Unit 4 - Chris Peterson at DSS consulting case study PDF

Preview

Summary

This paper will analyze the case study “Chris Peterson at DSS Consulting” and identify two
leadership mistakes that Chris makes. It will also identify the theory that best addresses her
failures with scholarly researched evaluations. There will be a section that reviews what
con...

Description

1

Case Study: Chris Peterson at DSS Consulting

Department of Business Administration, University of the People BUS 5411: Leading in Today’s Context Unit 4 Written Assignment Dr Len Bogner December 9, 2020

2

Abstract This paper will analyze the case study “Chris Peterson at DSS Consulting” and identify two leadership mistakes that Chris makes. It will also identify the theory that best addresses her failures with scholarly researched evaluations. There will be a section that reviews what concepts that Chris would have applied from the selective theory for better leadership focus.

3

Case Study: Chris Peterson at DSS Consulting Facts of the Case Chris Peterson, is a consultant in the Information Technology Section working for DSS Consulting. Her positive reputation and hard work have seen her get promoted to Project Manager. DSS consulting provides administrative support to small district schools in the region. It has come to Chris’ attention through her boss Meg Cooke that DSS has made decisions to change the company business strategy and has already made few controversial re-organization decisions (Ancona & Caldwell, 2010). These controversial re-organization decisions were causing anxiety across DSS consultants including the new team that Chris put together to help her in her new project. It was clear that Chris’ boss seemed to communicate the changes to Chris’ team but not to her because the information came as a surprise to her when they were about to close the project. It was also clear the Chris somehow chose not to address these concerns but chose to work on the project. Underlying Leadership Issues Identified There is a clear lack of communication chain of command exhibited by Meg as a senior manager. She seems to be very dishonest to Chris concerning the re-organization of DSS Consulting because she lets Chris continue with the project even though she is professing negative news about the project to her team and other districts causing the teams not to support Chris with the project. One leadership mistake that Chris makes is allowing her team to work in a silo without communicating with the rest of DSS’s consultants who in fact will be the users of the new system they are working on. Chris lacks internal stakeholder engagement and support from her boss or the districts. Even though she allows her team to work alone because they are experts in what they do; she seems distant and not engaged to solve the concerns about the re-organization of DSS but to just finish the project successfully. She is practising a task-oriented type of leadership (Cherry, n.d.). Internal Stakeholder engagement is key in ensuring a smooth flow of information and communication in the company. Bhasin (2016) suggests that a business must seek maximum value for its stakeholders. In this case, the other district teams and Chris’ team

4

should have been put at par on the expectations of the project to avoid the lack of support from the other districts teams. The second leadership mistake Chris makes is failing to lobby for managerial support when anxiety and concerns of re-organization at DSS start to crop up and affect productivity. Chris seems to somehow ignore her team’s concerning their job stability. Chris should have made sure that she was in charge as the boss by engaging Meg in advance and stopping her from spreading rumours especially when they hold their meetings. Meg did not provide truthful feedback to the progress of the team about the reorganizing decisions that were being made and showed signs of favouritism which was splitting Chris’ team apart (Ancona & Caldwell, 2010). Proposed Solutions to the Underlying Issues The Participative Leadership style coupled with employee and stakeholder involvement theory is best suited to address the failures that Chris has exhibited. This leadership is meant to encourage decision-making processes to be done at all levels. Employees are involved in various strategic level decisions and partake in the development of organisational goals, planning decisions and work schedules. This approach increases job enrichment, productivity, innovativeness and worker motivation (Branch, 2002). “It also involves management treating the ideas and suggestions of employees with consideration and respect” (Participative Management, 2020). In applying this theory, Chris could have started by holding a stakeholder meeting to ensure that all teams and the districts linked to her project were informed and made ready. This would have set the pace as a participative leader. Representations from both parties need to meet to clarify and discuss their goals and roles towards them a project and show that the consolidation can be used as a beneficial tool. These meetings would be used to address important changes such as the re-organization rumours that the teams are raising and causing slow productivity and reduced team spirit. A collaborative approach is what is needed. Conclusion In conclusion, good management leadership helps to develop teamwork and the integration of both individual and group goals. It aids intrinsic motivation by emphasizing the

5

importance of the work that people do. It is also related to motivation, interpersonal behaviour and the process of communication. Chris’ strategic avenues for better decision-making in her team should be a collective effort where logical ideas are shared and feedback to members of the team before a submission is done. It is expected that Chris would encourage a similar leadership style from her boss Meg. It would help create a proper time management schedule that encourages self-awareness, and need for your team; focus, planning, communication with the team members and decision making that builds to the execution of timely and efficient project completion.

6

References Ancona, D. & Caldwell, D. (2010). Chris Peterson at DSS Consulting. MIT Sloan Management. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. Bhasin, H. (2018). Stakeholder Theory - Six Principles of Stakeholder's Theory. Retrieved 9 December 2020, from https://www.marketing91.com/what-is-the-stakeholder-theory/ Branch, K. M. (2002). Participative management and employee and stakeholder involvement. Management Benchmarking Study, 1-27. Retrieved from: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/doe/benchmark/ch10.pdf Burnes, B. (2011). Introduction: Why does change fail, and what can we do about it? Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14697017.2011.630507 Cherry, K. (n.d.). Leadership Styles. Retrieved from: http://myweb.astate.edu/sbounds/AP/2%20Leadership%20Styles.pdf Hall, D., Jones, R., Raffo, C., Chambers, I. & Gray, D. (2004). Business Studies. Causeway Press Ltd. Participative Management. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Or-Pr/ParticipativeManagement.html...