Low Concern for Production High

Country Club Leadership- High People/Low Production. This style of leader is most concerned about the needs and feelings of members of his/her team. These people operate under the assumption that as long as team members are happy and secure then they will work hard. What tends to result is a work environment that is very relaxed and fun but where production suffers due to lack of direction and control.  Produce Leadership- High Production/ Low People. People in this category believe that employees are simply a means to an end.

Employee needs are always secondary to the need for efficient and productive workplaces. Impoverished Leadership- Low Production/ Low People. This leader is mostly ineffective. He/ she has neither a high regard for creating systems for getting the job done, nor for creating a work environment that is satisfying and motivating. Middle of the Road- Medium Production/ Medium People. This style seems to be a balance of the two competing concerns.

Get quality help now

writer-Charlotte

Verified writer

Proficient in: Business

4.7 (348)

“ Amazing as always, gave her a week to finish a big assignment and came through way ahead of time. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

It may at first appear to be an ideal compromise.

Therein lies the problem, though: When you compromise, you necessarily give away a bit of each concern so that neither production nor people needs are fully met. Leaders who use this style settle for average performance and often believe that this is the most anyone can expect. Team Leadership- High Production/ High People. These leaders stress production needs and the needs of the people equally highly. The premise here is that employees are involved in understanding organizational purpose and determining production needs.

When employees are committed to, and have a stake in the organization's success, their needs and production needs coincide. This creates a team environment based on trust and respect, which leads to high satisfaction and motivation and, as a result, high production. The case study that I have for Corus, explains that every employee is included in the organizational change. The steel company employees can contribute ideas for improving their working practice. The empowerment of employees and managers helps them to feel valued and gives them job satisfaction.

So from that we know about Corus we can conclude that the company uses Team leadership to overcome the leadership crisis. Like we can see at the one end is the slow change, where the focus is on behavioural and cultural change. At the other end is a rapid change, where the focus is on major changes in structures and processes. The figure shows 4 quadrants, each of which has a distinct focus in terms of change. Quadrants 1 and 2, represents situations where organisations operating in a turbulent environment need to make large-scale, organisation- wide change to either their culture or structure.

Quadrants 3 and 4, represents situations where organisations operating in a stable environment need to make small-scale, piecemeal and localized adjustments to attitudes and behaviours or tasks and procedures. Corus is in the quadrant 3, the company needs new machinery and procedures in order to become more competitive. Quadrant 3 represents organisation operating in a relatively stable environment where changes to the technical side of the organisation tend to be relatively small-scale and piecemeal and with few implications for behaviour and attitudes.

Such changes take place at the individual and group level rather than at the level of the entire company. How these are managed will depend on the culture of the organisation: In a traditional, bureaucratic organisation- Tayloristic approach (specialist managers and engineers will identify the 'best way of working' and impose it. In a more particular culture, such as Japanese company, a more collaboratively approach may be appropriate, such as a Kaizen initiative that brings together a team comprising workers and specialists. Kaizen which means 'good change' is a Japanese approach for change.

Kaizen encompasses a solid commitment to never-ending, steady improvement for everyone, management and employees alike. Weaknesses are actively sought out documented, and remedied via dedicated discussion and actions that are part of the normal workday, rather than being occasional or external. Kaizen has two major aspects: To maintain current managerial operating and technological standards. To simultaneously seek to improve those standards. After mastering the current standards, higher ones are set, creating an impetus for improvement.

Kaizen must be part of a sustainable culture; it cannot be easily set aside, and it must empower and include all concerned individuals. Corus used the Kaizen method to make small improvements across the company. For example: Kaizen helped to minimise the cost for waste. These improvements helped the company to add lean production. Lean production is an approach to production that seeks to minimise waste and inefficiency and uses fewer resources more efficiently. Lean production increases productivity which improves profitability.

Another aspect of lean production that helps to save costs of stock is the just-in-time principle. Just-in-time means producing and supplying goods at the time they are needed. This reduced costs and helped to improve the return on investments for shareholders. The just-in-time approach also carries risks- if the business has no stock it could be less able to cope if suppliers fail to deliver. Risk is a combination of the probability of an event and its consequences. In order Corus to overcome this risk, I recommend to invest in supply chain systems.

Supply chain systems is a network of organisations and business processes for procuring raw materials, transforming these materials into intermediate and finished products to customers. It links suppliers, manufacturing plants, distribution centers, retail outlets, and customers to supply goods and services from source through consumption. Whirlpool invested in such system and the results were great. Even before the project was completed, it had already produced huge improvements in customer service and reduced supply chain costs.

I think that Corus made the right choice to begin a drastic change in the way the company works. In order to do that, the organisation needed people. According to the Kurt Lewin's theory- in one organisation exists drivers and resistors for change. Resistors and drivers can be people and factors in the organisation. In Corus the drivers for change were more than the resistors that is the reason the organisation to except the need for change. According to Burnes (2004) change is an ever-present feature of organizational life, both at an operational and strategic level.

Therefore, there should be no doubt regarding the importance to any organisation of its ability to identify where it needs to be in the future, and how to manage the changes required getting there. Consequently, organizational change cannot be separated from organizational strategy, or vice versa (Burnes, 2004; Rieley and Clarkson, 2001). Corus is an example for organizational change that is successful. I think that they should continue to use continuous improvements and Kaizen even after implemented at the highest because that will increase the company's efficiency.