Response #1

Kenneth Coleman posted Sep 17, 2019 8:26 PM

Subscribe

               The main issue I face when handling this type of merger is the fact that my leadership style is relationship-oriented (Eveland, n.d.).  I have always been focused on having a good relationship with my workers.  Since when you value and recognize your subordinates, they will be more productive and motivated (NetMBA.com, 2002).  While this will benefit the merger in the long run it may cause friction in the norming stage for the group.  Specifically, incorporating the other manager into the group’s hierarchy.  Providing them with a sense of purpose and pride without damaging my position.

            Even though I have the legitimate power of overseeing the group by the organization’s directive.  I loathe using the coercive power that comes with such a position, to get my point across.  Preferring to win people over with referent power.  Which may cause the organization to suffer in the short term as I build a relationship with members of the other unit (Eveland, n.d.).

            I would begin building this trust by engaging in a consultative approach.  In consulting with the group in making decision, each member’s opinion will be heard.  However, the final decision would still be mine, limiting the possibility of conflict between the two units. In the short term there will be growing pains but through practicing transformational leadership (Eveland, n.d.), the unit will be stronger for it.  Everyone will know how important they are to the company’s success.  As well as what the company can do to help them grow and achieve success for themselves.  A short-term setback is well worth the long-term opportunity this style offers.

References

Eveland, J.D. (n.d.)  Leadership . Trident University International.

NetMBA.com (2002). Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory (Two Factor Theory).  Retrieved from http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/herzberg/