Response to Post 1_Case 5.2
Hi Xxxxxxx
Something that I learned about Jim is that he is a kind of a leader who likes creating goals and having others to achieve them without necessarily considering their interests, ideas, or perceptions. In other words, he likes to apply high directive-low supportive (S1) style. In this style, a leader focuses on communicating goal achievement but spends less time establishing fruitful relationships. Jim had clearly stipulated goals: help participants to learn new communication behaviors and to boost their perception towards attending future seminars. On the contrary, he had no single plan on how to involve the participants in and prepare them for the seminar. Going out to be friendly with participants and giving them frequent coffee breaks during sessions is not sufficient enough to establish sustainable relationships. Just as you noticed, Jim failed to analyze the managers’ development level, and as such, he could not address their specific needs appropriately.
A specific argument that I find enlightening from your post is that “when leaders get to business from the start, followers take the information more seriously.” This argument is explicitly true since once followers feel involved, respected, and trusted, they are likely to shift their behavior in a manner that fosters the achievement of the group’s goal (Beer et al., 2016). To boost the effectiveness of the seminar, I agree with you that Jim could have developed clear objectives and expectations from the beginning and establishing activities that could have been vital in their achievement (Zwick, 2015). From Jim’s case, I have come to appreciate that analysis of participants’ needs and making the participants feel involved in addressing those needs is critical for attaining success in every corporate activity.
Reference
Beer, M., Finnström, M., & Schrader, D. (2016). Why leadership training fails—and what to do about it. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 50-57.
Zwick, T. (2015). Training older employees: what is effective? International Journal of Manpower, 36(2), 136-150. doi:10.1108/ijm-09-2012-0138