştürk & Boz, 2014). Petterson and Mujtaba (2014) assert that when Disney moved to the new studio, he stopped acknowledging the contribution of animators and other workers. For instance, he never honored employees for their great work. Despite his artists helping the corporation to win numerous Oscar awards, Disney took the credit without acknowledging those that facilitated this success. The Museum of Modern Art accepted many drawings from Walt Disney Corporation. Goldsby and Mathews (2018) noted that even though Disney did not draw any of the pictures that were displayed in the museum, they all bore his name. His actions did not auger well with other employees, resulting to the workers staging demonstrations.
Henry Ford
Ford was born in Dearborn Michigan in 1863. He liked operating machines and after completing school, Ford decided to work as a mechanic at Flower Brothers Machine Shop (Dyrud 2016). In 1882, he went back home and established a small machine business. By 1893, Ford had advanced his career and was working as a chief engineer at Edison Illuminating Company (Dyrud 2016). In 1896, he designed a simple transmission, which motivated him to venture into the car manufacturing business (Dyrud 2016). In 1899, he quit from Edison and founded the Detroit Automobile Company (Dyrud 2016).
However, his determination to manufacture automobiles in large scale did not succeed due to lack of sufficient knowledge in production (Dyrud 2016). This did not prevent Ford from following his dream of manufacturing economical, efficient vehicles. In 1903, he formed the Ford Motor Company.
Ford was a dictatorial leader and never involved employees in decision-making. Long (2017) cites disbelieve of the subordinates as one of the features of an autocratic leader. Ford did not have faith in his employees. He was eager to know what the employees were doing both at the workplace and outside. Ford’s highhandedness resulted in him losing many experienced employees who facilitated the success of the company.
One of the advantages of an autocratic leader is that they are devoted to their dreams. Naile and Selesho (2014) claim that autocratic leaders engage in daily activities of an organization to ensure that they go as planned. Ford’s was determined to manufacture cars that were affordable to middle class customers. He declined investors’ request to manufacture high-end automobiles for the affluent (Long 2017). Ford did not see a need to target the rich who comprised a small percentage of American population.
Failure to establish a good relationship with employees deprives an autocratic leader of the opportunity to exploit their skills. According to Graham, Ziegert, and Capitano (2015), dictatorial leaders are unable to create a team of talented employees. Ford had a poor relationship not only with his workers but also family members. He embarrassed and bullied his son in public after he criticized his leadership style. Long (2017, p. 25) stated, “Ford’s paranoia and suspicion of all around him changed his relationship with his workforce from one of happy cooperation to one of fear”. According to Long (2017), Ford was afraid of flamboyance. Despite constructing a luxurious house, he never spent a lot of time at home.
Organizational Impact
The leadership styles that Walt Disney and Henry Ford exercised had considerable impacts on their companies. Disney’s charismatic leadership enabled him to assemble a group of experienced artists. He worked with the artists to bring significant changes into the animation industry. Disney is recognized for revolutionalizing the cartoon industry through innovation. He was always eager to try new things. Goldsby and Mathews (2018, p. 35) assert, “Disney pioneered and introduced several new ideas and developments in the production of motion pictures, animations and theme parks”.
He oversaw the incorporation of coordinated sound into the animation film. Moreover, Disney played a critical role in the creation of audio-animatronics. His company was among the first to use robots in animation films. Risk taking is a major strength of autocratic leadership. As Girma (2016) argues, autocratic leaders are not afraid of making unpopular decisions. In 1934, Disney decided to venture into full-length cartoon feature videos (Goldsby & Mathews 2018).
At this time, most film companies regarded such a venture as risky. Most of Disney’s friends tried to dissuade him from implementing his decision (Goldsby & Mathews, 2018). Nevertheless, he was not ready to drop this vision. In June 1934, Walt Disney Corporation released Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which was declared the first full-length animated film (Goldsby & Mathews, 2018). Disney’s tenacity to produce full-length cartoon movies led to his company being honored for its innovation in the film industry.
Ford made significant impact not only to his company but also the automobile industry. His tyrannical leadership style was credited for helping Ford Motor Company to transform the transportation industry. He rejected the request to manufacture expensive vehicles. According to Yang (2014), Ford was devoted to ensuring that ordinary Americans afforded cars. Ford’s leadership enabled his company to inaugurate what was referred to as the “Motor Age” (Yang 2014).
He used his experience in automobile industry to change social and economic conditions in the United States. Ford Company manufactured economical and efficient cars that eased movement of people and goods. Ford aided in the development of a modern transportation system in the United States (Yang 2014). Young (2014) argue that Ford Motor Company, under Ford’s leadership prompted the American government to improve the state of the country’s roads.
Modern highways were constructed to facilitate transportation of passengers and goods. Despite Ford being an autocratic leader, he was conscious of the needs of his employees. He endeavored to improve the working condition for his workers. For instance, he raised wages to five dollars per day. Moreover, he reviewed working hours and introduced multiple schedules. Employees were not supposed to work for more than eight hours. Yang (2014) argues that Ford did not implement these measures to show gratitude to his employees. Instead, he viewed it as the only way that he could attract and retain experienced workers. Nonetheless, changes in the working condition were beneficial to employees. They had adequate time to rest and attend to personal affairs.
Competition in the automobile industry led to Ford looking for ways to boost efficiency in Ford Motor Company. He assisted the company to create the moving assembly line. This invention was helpful in boosting Ford’s production rate. Nevertheless, it was criticized for contributing to employee burnout. Ford knew that it was difficult for a company to remain operational without fulfilling customers’ orders. Thus, he had to devise ways that would improve the production level of his company. The assembly line enabled Ford Motor Company to breakdown the car manufacturing process into multiple phases.
A group of employees would work on one component of a car and pass it on to another team for further development. Warrick (2017) argues that some organizations had already adopted the concept of assembly line before the establishment of Ford Motor Company. Nevertheless, the idea was not applied in an industrial setting. Ford was the first to use assembly line expertise for mass production of cars. He helped his company to reduce the time taken to produce the Model T cars.
Applicable Aspects of Culture and Ethics
The management approaches that Walt Disney and Henry Ford used had and still have noteworthy influence on the contemporary organizational culture and ethics. As a charismatic leader, Disney made sure that employees knew that he valued their contribution to the company. Consequently, he initiated a reward system to encourage workers to commit themselves to organizational goals. This culture of rewarding employees according to performance is prevalent in many organizations even today. Even though Disney made most decisions on matters that affected his company, he nurtured a culture of innovation.
Goldsby and Mathews (2018) claim that Disney encouraged employees to explore new ideas and was never afraid of embracing change. Today, the success of most companies is pegged on a culture that supports innovation. Many companies empower their employees to spur innovation. The strikes that ensued due to failure of Disney to acknowledge employees’ role in the success of his company taught him the importance of observing ethical practices. Disney’s dictatorial behaviors had made him undermine his employees despite them being an essential part of the company. The industrial action that the workers took affected the company’s performance and served as a wakeup call to Disney. Since then, he stopped taking credit for work done by other employees.
Ford played a critical role in changing the working culture in the United States. He invented the idea of high work pay for employees. According to Yang (2014), Ford raised his employees’ wages to five dollars, which was two times what most factories were offering. The move helped the company to hire and retain talented employees as people could travel long distance to come and work for Ford. He also reduced the working hours to enable employees to stay productive (Yang 2014). Ford’s review of the working hours led to the rise of the current 5-day workweek. It ensured that organizations did not exploit their workers.
Ford believed that organizations should remunerate workers according to their role. Yang (2014) argues that Ford can be regarded as the pioneer of the modern-day work culture. Today, most American companies do not allow their employees to work for more than 40 hours per week. Additionally, most organizations offer high wages to their employees to motivate them.
Conclusion
Walt Disney and Henry Ford were two prominent leaders who helped their companies grow into multinational corporations. The two leaders exhibited different management qualities. Disney was both a charismatic and autocratic leader. On the other hand, Ford was dictatorial and made all the decisions in the company. Disney’s charisma enabled him to persuade many experienced artists to work for his company.
He established a family-like working environment that motivated employees. However, he later changed his leadership style and became too controlling and demanding. The employees started to fear him because he never seemed to be happy with everything that they were doing. In spite of being highhanded, Disney helped his company to transform the animation industry. Moreover, his leadership style underlined the importance of promoting the culture of innovation. Conversely, Ford was dictatorial and did not consult his employees on matters that affected the organization. His leadership style denied him a chance to work with many experienced workers.
Nevertheless, being autocratic enabled him to realize a majority of his dreams. Ford was dedicated to manufacturing inexpensive cars, a decision that made him reject investors’ quest for the production of a high-end automobile. He helped to improve efficiency in his company through the introduction of a model of assembly line. Ford changed the working culture in the United States. He discouraged companies from making profit at the expense of their employees. By raising the wages of his workers, Ford showed other firms that it was imperative to reward employees according to their effort.
Reference List
Belias, D & Koustelios, A 2014, ‘Leadership and job satisfaction – a review’, European Scientific Journal, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 45-67.
Cemal, Z, Büşra, M, Erkut, A, Yasin, S & Songül, Z 2014, ‘Charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating role of ethical climate’, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1365-1375.
Dyrud, MA 2016, ‘The case of Ford Motor Company’, Journal of Engineering Technology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 10-21.
Fiaz, M, Su, Q, Amir, I & Saqib, A 2017, ‘Leadership styles and employees’ motivation: perspective from an emerging economy’, The Journal of Developing Areas, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 143-156.
Gebert, D, Heinitz, K & Buengeler, C 2016, ‘Leaders’ charismatic leadership and followers’ commitment – the moderating dynamics of value erosion at the societal level’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 98-108.
Girma, S 2016, ‘The relationship between leadership style, job satisfaction and culture of the organization’, International Journal of Applied Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 35-45.
Goldsby, MG & Mathews, R 2018, Entrepreneurship the Disney way, Routledge, New York, NY.
Graham, KA, Ziegert, JC & Capitano, J 2015, ‘The effect of leadership style, framing, and promotion regulatory focus on unethical pro-organizational behavior’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 423-436.
Iqbal, N, Anwar, S & Haider, N 2015, ‘Effect of leadership style on employee performance’, Arabian Journal of Business management Review, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 1-12.
Long, D 2017, Henry Ford: industrialist, Cavendish Square Publishing, New York, NY.
Naile, I & Selesho, JM 2014, ‘The role of leadership in employee motivation’, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 14-31.
Petterson, S & Mujtaba, BG 2014, ‘Historical and modern management practices applied at Disney World: out with the old and in with the new?’ International Journal of Management Research and Emerging Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 75-96.
Warrick, DD 2017, ‘What leaders need to know about organizational culture’, Business Horizons, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 385-404.
Yang, Y 2014, ‘Employees management analysis at Ford Motor Company’, International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 80-85.
Yildiz, S, Baştürk, F & Boz, IT 2014, ‘The effect of leadership and innovativeness on business performance’, Procedia – Social and behavioral Sciences, vol. 150, no. 1, pp. 785-793.