WEEK ONE: 21st century Leaders
Learning Activity #1
Joe Jackson owned a saw mill in Stuttgart, Arkansas. It was a family concern that had not changed
in 50 years. Having grown up in the
business Joe had never really investigated the strengths and weaknesses of his
position as Vice President. His father was
always the President and he and his older brother Jacob were the heirs. The business was in turmoil because his
father’s health was precarious forcing him to step down. Joe’s brother was expecting to step up to the
role of Vice President but Joe knew that was a mistake. The business itself was quickly eroding
because of the sustainability issues facing the world. Joe could see this but not Jacob. Joe needed
to have a long talk with Jacob to make him see his reasoning. Either they worked together for the future or
Joe would have to take the lead role.
Prepare an outline of points for Joe to make in his
discussion with his brother. Explain the role of the 21st century leader and
why it differs from that of the 20th century leader. Make sure to use the course reading material,
citing and referencing to validate the points you make.
Learning Activity #2
Click on the link below and fill out the chart to include
the individual characteristics of a leader and manager in the categories named.
/content/enforced/11362-001034-01-2142-US2-4550/BMGT365leadvmangchart.doc
Learning Activity #3
In his article, “What Leaders Really Do,” Kotter (2001)
[] stated, ” Managers promote stability while leaders press for change,
and only organizations that embrace both sides of the contradiction can thrive
in turbulent times” (p. 3).
In the fact pattern below Juan Para must make a decision
about hiring June Davies. Keeping
Kotter’s ideas in mind complete the following tasks:
Define the leader’s and manager’s approach (mindset) to
solving the dilemma.
Determine Para’s solution if he used the leader’s
perspective and then if he used the manager’s perspective.
Do you see a difference? If so what differences? If not, why
not? Could the outcome be the same and still benefit the company?
Protection Insurance Stays Alive
At 7:30 a.m., Juan Para hit the snooze alarm for the third
time, but he knew he could never go back to sleep. Rubbing his eyes and shaking off a headache,
Para first checked his iPhone and read an urgent message from his boss,
explaining that Jack Nixon, chief security analyst, had resigned last night and
needed to be replaced immediately.
Frustrated, Para lumbered toward the shower, hoping it would energize
him to face another day. After last
night’s management meeting, which had ended after midnight, he was reeling from
the news that his employer, Protection Insurance, was spiraling toward a
financial meltdown.
Para scratched his head and wondered, “How could one of the
world’s largest insurance companies plummet from being the gold standard in the
industry to one struggling for survival?”
At the end of 2007, Protection Insurance had $100 billion in annual
revenues, 65 million customers, and 96,000 employees in 130 countries. One year later and staggered by losses
stemming from the credit crisis, Protection Insurance teetered on the brink of
failure and was in need of emergency government assistance. Protection Insurance had been a victim of the
meltdown in the credit markets. The collapse of this respected financial
institution sent shock waves throughout the world’s economy.
Within Protection Insurance’s Manhattan office, Para and his
coworkers felt growing pressure to respond to this crisis quickly and
ethically. But morale was sagging and
decision making was stalled. New
projects were on hold, revenues weren’t coming in fast enough, and job cuts
were imminent. Finger-pointing and
resignations of key managers had become commonplace. Strong leadership was needed to guide
employees to stay the course. Para knew his first priority was to replace Jack
Nixon. When leaving the meeting last night, his boss had told him, “It’s
critical that we keep key managers in place as we weather this storm. If we lose any managers, be sure you replace
them with ones who can handle the stress and can make tough and even unpopular
decisions.”
Working up a sweat as he rushed into his office, Para began
sorting through the day’s priorities.
His first task would be to consider internal candidates to replace
Nixon. He pondered the characteristics
required of a chief securities analyst and scribbled them on a notepad:
experienced in security and regulatory issues; strong decision-making skills;
high ethical standards; able to make job cuts; comfortable with slashing
budgets; and respected for calm leadership.
Para immediately thought of June Davies, a senior analyst who had been
vocal about her desire to move up and had recently shown steady leadership as
the organization started to crumble.
Davies had worked her way up through the organization,
becoming a respected expert in her field.
She had developed a strong team of loyal employees and made training and
job development a priority. She was likable, sensitive to her employees, and a
consensus builder. While many managers
within Protection Insurance had made questionable business decisions, June had
held herself to a high ethical standard and created a culture of
integrity. Davies was focused on the
future—a go-getter who knew how to get results.
With the future of the company at stake; however, Para
wondered if Davies could handle the tough challenges ahead. Although he valued her team-building skills,
she could be soft when it came to holding employees accountable. A large part of her motivation was to have
people like her. When she reported a
shortfall in earnings in the last company meeting and came under fire, she
became defensive and did not want to point fingers at employees who were to
blame. In fact, Para recalled another
instance when Davies recoiled at the thought of firing an employee who had
developed a pattern of poor attendance while caring for her sick husband. She confessed a hesitation to confront poor
performers and employees struggling to balance home and work life.
Para stirred his morning coffee and wondered aloud, “Is June
Davies capable of balancing kindness and toughness during a crisis? Can I count on her to be decisive and focused
on top- and bottom-line results? Is she too much of a people pleaser? Will it impact her ability to lead successfully?”
