Review the following case, and write a 1500-2000 word analysis of this situation, using the
questions to help you focus your discussion. Write the case study as a narrative; don’t just answer
the questions.
Assignments should be submitted as Word documents to the Assignment Tool.
Situation
You work in the HR Department in a large, global enterprise. The HR organization is centralized,
with the compensation/benefits, HRD, labor relations, and HRIS functions all located in the
corporate HQ. There is also a corporate staffing department at the corporate HQ, and there are
small, regional HR offices located at each 5 regional locations that handle staffing and limited
benefits services. The locations of the 5 regional offices are: US – Midwest, US – South, US –
Northeast, Western Europe, and Eastern Europe.
You have set up and will lead a team to implement a new HRIS system that centralizes the
personnel records for the first time, and makes all HR information accessible to all HR reps via
the internet. Previously all records were kept in the corporate office and regional reps kept their
own, limited files. This new system is scheduled to be “live” in 6 months.
At the two-day kickoff meeting to launch this project team, the purpose of the team was clarified,
and specific goals and interim target dates were quickly established.
Here’s some information on the team members: US – Midwest: Harry Starker: Director of HR for one of the Midwest plants, 20 year veteran
with the company, has seen it all, understands the history, was with the company prior to the
acquisition of the European operations, is tolerated by peers and perhaps respected, but probably
not liked.
US – South: Tanisha Downey: Been with the company for 5 years, previously was VP of HR
for a larger organization, currently Director of HR for the Southern operations, probably being
groomed for a higher position. Not well known throughout the organization, but presents a
generally favorable impression. US – Northeast: Rachel Cohen: Been with the company for 15 years, known as the gal to see if
you want to get something done. Worked her way up through the ranks, perhaps has a bachelors
degree but nothing higher. Understands the organization and various players well, has worked in
all 3 US facilities. She is the HR Manager for one of the Northeast plants. Eastern Europe: Sammy Bossanova: Previously in the plant’s operations, he took over as
Director of HR about 2 years ago. Very personable. Although he speaks with an accent, his
American mannerisms make you forget he’s not an American.
Western Europe: Jacqueline Chirac: A rather arrogant French lady, she does know what she’s
talking about. She understands the business, the markets, and the internal players very well. She
also is very knowledgeable about various European employment laws. She is an attorney by
training, and has been practicing HR for over 20 years. She has been with this company for 7
years. She is the VP of HR for Western European operations.
You: VP of HR for the enterprise. You’ve been with the company for 7 years, serving previously
as Director of HR for Midwest operations, and as Manager of HR for one of the Northeastern
plants. You are very well-connected throughout the organization, and in fact the reason that you
have your current position is because throughout your career you’ve made a point of getting to
know a wide variety of individuals throughout the organization. As some of these individuals
have risen through the ranks, your relationship with them has helped your career.
1. What types of power does each of these individuals, including you, possess on this
team?
2. How might the various members’ titles/positions impact the team dynamics?
3. How would you characterize this group’s development level, according to the Situational
Leadership model?
4. Which leadership style, according to the Situational Leadership model, do you think
would be most appropriate for this team?
________________________________________________________________________
As the team got down to the job of making assignments to various team members, two of the
members did not want to accept the tasks they were assigned. Each of them stated their
workloads (short on people, lots of hiring going on right now, etc.) wouldn’t permit them to do
the assignments by the stated target dates. In addition, they said, their situations – they were both
from Europe – were different than their American counterparts and therefore whatever they did
would not apply to the American operations.
1. What are the sources/natures of these conflicts?
2. As the team leader, what approach (of the 5 approaches discussed in the week 4 lecture)
should you take to resolve these conflicts?
Having successfully resolved this conflict, the team got down to business. They have spent about
one month determining the capabilities of the new system. You have maintained a low profile
with the team so far, but you’re getting increasingly concerned about the approaching deadline. It doesn’t appear to you that the interim goals the team established will be met. You have a pretty
clear picture of how you think the new process should work.
1. Considering the team’s Development level (Situational Leadership theory), what specific
steps can you take to ensure the team will meet its deadline?
2. Should you adjust your leadership style? If so, which style would be better, at this point? The sectors of the matrix are referred to as: S1 – Directing S2 – Coaching S3 – Supporting S4 – Delegating. A leader should choose the style that is most appropriate for the needs of the team, depending on
their motivation (how willing they are and how confident they are) and their ability (how able or
skilled they are). Four follower styles or “development levels ” are referred to as: D1 – Enthusiastic Beginner, Low Competence-High Commitment D2 – Disillusioned Learner, Low to Some Competence-Low Commitment D3 – Capable but Cautious Performer Moderate to High Competence-Variable
Commitment D4 – Self Reliant Achiever, High Competence-High Commitment. The key to using Situational Leadership is to assess the team development level – D1 – D4, and
use the corresponding leadership style – S1 – S4.
Let’s say that a team is newly formed, unclear about their goals and purpose, and very concerned
about whether they will have enough time to devote to the team. (Each of them was
“volunteered” to be on the team.) They are unwilling, and, because they don’t know what they’re
supposed to do, unable: D1. Their leader should use an S1 – Directing style, which is high
direction, low support. What they need most is clear direction, telling them what their goals and
purpose are, etc. (It may be more appropriate for the leader to lead them through a process of
determining their goals, and this is another form of the S1 style. This behavior is still considered
high direction, low support because the leader is taking the initiative.)
Another example: A team has been meeting for several years. They are very capable, and highly
committed. A new manager joins the team and begins to use S1 behavior: directing, facilitating,
initiating, setting agendas, conducting meetings, and so on. The team begins to complain about
being “micromanaged.” The manager’s S1 style is a mismatch for this particular team, because
they are capable and committed, D4. The manager changes his style to “hands off, let me know if
you need me”, S4, and the team functions well again.
To Summarize:
Situational
Leadership Developmenta
l Level Competence/Commitmen
t Level S1Directing D1 –
Enthusiastic
Beginner Low Competence-High
Commitment S2Coaching D2 Disillusioned
Learner Low to Some CompetenceLow Commitment Leadership
Guidance
provide explicit
instructions and
supervision
provide guidance,
explain rationale
for decision making S3–
Supporting D3 – Capable
but Cautious
Performer Moderate to High
Competence-Variable
Commitment facilitate decision
making, provide
encouragement,
allow for
independent actions S4–
Delegating D4 – Self
Reliant
Achiever High Competence-High
Commitment allow group
decision making
responsibility This video explains Situational Leadership in more detail. Note that this theory was developed
and is used primarily for leading individuals. We are applying it to teams. As you listen to Dr.
Ken Blanchard, the co-originator of Situational Leadership, you may find it helpful to substitute
“team” when he says “people”, and “team leadership” when he says “leadership”.
The Context – Situational Leadership: View
In applying Situational Leadership to teams, it’s important to assess the Development level of
each team member and then determine the overall Development level of the team, taking into
consideration that the more powerful or influential team members will influence the overall
team’s Development level more than the less powerful or influential team members.
The power that a team leader holds also makes a difference in how well (s)he is able to lead the
team. The power that team members hold makes a difference in their ability to influence the rest
of the team. The text describes five sources of power. Power associated with the position one
holds is called Positional Power. Power associated with personal qualities and characteristics is
called Personal Power.
There are three types or sources of positional power:
1. Legitimate – due to the position a person holds, such as Vice President, Director, etc.
2. Reward – based on a person’s access or ability to convey rewards such as a bonus, party,
pay raise, etc.
3. Coercive – based on a person’s ability to punish
There are two types or sources of personal power: 1. Expert power – how much a person knows or particular skills that a person has such as
being acquainted with lots of people in the corporate office or knowing how to use
specialized software or equipment
2. Referent power – also known as charisma, how much respect or attractiveness a person
has, such as someone who is physically attractive or who demonstrates qualities that
command respect
The team’s leaders, the power that leaders and team members have, and how teams may be
rewarded all influence the way teams make decisions. There seems to be an assumption in most
workplace teams that consensus decisions are the types of decisions that all teams should make,
all the time. Team consensus refers to a decision which all members can live with. They may not
be in complete agreement but they accept and support the decision and agree to live with it. The
power of the leader and his/her position or opinion, and the power of team members, all
influence the process and outcome of consensus decisions. Consensus decisions require time and
skill to be sure that all team members’ needs and wants are incorporated into the decision.
Consensus decision-making needs to be used when it is important that all team members accept
and support the decision (“buy-in”). Other types of team decision-making such as voting take
less time and skill, may be appropriate for issues where member support is not as critical.
