Global Leadership Development Programmes

Question: Discuss about the Global Leadership Development Programmes. Answer: Introduction: It can be said that every manager has a particular form of leadership style and management approach while heading up the team. In this context, MeatPack company is illustrated. The CEO of the company is Derek Bison. The management style of Bison will be described within the organizational perspective of MeatPack. The case study has suggested that the company is facing challenges in the field of changes in senior leadership and changes in cultural performances. It is also pointed out that being a CEO and founder of the company Bison has many qualities in the perspective of leadership and other management qualities. He has done many developmental attributes to develop the management of the company along with the development of leadership competencies within the organization (Day et al. 2014). Besides this, the case study reflects that the company is progressing on a fast pace on the leadership of Bison and other senior manager of the company. The targets of the company are high. In ord er to cope up with the challenges of the competitive business world and the internal management f the company, the employees needs to change themselves which is facilitated by the CEO of MeatPack i.e. Bison. Bisons style of management is characterized by few attributes such as competitive, driven, visionary, interfering, never satisfied, obsessive and restless. Bison initiate senior leadership development of the company (Gurdjian et al. 2014). On practicing that, Bison is facing some issues with few categories of employees in the middle level management and senior level management. Each manager is responsible for following particular form of management and leadership style. In this context, hands on management and hands off management are used. These two styles of management are common styles of management that are used by Bison in the organizational context. In some context, Bison is using hands on management on few perspectives and hands off approach of management in some perspectives. Hands on management style are defined as the style of management where the leader, the manager, or the management of the company is highly involved with the employees of the organization in their day-to-day activities (Chapman et al. 2014). It can be said that the proactive presence of the managers with the employees constantly encourages them and motivate them while promoting productive and problem free operations. On the other hand, hands off managerial approach are defined as the day-to-day activities of the different levels of employees of MeatPack. Bison while practicing t his type of management approach will focus on the goals and objectives of the company along with different types of ways for measuring the effectiveness. The employees will feel best when they receive training and development programs from the company while developing their weaker areas in their current designation of job (Komives and Wagner 2016). As the employees do not receive direct guidance from the senior management, hence they can face problems in some perspectives. In the case study, it is seen that though Bison has a wide exposure in the field of management and leadership in his own organization, but they are not always leading positive results to the operations of the company as a whole. Bison mostly uses hands on approach of management while practicing different practices of senior leadership in the organization. He is known for the implementation of leadership and developmental programs that involves all level of management. Many employees of MeatPack are happy with the hands in approach of Bison in the hands on involvement of him in the different operational works of the company. It is pretty obvious that senior leaders of the organization such as COO and CFO are not happy with the involvement of Bison in every fields of work (Day et al. 2014). This approach is responsible for creating a concept of interference in the minds of the senior officials of the company. However, it can be said that, if Bison will follow different style of leaders hip and management i.e. hands off approach, then the problem will be solved with gradual passage of time. The senior officials are feeling that they are not given priority in their respective position in the company. The hand off approach has advantages in the senior management of the company whereas hand on approach will benefit the front line managers and the junior managers with proper guidance with their respective fields of work (Skendall et al. 2017). Apart from that, the leadership problems of the organization are identified before implementation of the hands off approach in the required fields of operations. Leadership is an important aspect of every organization to develop and grow their organizational performance in the market. The case study forecasts that MeatPack is performing well in the market with a substantial amount of turnover. The reason behind the success of the company is the leadership implemented by Bison at the different level of management in the organizational perspectives. The senior leadership strategy is a customised form of leadership that is known for the innovative ideas practiced by Bison in the organization. Bison is focusing on the other senior officials of the company for the effective result of the senior leadership practiced in the organization. The situation of the company describes the fact that Bison is following participative leadership (McCleskey 2014). Participative leadership is the form of leadership that involves employees of different levels of management. The different levels of employees in MeatPack are allowed to involve with the strategies for mulated by Bison in the organizational perspectives. Leadership is an important aspect that is essential for every organization. Involvement of personnel from all levels of management is responsible for identification of problems in different operational fields of the company. The leadership skills of Bison are seen to be efficient and effective due to the hands on approach applied by him to the different operational departments of the company. The senior leadership of other companies in the same sector are found to be not as much effective like that of the MeatPack in the Australian market. The productivity of the company is higher compared to the other companies (Gurdjian et al. 2014). Competition in the market is not only existed in terms of revenue generation and profitability but also it is competitive in nature due to different attributes and aspects of leadership, culture, human resource and other internal management style of the company. The competitiveness in the market is high in Australia in the market. The company is responsible for utilizing the competitive advantage from the market by developing the internal management pattern of the company. The development of management is responsible for the practice of senior leadership within the organization. The case study illustrates the individual effort of Bison in the development of the organizational pattern as well as the organizational structure. It is seen that the CEO of the company is finding problem in the organizational structure (Ladegard and Gjerde 2014). It is pointed out that the hierarchical structure of organization is not working properly while accomplishing the organizational goals. However, t he horizontal structure according to the management of the company is found to be effective while mitigating the problems identified within the organizational perspective. Apart from that, leadership cannot get success without participation of other employees of the organization. Success of the planning in the practices of senior leadership in the organization depends on the involvement of the different personnel of the organization. MeatPack enjoys a good position over the leadership and the management perspective, which is considered as the success of the organization (Garavan et al. 2016). The short term planning of the senior management of the company is responsible for creating a long-term impact in the organization. The future scope of improvement in the different fields of operations in MeatPack is related to the different aspects of the leadership development. It is pointed out that there are hindrances that have been occurred while practicing senior leadership in the organization. However, the hindrances have been found at the senior level of management of MeatPack. MeatPack is a company that focuses on the employee relations and their performance more than the productivity. The organizational goals are focused on the perspective of the development of the career and growth of the employees within the organization. The senior leadership will have to develop training and developmental methods that will help to develop the weaker areas of the employees working in the organization (Gagnon and Collinson 2014). Developmental programs that always exist are found to be ineffective in many departments of the organization. It is the responsibility of the strategic management department of the organizat ion while identifying the different aspects of problems faced by the different departments of the company. Different strategic options and methodologies are available that are to be implemented in the organizational perspective to point out the problems and disputes of the employees working in the organization. The organizational structure is considered to be responsible for the lack of communication in many areas. Communication problem is a vital problem that leads to lack of understanding of the organizational goals as well as the objectives of the new programs and trainings set up by the company for personal development of the employees (Rock 2014). The case study illustrates that the organization is facing issues in the type of organizational structure they are following. Earlier there is a different types of structure followed in the company. The structure is tall structure. It is also known as hierarchical organizational structure. However, there are both advantages and disadvantages of hierarchical organizational structure. It is seen that Bison has found some faults in the existing culture and structure followed by the organization. Hence, the decision was made to change the tall structure into flat structure of organization. For implementation of change management, different types of obstacles and barriers will come. Formulation of strategies in the field of change management is not the end. However, different hindrances are to be removed. Removal of the obstacles will be done by implementation of various change management models (Guenole et al. 2015). Change management is the trend that business integrates in their manage ment and different operational areas. Before implementing any changes in the company, it is the responsibility of the human resource department and the strategic management department of the company to point out the actual cultural issues faced by the company and its employees. After pointing out the issues and problems, of the company, theoretical frameworks and models are to be implemented in the areas of improvement. It is important to gain a proper knowledge of the change management models and the manual strategies formulated by human resource department of the company (Manchester et al. 2014). It can be said that MeatPack is suffering issues in terms of tall structure of organizational structure. But the CEO of the company wants to change the structure of the organization which few employees are not supporting. The change that the company is facing is cultural change and the leadership change. The change management models that will be considered in this perspective are Lewins change management model and Kotters change management model. Both these theoretical frameworks are very popular in terms of organizational implementation. Many successful organizations are implementing these models while implementing strategies on change management. Customization of the strategies will actually help in the mitigation of the problems of change management in the organization (Cummings and Worley 2014). As per the Lewins model, there are three steps such as unfreeze, change and refreeze. In the first stage, i.e. unfreeze, the person associated with the bringing of change in the organizat ion will try to find the problems and issues in the different levels of employees in the organization. In the second step, after finding out the problems, change will be implemented in the core of the departments where it is needed (Hayes 2014). It can be overcome by communicating with the people who are creating hindrance in the effective implementation of the cultural change in the organization. This is a tough process and is more time consuming. Rigorous communication is the only way of gaining trust and believes. It will finally lead to communicating the objectives and goals of the newly manufactured changed strategy for the benefit of the organization (Bartunek and Woodman 2015). The third step is refreezing. Refreeze is defined as the implementation of the final change management strategies in the organizational perspectives. It can be concluded that the horizontal structure in MeatPack is responsible for decreased productivity of the afternoon shift of the company. There are two shifts in the organization such as the morning shift and the afternoon shift. It is seen that the productivity of the morning shift is higher than that of the afternoon shift. The problems need to be understood and the employees who are engaged in working with the afternoon shifts need some motivation and a slight change in the working schedule of the company (Fullan 2014). In this situation, Lewins change management model is the appropriate model that will help people in understanding the need for motivation and changed working procedure for MeatPack. MeatPack will increase the profitability as well as the trust of the employees that will provide benefit in the long term growth of the company. However, it can be said that the change management model of Lewin has many disadvantages too. Customization of Lewins change management m odel in the operations of MeatPack is necessary for the mitigation of the problem of the employees of the company after changing the organizational structure. References Bartunek, J.M. and Woodman, R.W., 2015. Beyond Lewin: toward a temporal approximation of organization development and change.Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.,2(1), pp.157-182. Chapman, A.L., Johnson, D. and Kilner, K., 2014. Leadership styles used by senior medical leaders: patterns, influences and implications for leadership development.Leadership in Health Services,27(4), pp.283-298. Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G., 2014.Organization development and change. Cengage learning. Day, D.V., Fleenor, J.W., Atwater, L.E., Sturm, R.E. and McKee, R.A., 2014. Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25years of research and theory.The Leadership Quarterly,25(1), pp.63-82. Fullan, M., 2014.Leading in a culture of change personal action guide and workbook. John Wiley Sons. Gagnon, S. and Collinson, D., 2014. Rethinking global leadership development programmes: The interrelated significance of power, context and identity.Organization Studies,35(5), pp.645-670. Garavan, T., Watson, S., Carbery, R. and OBrien, F., 2016. The antecedents of leadership development practices in SMEs: The influence of HRM strategy and practice.International Small Business Journal,34(6), pp.870-890. Guenole, N., Chernyshenko, O., Stark, S. and Drasgow, F., 2015. Are predictions based on situational judgement tests precise enough for feedback in leadership development?.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,24(3), pp.433-443. Gurdjian, P., Halbeisen, T. and Lane, K., 2014. Why leadership-development programs fail.McKinsey Quarterly,1, pp.121-126. Hayes, J., 2014.The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave Macmillan. Komives, S.R. and Wagner, W. eds., 2016.Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development. John Wiley Sons. Ladegard, G. and Gjerde, S., 2014. Leadership coaching, leader role-efficacy, and trust in subordinates. A mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership development tool.The Leadership Quarterly,25(4), pp.631-646. Manchester, J., Gray-Miceli, D.L., Metcalf, J.A., Paolini, C.A., Napier, A.H., Coogle, C.L. and Owens, M.G., 2014. Facilitating Lewin's change model with collaborative evaluation in promoting evidence based practices of health professionals.Evaluation and program planning,47, pp.82-90. McCleskey, J.A., 2014. Situational, transformational, and transactional leadership and leadership development.Journal of Business Studies Quarterly,5(4), p.117. Rock, D., 2014.Quiet leadership. HarperCollins e-books. Skendall, K.C., Ostick, D.T., Komives, S.R. and Wagner, W., 2017.The Social Change Model: Facilitating Leadership Development. John Wiley Sons.