新西兰代写assignment范文参考

经过对凯洛格布朗路特公司（简称KBR）对它旗下一个业务部门，即“政府和基础设施”部门的深度分析后，开始进行一个叫做“艾伦比和康诺特”的项目。该项目的主要目的是为了改善英国驻军士兵居住和工作地点的环境。为了更好地执行这个项目，KBR公司开始了和国防服务有限公司（以下简称ADSL）的联合经营，这也使得这个项目吸引了许多让的关注。

我们很容易就能表述出来在这个案例学习中我们得到的关于领导风格的成果，但是要把成果分析清楚却是很复杂的。原因在于ADSL公司里每个管理人员的权威性和工作角色的责任感存在很大的差异，因此无法用相同的权重去衡量它们。多年以来人们广泛地运用各种角度去研究他们的领导力，以及尝试把这种研究建立在学术基础上。以下这些都是被广泛运用的基本领导力模式

独裁的（非常经典的一种方式，管理人员掌握权力并且制定决策）

官僚的（机构的管理通过书面资料、流程、政策，或者强制执行某些规则）

民主的（管理人员在决策制定的过程中与他人进行商议，参考他人的意见）

放任的（放任自由，提供极少或者根本不提供指引）

After critically analyzing of Kellogg, Brown & Root Company (KBR) and one of its business unit, Government and Infrastructure (G&I), which was delivering project called Allenby/Connaught. The key intend of this project is to get better the living and working locations for British soldiers at garrisons. To execute this project KBR formed a joint venture with Aspire Defence Service Limited (ADSL) which is the center of attention of this project.

 

The leadership style in the case study is simple to state but complicate to explain because the degree of authority and responsibility of job roles in ADSL is differ from one another and it cannot be measured on identical scale. Though over the years, leadership has been studied widely in an assorted perspective and academic fundamentals. For example, basic style of leadership
 

- Autocratic (classical approach, manager holds the authority and makes the decisions)

 

- Bureaucratic (manages by the book, procedure, policy, enforcing rules)

 

- Democratic (manager consults, informs, shares decision making, reference needed)

 

- Laissez Faire (hands off, provides little or no direction)
 

Doyle, M. E. & Smith, M. K. (2001), David A. Van Seters & Richard, H. G. Field (1990) stated in literature that leadership theories consists and developed on 'generations' of theory or on different era's such as:

 

- Trait theory (Personality Era)

 

- Style theory (Behavior Era

 

- Contingency theory (Situation Era)

 

- Charismatic theory (Transformational Era)

 

- Transactional theory (Transactional Era)

 

- Theory Z & Mckinsey 7's framework (Culture Era)

 

There are many further leadership theories which is very much familiar in academia such as Servant leadership, Task-Oriented leadership, People-Oriented or Relations-Oriented leadership, etc.

 

Despite all theories and limited but diverse roles described in ADSL brought our attention to some extent machine bureaucracy and divisionlised because the standard of work process and output become the key coordinating mechanism for instance each new employee at ADSL have to meet certain standards during their probationary period

 

However some roles such as carpenter who have freedom to make his own judgment to do the job referred to laissez fair style of leadership.

 

Whereas David Gubby as an Asset manager and Dan Webb as an Estate General Manager viewed as Professional bureaucracy or bureaucratic leadership.

 

Deborah Marsh on high level position of Strategic Development Director at ADSL, Her leadership style is to influence others at work.

 

There has always been an enormous debate about what makes an effective leader. People use terms such as charisma, loyalty and integrity in an attempt to define the qualities of a successful leader however sometimes it would be unsuccessful if someone attempts to define a particular set of qualities that would fit all leaders. Porter L. & McLaughlin, G. (2006) believed that there is no approved or define set of components that contain the context for leader behavior, or other types of behavior, occurring within an organizational. According to Clark Reed, it is more appropriate to think of effective leadership in terms of 'Results' - a good leader gets trust, loyalty and consistently good performance from their employees and 'Behaviour' - what they do to achieve those results. Drucker, P. (2004) stated that the only thing you can say about a leader is that a leader is somebody who has followers. In the view of Ben Brink (2002) leadership frequently presumes that one guides other, however it is about guiding oneself for the advantages of others.

 

 

There are no collective set of pieces that contains perfect culture for their worker performance and overall organizational performance, nevertheless after careful scrutinize from the appropriate literature (Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. 2005, Osborn, R.N. et al., 2002) suggested the following vital sources of organizational culture which might affects on organizations:

 

* People / Composition

 

* Processes

 

* Mission / Goal / Purpose

 

* Organizational hierarchy / Structure

 

* Organization stability / State / Condition

 

* Trust and Honesty

 

* Power / Authority

 

* Time

 

* Communication style

 

* Reward systems

 

* Etc.

 

Gillingham H. & Robert, B. (2006) confirmed that people are the most central and complex element in an organization. According to Gundry, J. & Metes, G. (1996) people behaviors is often manipulated by their beliefs, values, attitudes, and the organization culture. Gillingham H. & Robert, B. (2006) stated that it is complicated to get people to do things in a different way because people can simply fall back on defensive routines. A state of willingness require from individuals to get people to modify the way that they do things (Yeh, Y. et al., 2006). It is time to remember what a company really is: a social organization designed to connect people in the attainment of a valuable and meaningful purpose and how important it is for the organizations to know what they know, not only what they owns.

 

Many of our modern business icons also consider as world best leaders for e.g. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton, Ricardo Semler, Richard Branson, Fred Smith, etc. How did they proceed from theory to action and maybe their genius cannot be codified (David Newkirk, 2007).

 

§ Let's take an example of SEMCO, Brazil's most famous, highly unusual and successful company. SEMCO demonstrate that practice of strategy is an art, not science. For the 20 years Ricardo Semler, CEO of SEMCO attempts to define its business and he said, once you say what business you are in, you put your employees into a mental straitjacket. You make border lines around their thinking and, worst of all, you hand them a handy excuse for ignoring new opportunities but we are not in that business (Ricardo Semler, 2000). SEMCO does not have a mission statement, its own rulebook or any written policies. It does not have an organization chart, a human resources department or even, these days, a headquarters. Ricardo Semler celebrated as a role model of a Chief Executive who breaks all the conventional rules and succeeds massively. It seems that the way he works, letting his employees decide what they do, where and when they do it, and even how they get paid, is too upside-down for most managers. (Charles Handy, BBC English). So does Ricardo Semler have a theory of management? Well, sort of, for example, grant people the freedom to do what they want. Sometimes Ricardo Semler redefines his role, since the organization really running itself. He now sees himself as the questioner, challenger and catalyst, as the person who asks basic questions and encourages people to bring things down to the simplest level, to apply commonsense to complicated issues. It is more artistic than scientific; the scientific, technical part is basically less important stress by Ricardo Semler, (2004.)

 

Chen, C. & Huang, J. (2007) described organizational culture as shared value, beliefs, and work atmospheres that could have considerable impacts on the behaviors of employees. According to Yeh, Y. et al., (2006) culture is the combination of value, core belief, behavior model, and emblem. Culture is normally reflected in the form of organization's corporate structure, management and leadership style, learning from experience, norms, and practices, trust, rewards and recognition, networks and community of practices etc (DeLong, DW. & Fahey, L. 2004, Al-Hawamdeh, S. 2003). Culture can play a role for organizational learning and every organization's culture is an independent entity different than any other organization. Culture is not only intangible and illusive, but it can also be observed at multiple levels in an organization.

 

Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (2000) stated that employee often assumes that the people in top of 'organizational hierarchy / structure' have greater knowledge and expertise and this difference amongst individual may be seen as a barrier. Employees on different hierarchical or designations frequently struggle to share knowledge between these levels, as they feel they may have much or more knowledge on a particular subject but not consulted or totally ignored because of their position in organization. Furthermore Webb, S. (1998) revealed that managers often try to avoid consult subordinates because they might 'fear for losing face'. If skills are greatly diverse within professional areas and/or within ranks, it might obstruct the tools and practice through the knowledge is shared between levels.