Business & Finance Written Assignment

This is the prompt : It will be a description of a person you regard as an excellent example of an  ethical leader (KOBE BRYANT).  Write a biographical sketch of the leader,and discuss why you chose him/her.  Use Johnson text, mini lectures, video, to support your description. The paper should be at least 4 pages in length, typed double-spaced.

You can use these resources below to support the prompt I will attach the book on a separate file

RESOURCE 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZteD18ayV8&t=1s

RESOURCE 2:

MLSX 5351, Week 2 Mini-Lecture: Transformational Leadership and Its Focus on Moral Leadership

Dr. Witherspoon

The Evolution of Transformational Leadership Theory

Theories of leadership grow and change like the people who embody them. “The Great Man” theories in the late 1800s and the early decades of the 20th century suggested that history is shaped by great men, that the progress of societies has been due to actions of those endowed with superior traits. Dowd wrote in in 1936 that “there is no such thing as leadership by the masses. The individuals in every society possess different degrees of intelligence, energy, and moral force, and in whatever direction the masses may be influenced to go, they are always led by the superior few.” (As quoted in Burns, pp. 37-38) This work followed assertions that great men tended to be of royal blood; kings and their brothers (princes) were leaders based on inheritance. They became the men of power and influence in their societies. (Catherine the Great and Elizabeth I, were not included in those studied.) Of course, the findings of these “researchers” were based on the individuals they selected for study! If you are only going to study kings and princes, your findings are going to be embodied in kings and princes.

The “Great Man” theories morphed into trait theories of leadership, which encompass the notion that all leaders share certain traits. There is considerable trait research which shows that people who are regarded as leaders do share certain traits, e.g. are high energy, sociable, intelligent, friendly, etc. However, in great part due to battleground experiences witnessed by officers in the two World Wars, military commanders, psychologists, historians, etc. began to write during the 20th century that traits don’t guarantee leadership…that it is how one manifests or uses those traits as behaviors that evidences leadership. In other words, “leadership” is not saying you are a leader; it is what you do to show you are a leader. And so a host of behavioral theories emerged in the leadership literature, which spans multiple fields and academic disciplines.

The Initial Discussion of Transformational Leadership

In 1978, Dr. James MacGregor Burns published Leadership, a book that was awarded both the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize. A historian and a political scientist, Burns already had written a two-volume biography about Franklin Roosevelt that received multiple awards, including those he received for Leadership. He already had achieved acclaim for writing biographies of John F. Kennedy and Edward Kennedy and had authored a best-selling textbook on U. S. government and a volume on Congress. This book was different, however. It would be referred to over the next several decades beyond the fields of history and political science. His term, “transforming” or “transformational” leadership would be used by leadership scholars and practitioners. This mini-lecture uses several long quotations from the book itself, so you can see the author’s purpose and focus.

In the Prologue, Burns writes that he will focus on “transactional” and “transforming” leadership, beyond the notions of holding and wielding power. Transactional leadership is based on exchanges, e.g. paychecks for work, bonuses for extra hours of work, “jobs for votes, or subsidies for campaign contributions.” (p. 4) The transforming leader “looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower. The result of transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents.”(p. 4) Burns goes beyond the transactional notion of leadership and suggests the importance of “moral leadership,” and this is the notion that would later be left out of the writings of scholars in a variety of fields. He explains three components of “moral leadership:” 1) “leaders and led have a relationship not only of power but of mutual needs, aspirations, and values;” 2) “followers have adequate knowledge of alternative leaders and programs and the capacity to choose among those alternatives,” and 3) “leaders take responsibility for their commitments—if they promise certain kinds of economic, social, and political change, they assume leadership in the bringing about of that change.”(Ibid.) He emphasizes that moral leadership is not “mere preaching, or the uttering of pieties,” but the kind of leadership that produces social change and satisfies followers’ authentic needs, a leadership that “emerges from, and always returns to, the fundamental wants and needs, aspirations, and values of the followers.” (Ibid.)

Burns’ discussion of leadership includes observations on a host of leaders, both evil and benevolent. Good people can be transactional leaders. Transformational leadership, he writes, is elevating and moral and lifts people into their better selves. It is change leadership that is significant and sustained and depends on the collective and interactive relationship between leaders and followers. “The most dramatic test in modern democracies of the power of leaders to elevate followers and of followers to sustain leaders was the civil rights struggle in the United States,” Burns writes. (p. 455) “The battle was won at lunch counters, on highways, in classrooms, in front of courthouses by followers who had become leaders. On the other side of the globe, the pacific and egalitarian values taught by Mohandas Gandhi were proving to be an elevating force in an even harsher struggle for social justice.” (p. 455-456). As we know, Burns’ words are optimistic; the civil rights struggle in the U. S. continues. He ends his book with a continuing focus on moral leadership: “Woodrow Wilson called for leaders who, by boldly interpreting the nation’s conscience, could lift a people out of their everyday selves. That people can be lifted into their better selves is the secret of transforming leadership and the moral and practical theme of this work.”(p. 462)

The Effect of Different Voices on the Notion of Transformational Leadership

Since the publication of, and attention to, Burns’ honored work, business and management scholars have applied his notion of the leadership of change into their own notions of transformational leadership, focusing on it as a theory guiding significant organizational change. Their applications came at a time of growing interest in leadership studies as a field, in organizations as sites of leadership, and in business schools and other disciplines as places where leadership has been taught and studied, e.g. business, management, communication, healthcare, to name some academic areas. In the study of organizational leadership, Noel Tichy, John Kotter, Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass were some of the first individuals within business/management who applied various concepts of Burns’ seminal work to the study of transformational leadership in organizational settings….leadership which they identified as facilitating major, dramatic organizational change.

“We call these new leaders transformational leaders, for they must create

something new out of something old; out of an old vision, they must develop and communicate a new vision and get others not only to see the vision but also to commit themselves to it. Where transactional managers make only minor adjustments in the organization’s mission, structure and human resource management, transformational leaders not only make major changes in these three areas but they also evoke fundamental changes in the basic political and culture systems of the organization.” (Tichy, p. 59)

By the mid-1980s, discussions of transformational leadership in organizations often omitted reference to moral leadership and began to focus on such leadership as central to major organizational change. The term is used quite freely now as a theory of leadership, some scholars also suggesting it as a style of leadership. James MacGregor Burns became an international figure in the study of leadership and would eventually have a center named after him at the University of Maryland. He would stay true to his concept of what transforming leadership is, until he died in 2014 at the age of 95.

RESOURCE 3:

MLS 5351, Week 6 Lecture—Organizational Components as Potential Ethical Dilemmas for Leaders

Dr. Witherspoon

While we certainly see examples of leadership in community and societal contexts, many of us also observe it within the organizations in which we work and live. People in organizations do not lead in a vacumn; they are affected by the components that comprise an organization, and by environmental influences. Such components include an organization’s purpose/task, structure, size, resources, and culture. They affect the interactions among leaders and followers. Just as importantly, these components may create ethical dilemmas for organization leaders. I will first briefly describe how organizational components may affect leadership within an organization , and then suggest how ethical dilemmas may emerge from these components. The point of this lecture is to suggest the importance of leaders’ awareness of potential dilemmas, to assist them in preventing ethical issues from developing. Leadership is enhanced within an organization as its members and leaders recognize potential ethical issues posed by these influences.

Organizational Task

The overarching task of an organization is to engage in work for its primary constituencies. Such tasks include, but are not limited to, producing goods, providing services, and improving the lives of clients/citizens if in non-profit or governmental organizations. What leaders do to facilitate organizational accomplishment of their primary task obviously differs, and imposes various temporal, psychological, and resource influences on decision-making and execution of the task. For instance, leading an EMS team has different requirements than overseeing the writing of insurance policies or stocking food on shelves. The need to complete a report by 5 p.m., serve hamburgers during a noon rush, and develop a new computer design to be successfully competitive in a technology industry are also tasks with other types of pressures on leaders and the leader/follower relationship. Understanding this, ethical leaders attempt to anticipate ethical issues and situations that may face them in the conduct of their work. For instance, ethical leaders in factories understand balancing the need for profit vs. the need to keep employees safe when deciding on machine shut-down and repair. Recently, many leaders have had to consider how to balance concerns about closing temporarily to avoid COVID disease spread, vs. keeping a business open so employees (and owners) keep jobs and paychecks.

Organizational Size

Most of us in organizations recognize that large organizations are generally complex, perhaps even complicated, and therefore more challenging for leaders. (I’m thinking of organizations with hundreds or thousands of employees. In a small town, an organization of 50 may be a large organization. In general, “large” here means one with multiple hierarchical levels.) However, we can all name leaders of companies with thousands of members who seem to lead at ease. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates come to mind, as do former CEOs Howard Schultz (Starbucks) and Herb Kelleher (Southwest Airlines). Yet, it is sometimes easy to hide weak or toxic leadership behaviors inside large organizations. Leadership in any organization is not only enacted at the top of the organization, but throughout it. At whatever level the leadership occurs, ethical issues may sometimes emerge but may be hidden because of the sheer size of an organization. Sometimes organizational size is used as an excuse for insufficient attention to a problem or insufficient action for a solution. And, sometimes the issue is a decision to sacrifice a long-term ethical solution for a short-term economic benefit. A related, but even more challenging organizational influence on leaders is the structure of a given organization.

Organizational Structure

Founders create organizational structures that fit the purpose, size, and intended degree of complexity of the organization, as envisioned by the founder. Most of us, however, don’t establish or create organizations. Leaders at the tops of organizations use the structure they find, unless they identify reasons to change that structure. Organizational structure includes policies and procedures, job descriptions and reporting relationships, and functional units to conduct the work of the organization. Structural changes may include new technologies to change manufacturing tasks, new technologies that will affect intraorganizational communication, and the emergence of budgetary constraints may require lay-offs in parts of the organization. On good days, structure helps organizational leadership conduct its work. On some days, structure may represent barriers to information flow; on other days it may create organizational agility by fostering the creation of work groups or teams. Some leaders may embed structure, others change it, some follow it to the letter. It is a sufficiently difficult variable to warrant continuous attention…it is the framework to facilitate task accomplishment. Large multi-hierarchical organizations operate with various degrees of complexity. Smaller organizations may find optimal systems of work through team-based activity. Consultants/advisors, etc. may work in organizations that are small, have no need for job descriptions, and use computer technologies to conduct much of the work. Leaders, at all organizational levels, may “bend” structure for institutional need and/or personal interest or gain.

Organizational leaders should be mindful of the potential ethical dilemmas inherent in “organizational structure.” Multiple layers of management may affect the distribution of power, as well as the exercise of authority. Decreasing information flow along an organizational chart can be seen as an attempt to “hide” information that may cause credibility problems for leaders. Creating new levels of organization out of a heretofore “flat” structure may be seen as an attempt to enhance control over people and processes. Establishing a position that reports to the CEO, and only the CEO, creates the possibility of a position beholden only to the CEO. Such arrangements create suspicion about the role of individuals who seem to be “outside” the reporting structure. Organizational leaders are best served by structural components that fit together optimally, and that facilitate the organizational task and purpose, the goals of employees at all levels, and values, plans and priorities set through a process involving organizational members.

Organizational Resources

Leaders have access to human, financial, and technological resources within these sites. Employees, clients, customers, investors, boards of directors, etc. are a few of the human resources on which organizations depend. Capital investments, operating funds, loans, and monetary gifts are examples of financial resources. Computers, software applications, calculators, telephones and other tools we consider technologies are other important resources.

A scarcity of resources in an organization can cause competition and even conflict between and among units, and leaders at any level need to understand that scarcity requires leadership that foresees the potential ethical problems that it may create. This situation was in evidence at some hospitals in spring, 2020, when a lack of ventilators in some hospitals treating coronavirus patients required doctors to make decisions on which patients would be given first use of them. Ethical issues arise when such decision-making is required. As I write this lecture, several airlines are in the process of terminating or furloughing thousands of their employees, due to lost revenues in 2020. If 10% of airline employees must be fired to keep an airline afloat, which employees are prioritized for lay-offs? Last hired, first fired? Soon to retire, first fired? Obviously, this is an economic decision, but what ethical issues may emerge when deciding which area of the airline is affected? Pilots, flight attendants, maintenance workers?

Organizational Culture

The culture of an organization is comprised of its values and beliefs, as well as its history, heroes, stories, rituals and ceremonies. In a sense, culture is the soul of an organization—the shared values of its members hold the individuals together as a community. People coming into an organization as leaders on any level must be careful about breaking traditions, like the annual family picnic, or laughing at stories that are sentimentally significant to organizational members, or criticizing organizational heroes who may have helped embed the elements of culture. Organizational culture also includes the emotional environment in which leaders act. If cultures are rich in traditions, and values have been shared and sustained among organizational members who are proud of those values, then the continuation of that culture must be considered by leaders as day-to-day decisions and long-term visions are created and implemented. However, as new people enter an organization, they may bring elements of other organizational cultures with them. How leaders accept those differences, or even changes, become important to organizational members.

Leaders in organizations consider ethical dimensions of emerging organizational culture issues. For instance: How should leaders accommodate employees’ religious practices on a specified day, if that day conflicts with work day schedules? How should organizational cultural practices be changed to accommodate changes in parental obligations? (Some organizations have had to change work schedules to allow parents time for school drop-off and pick-up. The prevalence of two-career families over the last 3 to 4 decades has changed work schedules in numerous organizational cultures.) (NOTE: In the Mitchell text there are several case problems that discuss cultural issues faced key leaders.) In the last six months we have seen great changes in aspects of organizational cultures to accommodate the closing of schools and the need for online education of children at home, AND the need to close offices and require “work at home” due to the COVID pandemic.