Reflecting on one event that created a disruption in my ability to address the simulation was the lack of time towards planning and setting goals related to the facilitation of the given objective. Though the inputs were given ahead of time, there were many technicalities that need to be communicated with the designers and some clarifications concerning the different standards and rules concerning implementation. Such exchanges of correspondence caused a delay in the value of ascertaining the appropriate strategy necessary towards its actual implementation and facilitation.
Due to this, it brought about a disruption and limited capacity to effectively carry out the presentation. Analyzing its impact it had on our sector, clearly this lack of time pressured people to work extra harder and longer for the presentation to be completed. Since we are way past the target deadline for specific objectives, we had to rush and create sub-par to average results in each step. In essence, we had to rely on our individual and group capacities in order to effectively generate the expectations accordingly.
Similarly, it also hindered our functions and efficiency due to the fact that we had to skip or pass through different stages faster than what is expected. At the same time, this disruption also provided a delay in the determination of the feasibility of the application/presentation towards Centerville. Since the project was given in our sector for careful study and analysis, we were given specific time frame and purpose in administering the appropriate expectations. Seeing this, this situation not only brought delay in our abilities but also infused limited value in the contribution of our sector.
Such aspect then became crucial in ascertaining what elements are then necessary in order for this problem to be alleviated in prevented in the future instances to come. Discussion 9 Here, the conflict that occurred between the administrator and employee concerning an issue concerning the application of norms and business culture. On one hand, the administrator argues that it should be implemented because it helps carry out effectiveness and increased productivity. However, the employee contradicts this by saying it may prove to be destructive to the company’s image and would likely put them into trouble.
Seeing this, the administrator vouched the case into higher authorities for immediate action. It resulted towards higher management favoring the employee. Due to this, the administrator sought to get even by using coercive actions and abuses towards the employee. Analyzing this case, it can be seen that the function and application actions provided by the administrator must have been cultivated by the decision of the upper management to support the argument of the employee. In my opinion, the mindset of the administrator has always been to improve on his tasks and responsibilities accordingly.
By accepting these areas accordingly, it can help consolidate better and efficient process. Such actions are only responses towards finding means to induce appropriate tasks and delegate them to employees accordingly (Clawson, 2008). However, due to the inclination towards the employee, the administrator felt belittled and illustrated actions against ethical considerations. At the same time, the same process can also be seen in his capacity to act and react according to his VABE. Here, it contradicts his original responsibility and task of not exercising coercive and abusive actions related to his position.
However, due to this inability to be recognized accordingly, he results to such harsh actions because he continues to believe in his arguments as effective. On the other hand, regardless of his original intentions and the outcome of his actions, the manner in which his VABE is applied remains to be destructive and limits his opportunity to become an effective leader (Northouse, 2008). This then creates a shift of values stimulated by one’s personal emotions and perceptions over an issue.
Seeing this, the actions of the administrator limit his credibility as a leader because of his capacity to exercise decisions based on his personal interests and feelings. Rather than appealing and using formalized communication, he results to dirty tactics and abuses his power over the employee. Such dynamics then illustrate his limited capacity to address the issue effectively and hamper the relationship not only with the particular employee but to others as well. This then becomes a constraint in outlining appropriate means towards exercising competency not only in his responsibilities but also his capacity to overcome such dilemmas.
Discussion 10 Analyzing the implementation of policy and development within our organization, it can be seen that there are formalized processes that allow divisions and managers to actively decipher what are the essential directions and objectives that the company should follow. Again, these amendments and inclusion of rules coincide with the goals, directions, and objectives by the company towards their employees and the workforce. In essence, the development process correlates with the active leadership and style expressed by an individual relatively affects the manner on how rules are implemented and developed accordingly (Kouzes, 2007).
Similarly, in terms of defining new ground rules and aspects related to introduction of new policies, there is a corresponding process from its initial introduction towards its implementation within a specific division or to whole of the company. Such dynamics in turn provide appropriate means to correlate and integrate the value of communication (formal) between managers – subordinates and vice versa. Such dynamics then provide better means for careful analysis and study while at the same time makes leaders responsible in ensuring that ethical considerations and operational patterns are addressed efficiently (Clawson, 2008).
Given that our organization has specific evaluation process for the validity of expressing options for policy development and change, it can be argued that this remains to be formalized and undergoes specific steps in order to be addressed and looked into. In particular, it tries to designate specific precepts and policies related to the feasibility of the process and how it can be applied to a particular department or division. Though informal means of evaluation are provided such as suggestion and opinions, it does not hamper and impact the decision making among leaders.
Rather, these inputs are consolidated and taken into consideration when the process of utilizing its effectiveness within a particular field is sought. References Clawson, J. G. (2008). Level three leadership: Getting below the surface (4th ed. ). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Northouse, P. G. (2008). Introduction to leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing Kouzes, J. , Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge (4rded. ). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.