Evolution or Revolution, Case Study Example

Leadership Overview

Leadership is the accumulation of skills and qualities an individual utilizes when he or she is trying to accomplish a task or objective. This influence that the individual has becomes the process in which they pull together the support of others in a common goal. Leadership traits include influencing skills, charisma, intelligence, foresight and integrity to name a few. These traits are critical in the ability to lead a group of individuals to accomplish a common goal. There are five elements of leadership that will be discussed ranging from the individual leader, their followers, context, skills and management. Each area plays a critical role in the understanding and implementation of leadership. Leadership is a skill honed by practice, study and imparting the right guidance and practices. Leadership is what will drive change and new processes and methodologies that will take business, government and other entities to the next level of performance and goal achievement.

Compare and Contrast Leadership Styles

Within the core leadership skills there are differentiating factors that make certain leaders similar in the tact and ability but there are also areas where, even great leaders, differ from their peers. Throughout history key leaders of government, countries and business have certain people that are representative of great leadership. Mahatma Gandhi, Colin Powell, Rosa Parks, and many others have made their marks as great leaders throughout history. While they have core values and key leadership traits that are the same they also have very different abilities and presentation of those abilities to garner support for their cause and drive the results they are leading. This is also the case when viewing the leadership styles of Joze Stanic and Franjo Bobinac. The leadership style of Stanic is that of a charismatic and beloved leader that has engrained himself as part of the company to a point that not only was Stanic part of the company but he was seen as the face of the company. Stanic’s beliefs and position as a respected leader and beacon for the corporation was built over a period time. In order to understand the leadership styles of each person it is important to understand the environment in which they will perform their leadership activities. During Stanic’s reign as leader of Gorenje there was a huge undertaking for growth and development and during this time the maturation of the appliance industry was taking place but he also faced very uncertain times through the breakup of Yugoslavia and multiple wars. Stanic’s leadership style was that of a leader of the people and for the people. He was very close and connected to his employees and involved himself in their lives. This type of involvement showed a caring and compassionate leader that garnered respect and admiration among his peers and subordinates. Stanic had clear visions and made consistency a compass for his decisions. Stanic’s leadership style also promoted empowerment. This empowerment provided a level of trust within his people to make the right decisions. He gave them the power to make critical business decisions and gave a level of trust to his people based on the fact that he was open and provided clear and undisputed guidance on his beliefs and his direction of the company. With this type of leadership style he knew his ideations and strategic intent was clear and present to the employees acting on his behalf at lower levels of the organization. In short Stanic’s leadership style revolved around empowerment, loyalty, integrity and an open communication both horizontally and vertically through the organization.

When Stanic announced his retirement it was as if a family member was being laid to rest. The change was going to be a great deviation from what the company has known and grown accustomed to especially since Stanic had built a family of sorts in the corporation based on his leadership style. Franjo Bobinac was the head of marketing for the company while working under the leadership of Stanic. During this time he garnered a great appreciation for cooperative and strategic partnering to better gain market share for Gorenje. This style of leadership in which Bobinac was accustomed revolved around an opportunistic style and eliminating shortcomings by taking advantage of outside resources through partnerships. His style of leadership was more of a risk taker than his predecessor specifically in regard to venturing outside of the core business model that was established in Stanic’s reign as leader. During the difficult times many employees were sacrificing everything they had in order to move the company forward. This was only complicated by the leadership style differences. Bobinac was more hands off with his employees and access by the employees was almost non-existent. Bobinac and Stanic were similar in the fact that they had a vision for what they wanted to company to become but that vision would be achieved in varied ways. Stanic was a people person that led through getting his people to do things that they would not normally undertake and in the process feel like they are making a difference for the actions they are taking while making a progressive move towards the vision. Bobinac, while also a good leader, made progress toward his vision by facilitating the changes by taking advantage of opportunistic methods while also relying on the people to sacrifice for progress. The engagement of the two leaders was the most contrasting aspect of their styles.

Challenges

When a leader that is respected, beloved and successful it is always a challenge to not only fill the shoes of the predecessor but also make strides in the progression of the company and creating a legacy of his or her own. In the case of replacing Stanic there was a feeling of tension, apprehension and uncertainty when Bobinac took the help of Gorenje. The biggest challenge for Bobinac was to ease the transition from a heralded leader to a person with different views, strategy and leadership style. The replacement of the head of the household is daunting for any leader. As the transition progressed, Bobinac also faced challenges in the market due to restrictions imposed by other markets, diversification issues and emerging market challenges. The reliance of Bobinac on the foundation that Stanic created was not complimentary due to the fact that Stanic built a level of appreciation, trust and empowerment through his leadership style while Bobinac’ s style of almost an isolationistic view on leadership did not facilitate the same views and beliefs as his predecessor. Bobinac’s leadership traits revolve around taking chances to create a competitive advantage through diversification, alliances and expanding their business model. This type of leadership spread his time thin and pushed him away from the employees that were acclimated to the open door policy of Stanic which strained the relationship.

Impact

The strategy of a company is not only influenced by the leader providing the face of the strategy but also the method in which it is implemented. The change in leadership provides an opportunity to make a dramatic change due in part to the expectation of change. This provides a limited opportunity for the new leadership to make the changes necessary to not only make progressive moves in the company but also provide the acclimation needed for the company and the new leadership style. The impact on the company’s strategy is designed by the newly imparted leader of the company. This strategy is based on the style and aptitude of the new leader. In the case of Gorenje the new leader changed the strategy from an inwardly focused and employee centric strategy to an opportunistic, diversified approach that expanded the core business model into areas of uncertainty and risk. The new leader took the strategy from a focus on core business processes to expansion and risk taking. This model was different and not as supportive of the previous model as it differed in employee engagement and interaction between employees and leadership. The employees and stakeholders also had to make accommodations and adjustments to the changes in strategy. They were expected to take on more short term risk while not experiencing any short term reward in the process. The employees were expected to work outside of their comfort zone in areas that they had little or no experience. During the term of Stanic, change was embraced and supported through empowerment of the employees and heavy involvement of leadership to facilitate the changes. The employees did not experience the same type of support through Bobinac’s term. The support they were accustomed to do in fact help facilitate the change in the organization. This type of trust that was built by Stanic was not enjoyed by Bobinac. Stanic built a relationship through a series of trials and tribulations that fortified a level of trust and awareness in the organization and set a level of expectations of the employees and the actions taken by Stanic. Bobinac not only lead in a very dissimilar fashion but also did not provide the support or expected results of his previous leader. This was also apparent with the stakeholders. The stakeholders were also expected to make sacrifices during the difficult expansion and molding of the strategic expansionistic vision provided by Bobinac. While the stakeholders were not neglected they did not experience the same return on their investment as they had under Stanic’s lead.

Evolution

The transition from an internally focused leadership style to a more externally and opportunistic style was more of an evolution of business as opposed to a revolution of leadership. The first key point of this was the amicable handoff between leadership figures. Stanic knew it was time for a change in regime and he supported the transition to Bobinac. The evolution occurred because the global market was expanding and an isolationistic view was not conducive to the corporation surviving the changing climate. The new leadership style of Bobinac would provide the push toward expansionistic strategy and allow the company to grow not only in their core business practices but encapsulate other business interests as well. This was also evident when the new strategy focused on cooperation among other business partners to expand the business model and enter new riskier markets. While the challenge of change was still evident it was not met with the resistance experience with a revolution but the growing pains of a faced paced evolution of business strategy, practices and implementation. The evolution of the business model from inwardly facing employee centric business practices to outwardly facing expansion and risk taking was an evolution of leadership styles and demand for change necessitated by the changing business constructs.

Change

In the transition between leadership styles there are times when dramatic and quick change is necessary. In the case of Bobinac to ease the transition between Stanic and himself he could have taken more cues from his predecessor and incorporated some of the best practices established and ingrained into the culture of the company. Bobinac was already changing the strategic intent of the company but also faced changing the culture of the corporation that was heavily implemented through all levels of the organization. As a leader of the company it would be important to clearly establish the strategy, vision, goals and objectives for the company to follow and provide the right environment for the employees to thrive. This would be accomplished by providing clear and precise guidance on where the company is heading, a definitive timeline for events to occur and a more conducive and engaging leadership model to ease the transition between leadership styles. Bobinac was taking the company to new levels and needed to share the burden of effort in a more equilateral manner with more measureable achievements to promote engagement and illustrate progress.

References

Caroselli, M. (2001). Leadership skills for managers. McGraw-Hill Professional.

Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. Harvard Business Press.

Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., & Curphy, G. (2012). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. (7 ed.). Montouri, Amsterdam: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2008). The leadership challenge. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Praeger Publishers. Stahl, J. (2007).

Zaleznik, A. (2008). Managers and leaders: are they different? Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review.

Zenger, J. H., & Folkman, J. (2009). The extraordinary leader, turning good managers into great leaders. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.