Danny Wong, a claims supervisor at an insurance company, recently took a leadership development course sponsored...

 

Transcribed Image Text:

Danny Wong, a claims supervisor at an insurance company, recently took a leadership development course sponsored by his company. The major thrust of the course was to teach supervisors how to implement participative leadership and management. The course leader said, "Today, almost all employees want to get involved. They want a say in important decisions affecting them. The era of the know-it-all manager has long passed." Wong was mildly skeptical about the course leader's universal endorsement of participative leadership. Yet he decided that if this is what the company wanted, he would adopt a more participative style. Six months after the leadership development program was completed, the human resources department attempted to evaluate its impact. One part of the program evaluation was to speak to employees about how the course influenced their boss's approach to supervision. Rick Alluto, the company training director, conducted several of the interviews with employees. He spoke first with Amy Green, a claims analyst who reported to Danny. Rick told Amy that her answers would be confidential. He said that the purpose of these interviews was to evaluate the effectiveness of the leadership training program, not to evaluate the supervisor. Amy responded, "It would be okay with me if Danny did hear my comments. I have nothing very critical to say. I think the leadership training program was useful. Danny is a much better manager now than in the past. He's much more aware that the people in his group have something useful to contribute. Danny asks our opinion on many issues. "I'll give you an example. Danny was going to order a new office copier and printer. In the past, he might have just ordered a new copier and printer and told us when it was going to be delivered. Instead, Danny held three meetings to decide on which brand of copier and printer would best meet our needs. Three of us chose a copier that everybody in the office, including the new office assistant, agreed would be best." Rick then spoke to Kent Nelson, another claims analyst reporting to Danny. Kent said he appreciated the fact that the interviews would be confidential. However, he hoped that the drift of his comments would get back to Danny so long as he was not identified. Kent offered this evaluation: "Danny has gone downhill as a manager ever since he took your leadership development program. He has been lazier than ever. Danny always did have a tendency to pass off too much work to employees. Now, he's gone overboard. The recent purchase of the photocopier and printer is a good example. Too many people spent too much time deciding on which machine to purchase. To make matters worse, a committee of three people was formed to research the possibilities. It seems to me that we can make better use of working time. "If Danny keeps up this approach to supervision much longer, he won't have a job. We will be doing all his work. How can you justify a supervisor's salary if other people are doing his work?" Rick thought to himself, "I wonder if Amy and Kent are talking about the same supervisor. Their comments make it difficult for me to know whether the development program is getting the job done." 11.13 How do you explain the different perceptions of Amy and Kent? 11.14 What suggestions can you offer Danny for making better use of the consensus leadership style? 11.15 What is the counterargument to Kent's point about Wong not justifying his pay? Danny Wong, a claims supervisor at an insurance company, recently took a leadership development course sponsored by his company. The major thrust of the course was to teach supervisors how to implement participative leadership and management. The course leader said, "Today, almost all employees want to get involved. They want a say in important decisions affecting them. The era of the know-it-all manager has long passed." Wong was mildly skeptical about the course leader's universal endorsement of participative leadership. Yet he decided that if this is what the company wanted, he would adopt a more participative style. Six months after the leadership development program was completed, the human resources department attempted to evaluate its impact. One part of the program evaluation was to speak to employees about how the course influenced their boss's approach to supervision. Rick Alluto, the company training director, conducted several of the interviews with employees. He spoke first with Amy Green, a claims analyst who reported to Danny. Rick told Amy that her answers would be confidential. He said that the purpose of these interviews was to evaluate the effectiveness of the leadership training program, not to evaluate the supervisor. Amy responded, "It would be okay with me if Danny did hear my comments. I have nothing very critical to say. I think the leadership training program was useful. Danny is a much better manager now than in the past. He's much more aware that the people in his group have something useful to contribute. Danny asks our opinion on many issues. "I'll give you an example. Danny was going to order a new office copier and printer. In the past, he might have just ordered a new copier and printer and told us when it was going to be delivered. Instead, Danny held three meetings to decide on which brand of copier and printer would best meet our needs. Three of us chose a copier that everybody in the office, including the new office assistant, agreed would be best." Rick then spoke to Kent Nelson, another claims analyst reporting to Danny. Kent said he appreciated the fact that the interviews would be confidential. However, he hoped that the drift of his comments would get back to Danny so long as he was not identified. Kent offered this evaluation: "Danny has gone downhill as a manager ever since he took your leadership development program. He has been lazier than ever. Danny always did have a tendency to pass off too much work to employees. Now, he's gone overboard. The recent purchase of the photocopier and printer is a good example. Too many people spent too much time deciding on which machine to purchase. To make matters worse, a committee of three people was formed to research the possibilities. It seems to me that we can make better use of working time. "If Danny keeps up this approach to supervision much longer, he won't have a job. We will be doing all his work. How can you justify a supervisor's salary if other people are doing his work?" Rick thought to himself, "I wonder if Amy and Kent are talking about the same supervisor. Their comments make it difficult for me to know whether the development program is getting the job done." 11.13 How do you explain the different perceptions of Amy and Kent? 11.14 What suggestions can you offer Danny for making better use of the consensus leadership style? 11.15 What is the counterargument to Kent's point about Wong not justifying his pay?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1113 How do you explain the different perceptions of Amy and Kent The different perceptions of Amy and Kent towards Dannys management style after his leadership development training might be explained ... View the full answer