ULMS821: Developing as a Manager and a Leader - Leadership Assignment Help

Assignment Task:

Leadership in Practice – Case Study Analysis 

Please read the following case and answer ALL subsequent questions.
 
Compassion Wear (CW) is a family-owned business in southern California that was founded by Michael Smith. CW manufactures fashionable yet eco-friendly and cruelty-free merchandise such as shoes, clothes, and accessories. Known for his warm and embracing personality, Michael is highly admired and loved by members of the shoe factory. Workers have always felt that this is ‘their own business’ as Michael managed the factory by walking around and always sought his workers’ feedback and input prior to introducing a new item. Workers did not perceive Michael as the ‘big boss’ but rather as one them – as he frequently emphasized in his recurrent motivational speeches to his workers. Michael also showed interest in each of his workers’ affairs and concern for their well-being. Every 4 months, Michael would organize barbecue and sports events where workers and their families would enjoy a day of fun and laughter. Michael is frequently quoted for saying ‘your family is my family’ and because of that and many more reasons, CW is a place many people would like to work in. 

Since Michael Smith started the business 10 years ago, CW has witnessed rapid growth. In 2014, the demand for ethical products surged in California, and because of their trendy designs, CW became a highly sought after product all over the states. Such an increase in demand necessitated that Michael expands the operations to serve areas beyond southern California. Michael was very excited to take on the challenge. Being aware that he wouldn’t be able to supervise these increasing operations by himself, he started looking for operations managers who could help him out with production. Not being very knowledgeable in HR-related matters, Michael sought input from an external consultant who helped him identify who from his existing staff could take on a managerial role. After a month of deliberation, the consultant advised Michael to promote one of his current employees, Leyla and to recruit an external candidate for the other managerial position. Michael was very excited to have Leyla, who has been working with him for almost 5 years, on board. He was also enthusiastic to welcome, Rosie, a designer from Los Angeles, who had extensive experience in custom-made productions. Michael also recruited 3 production workers to assist with the operations. The new production workers were distant relatives of his and although they did not necessarily possess the right skills, Michael thought they could be easily trained. In the weekly meeting, Michael announced that the production team would now be split into 2 larger groups, one headed by Leyla and one headed by Rosie. Workers were not particularly happy about this change as many of them felt demoted now that a managerial layer existed between them and Michael but they trusted him and thought that not much would ultimately change. 

Rosie’s team consisted of the 3 newly recruited workers and 7 already existing workers. At the start of the workday, Rosie took half an hour to introduce herself where she also set some ground rules on how she wanted the work to be done. She presented her team with a list of performance standards and made it explicitly clear that she would not tolerate anything below them. The 3 new recruits started work on the same day as Rosie’s and she assigned them to be trained by 3 older members – trainers - who felt enthusiastic at first by being given additional responsibility. Rather quickly though, the ‘trainers’ got frustrated with the additional task they were given and felt not fairly compensated for such a burdening task. After all, the new recruits did not possess the required skills and the trainers were not given the necessary resources by Rosie, be it in terms of time, space, or salary adjustment. Being a brilliant designer, Rosie also took the habit of coming up with her own designs and dictating them to the team for production. She was not very malleable when it came to designing amendments and soon enough, the team stopped giving her their input. Being highly meticulous with exquisite attention to detail, Rosie valued time on her own and was not interested in making small talk. She was very clear when giving instructions to her workers and frequently scrutinized the production designs to make sure they exactly fitted the prototype. Rosie enjoyed spending her time at her own working station and she would occasionally drop by the workers to check how they were getting along with their work. A month into her role, Rosie thought that things were on track until she started noticing several mistakes in production. Being highly irritated with her team and concerned about how Michael would perceive her, Rosie scheduled a meeting where she reiterated the performance standards. In the mid of the meeting, Joseph, one of the more senior production workers and trainer interrupted her and expressed how unhappy he and his fellow workers were. Taken by surprise, Rosie did not know how to handle the situation. She promptly ended the meeting and went out to think for a bit on her own. She realized that several things at CW were bothering her and that she needed to address Michael soon.
 
Leyla’s team was doing much better. Being a former production worker herself, Leyla knew how well the team was accustomed to work. Having been assigned 6 workers to supervise in total, Leyla was very comfortable with her new role. As she was quite outgoing and well-inducted into the workplace, Leyla made a point to carry Michael’s legacy. She interacted very frequently with the team, advocated an ‘open-door policy’ and even set up her working station right beside her team. Leyla was known to be a good listener and to consult her team members whenever she came up with a new design. Keen on taking everyone’s input, Leyla would often stall production until everyone was on board; this was consequently impacting speed of production and Leyla’s team had recently been receiving several complaints. Although her team was generally happy and satisfied, one of them, Marc, thought that Leyla was weak and did not know how to be an effective leader. Marc was not very happy that he was not chosen to lead the team and would not miss a chance to show his potential and to highlight any of Leyla’s shortcomings. A particular incident played to Leyla’s disadvantage when she was on sick leave for 2 weeks. Having had to fill in for Leyla in her absence, Marc was adamant to show Michael that production could be increased and improved. With a strict deadline, Marc was able to efficiently drive the production process and deliver the products on time. In doing so, he decreased workers lunch-break time, enforced his directives, and was often heard shouting. What was even more striking is that he stole one of Leyla’s designs and claimed it his own – despite several confrontations with the workers and, later on, with Leila.
 
Walking through the workplace, Michael could sense that the once warm ambience was no longer there: He saw several of the usually joyful workers sitting in silence with clear signs of demotivation apparent in their demeanour. He heard Joseph complain about being unhappy and saw Rosie storm out of the meeting room. Turning around, he could clearly hear Marc harshly addressing one of the production workers. Something was severely wrong. Michael felt urged to intervene. 

QUESTIONS 

Using leadership theory, please analyse the CW case study by addressing the following issues: 
1. Compare and contrast the leadership styles of Michael, Rosie, and Leyla. 

2. What are some of the challenges that Rosie and Leyla face in leading their teams? What could be a possible danger in having Marc in a leadership role? 

3. In terms of leadership development, what advice would you give Michael to be a better leader? What advice would you give him for training Leyla and Rosie?

This ULMS821: Leadership Assignment has been solved by our Leadership Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.