6.4 Assignment: Case Study 2 – House, Hearth and Home: Managing Leadership Change
House, Hearth and Home: Managing Leadership Change
According to the case, Boyd employed a transformational leadership style. Boyd exhibited a real talent for developing workers and motivating their performance improvements, thus improving the company’s customer service feedback. Transformational leadership causes change in employees and social systems, something that was evident at House, Hearth, and Home since the owner hired Boyd. Boyd motivated employees to perform beyond their expectations. Further, Boyd’s leadership style was characterized by coaching, charisma, visionary ideas and actions. He was involved in developing relationships with employees and coaching them on how to take charge of the yard on weekends and challenged them to use their minds to do the job better even if they were there to do a physical job (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). By doing so, Boyd ensured that he did not risk losing sight of every employee’s individual learning curve.
Transformational leadership entails vision and charisma to get things done (Northouse, 2021). Boyd exhibited these qualities through self-confidence and an excellent sense of self-moral values, as well as a strong desire to control subordinates to achieve more. Boyd was able to leverage the skills and knowledge of the workers at the yard. He made everyone realize the significance of every small action. He had worked in a large organization where he had learned that it was crucial to focus on what really mattered (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). This is evident from the way workers at the yard started acting as if what they did mattered while Boyd acted as though every order was the most important. He was extremely willing to support the employees even by going to the extent of bringing them coffee to rally them when they had a busy day.
Boyd showed high confidence in the workers’ ability to perform well, which is reminiscent of transformational leadership. Transformational leaders are concerned with developing their followers’ performance. He skipped breaks to ensure customers received outstanding service, thereby turning the company around. Body was always transforming and improving upon the firm’s goals and objectives. Although every worker had a set of goals and tasks to complete, he constantly pushed them outside of their comfort zone. Boyd confronted any worker who failed to follow directions and was willing to change the procedure or work with them to reach a compromise that worked for both customer and the organization if they had a good reason for doing things differently (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). Boyd made difficult conversations with those who were pulling his team back and had to let some go, a decision Simpson agreed with.
Simpson used a combination of facilitative and laissez-faire leadership style. Facilitative leadership is centered on people, results, and quality of work with the leader aiming to improve and support a certain culture of accomplishing through productive relational procedures (Northouse, 2021). Simpson was only concerned with the results, hence dealt with employees in the most appropriate way he thought necessary. He only sought to meet the customers’ needs while trying to attain the company’s set goals and objectives. Simpson initiated changes in planning and directives when he saw that workers were performing lowly, for instance, when a worker failed to make proper delivery of a big order he sent someone else to deliver the correct order and did not punish them.
Further, Simpson used a soft approach on processes when the employees were performing well. He empowered workers with less directives, which is characteristic of leaders using the laissez-faire style of leadership. He offered employees incentives suitable for finishing tasks and allowed them to complete it personally. After Simpson received information about Graham’s call, he just nodded and said thanks, an indication that he was only interested in the result and only concentrated on what needed to be accomplished. Under Simpson’s leadership, employees got little to no guidance and he offered only the necessary incentives to complete job rather than developing them to become better performers. Workers showed little cooperation and employees could not work independently.
Coglin used an authentic leadership style, which is characterized by an emphasis on different viewpoints, for example, self-concept, self-regulation, and self-knowledge. The conversations he had on the phone with a customer, Graham provides information about his leadership style. He was a real leader with positive psychological qualities of work ethics. He exhibits relational transparency, self-awareness, balanced processing, and internalized moral view (Northouse, 2021). He was an authentic leader who cared about the welfare of his workers and customers and tried to strike a balance by ensuring that everyone’s interests were met on time despite complaints from some customers. He was genuine and non-manipulative. He knew well that hiring and quickly promoting a close friend could lead to backlash among employees.
Dan Boyd and Wesley Simpson’s approaches are different for low performing workers. Boyd was trying to find employee motivators to provide them with the opportunities to make effective contributions to the organization. He took it upon himself to coach and train workers (who thought their work demanded physical effort) to use their minds to run the yard when managers were not around, especially on weekends (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). Before Boyd was hired no employee thought of using their intellect to run the place since Simpson had not suggested or trained anyone to take his place when he was not around. The underperformers preferred being left alone, just like it had been the culture when Simpson was in charge. Underperformers wanted to follow the normal routine where if they screwed up a big order, they were never questioned about it and the manager would send someone else to correct materials.
Boyd used a confrontational approach to ensure underperformers knew why they had been hired and he had to let two of them go when they proved they could not perform as expected. As such, Boyd employed a more direct approach with the underperformers. He got involved in the process of developing their morale and approach to work. He led them like a transformational leader by providing constant motivation and pushing them to be more productive. He got everyone pumped up about their responsibilities by highlighting the important customer orders that needed urgent addressing (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). He sought to improve the reputation of the company regarding customer service to ensure that it could compete with the big brands. If it meant skipping breaks and lunches, Boyd was ready to make every client satisfied.
Simpson’s approach, on the other hand, was lenient to employees, especially the low performers. An employee would screw up a crucial order, but hear nothing bout it because Simpson never wanted to confront them. He would send another worker to the site with the proper order, an indication that his approach with underperformers was not genuine. He avoided being picked by workers while Boyd’s approach was blunt and straight. Simpson liked to ignore employee issues until a complaint was brought forward or something blew up.
One would argue that Boyd’s approach was more effective since it produced better results for the organization and led to cost-cutting. Boyd’s approach sought to motivate the non-performers and challenged them to become their better versions. His actions made workers perform their tasks with morale as opposed to Simpson’s approach which was non-confrontational when things went wrong (Heskett, & Schlesinger, 1994). Boyd ensured that he dealt with any worker who failed to follow his directives. Boyd’s approach is more effective become he sought to involve underperformers, talked to them to find a compromise that met the needs of the employee and the organization. The approach was also characterized by constructive criticism. Even Simpson agreed with Boyd’s approach and termed it as long overdue (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). Boyd was not afraid of listening to the workers to get their concerns.
Boyd and Simpson used different approaches for accomplishing tasks with Boyd opting for a behavioral leadership approach while Simpson utilized a delegating approach characterized by low-supportive low-directive style. Boyd’s approach focused on the leader’s actions, their behavior, and treat workers. Boyd used both task and relational behavior to accomplish tasks. As such, he facilitated the achievement of goals and helped workers attain their objectives. Through relationship-based behavior, Boyd made workers more relaxed with themselves when doing their job. He would go to any length to satisfy clients and achieve the task objective. He even used personal resources, such as his car to run company errands if all the company trucks were unavailable. For workers who were facing busy days, Boyd would bring them coffees to motivate them.
Simpson’s approach to accomplishing tasks involved providing less social support and goal input, thereby offering confidence to workers to attain task goals. He employed a delegative approach, which involved reduced participation in control, planning, and goal clarification. When faced with an underperforming worker, Simpson sought the help of another employee instead of guiding them to work on the order effectively (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). It is evident that Simpson refrained from involving workers or getting them committed since he avoided fights even when they directly contravened a policy. He ignored employee issues until someone complained or something blew up.
Boyd was able to accomplish so much within such a little time since he applied a skills-based approach to leadership. According to Northouse (2021), the skills-based approach involves the use of skills and abilities that are essential for effective leadership. The effectiveness of a leader lies in their capability to solve complex problems in an organization. Boyd came to the company and within a short time used his experience and capabilities to solve complex problems at House, Hearth and Home, something the Simpson lacked in his approach. Simpson, even with the long tenure in the company could not solve Graham’s issues. Graham had a long history of calling the company to complaining about bad service or wanting some problem addressed (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). He used to call Coglin directly when the company failed to deliver in any way. After Boyd was hired as the assistant manager, things turned around and Graham called with good news that every order was being well taken care of.
Further, Boyd had the talent of developing and motivating workers which drove performance higher. He made all workers realize the importance of paying attention to what really mattered, who, in turn, started to act as if everything mattered. He took upon himself to train yard workers to manage it when no one was around. Boyd was also good at developing relationships with employees, something that made him accomplish so much within the short time he was with the company (Treacy, & Wiersema, 1993). He made the employees realize that every interaction was crucial in furthering the organization’s goals. Simpson, on the other hand, was counting value rather than creating it. Therefore, Boyd accomplished much more than Simpson by focusing on the company’s clients, bottom line, and employees.
Mark Coglin has several options on which to consider regarding the positions of Simpson and Boyd in the organization. The first option would be to promote Boyd to the position of the manager and demote Simpson. This is the most viable option for all the parties involved because Boyd has been tried and tested as a transformational leader, and showed great results for the company, employees, and customers alike. His presence has also improved the competitiveness of the company and led to happy and satisfied customers, which is the goal of any company. He does not shy away from firing anyone who does not commit to the organization’s objectives, a difficult decision that seasoned managers make to move the organization forward (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). With Boyd in-charge, the company stands to save more and improve the bottom line significantly in the long run.
This option would provide Coglin with increased peace of mind as lesser customer complaints would be presented to him. Improved bottom line would also improve his value as the owner of the business. More work would get done within a shorter time and will fewer bottlenecks as employees pay attention to what matters (Rooke, & Torbert, 2005). However, Simpson might feel inferior working as Boyd’s junior, whom he might consider as inexperienced given the number of years Simpson has served at the company. The relationship between Simpson and Coglin might deteriorate by the thought that making Boyd the manager would be an act of betrayal. The risks involved with this option would include employees thinking that Boyd got the position due to his friendship with the company’s owner leading to disloyalty from long-serving employees. Simpson might get demoted or fired altogether to save more costs to the company.
Another option would be to transfer Simpson to another department that does not involve dealing directly with yard employees and customers, such as the purchasing department or the finance and accounting department. Since he is good at running the yard well, he could the same in the purchasing department. Currently, the company requires a leader with problem-solving abilities to drive it to the next level, and it is apparent that Simpson is not that kind of a person. By moving Simpson to another department, he would have safeguarded their friendship and still reward him for his loyalty to the company without any backlash from Simpson’s followers. Boyd would get the greenlight he had waited for to get in charge of the yard fully while Coglin would have things running smoothly.
Moving Simpson to a lesser hands-on department would present lesser risks. It would, however, be demotivating to Simpson who would have hoped for a promotion due to his long service and loyalty to the company. With Boyd in-charge and motivating employees, as he has been doing and building them to become future leaders would have the company raise its attractiveness to job seekers. The option would benefit Boyd in that he would get a permanent job after being laid off from his former company.
Another viable option for Coglin would be to fire Simpson because as it stands Boyd is discharging all the duties of the manager. This option would save the company more money, which could be used for company expansion or research and development (Kotter, 2001). The company requires an achievement-oriented leader like Boyd, and Simpson is not such a leader. Had Coglin not hired Boyd, Simpson would still be in charge and would eventually run the company down and have the employees laid off. So, it would be in the best interest of everyone to relieve Simpson of his duties and promote Boyd. The company is in dire need of a change of management and since Boyd can handle everything Simpson is doing, there is no loss if Simpson leaves the company. Boyd saved the company both in terms of operations and bottom line. Simpson’s management style is characterized by stagnation in handling crucial issues in the organization.
The company would be assured of repeat business as Boyd would continue to better the customer-employee relationship by pushing every worker to deal with every order as if it was the most important order of the week (Rooke, & Torbert, 2005). Coglin would be assured of lesser client complaints although Simpson would feel betrayed by the decision. Low-performing employees would severe their relationship with the company since the manager who never cared about their underperformance has been fired and would feel as if Coglin would come for them next. The company requires a transformational leader who is not afraid to take it to the next level and would be willing to do anything to ensure it succeeds.
One would recommend promoting Boyd to the position of the manager to take over from Simpson. Coglin might choose to fire Simpson based on non-performance or transfer him to another department. However, given his incompetence and the need to compete with other big businesses, Coglin would have to fire him altogether to save the company some money and get everything done at a lower cost. Coglin understands that the needs of the yard are beyond Simpson’s capabilities and Boyd’s approach is the best-suited for what is going on in the organization. If Boyd could achieve so much within the short time he has been with the company, one is poised to gather that more is in store for the company with Boyd at the helm (Kotter, 2001).
Apparently, Boyd was the real leader in the yard although Simpson had the title, and besides, he had commented how good Boyd was, an admission that Boyd was the best bet for the managerial position (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). The option would motivate Boyd to work harder and smarter to make the company more profitable, more customer-oriented and ensure every employee was happier with their work. Boyd would now be able to get the right pay for the work he was doing. Loyalty cannot beat performance since the success of the company depends on performance, therefore, Boyd wins over Simpson as the best person for the job (Rooke, & Torbert, 2005). Coglin is the owner of the company and the onus rests on him to make the best decisions for his business even if the decisions do not sit well with some employees. He should not be worried of what employees would think if he promotes Boyd.
Opting to promote Boyd into the position of the manager, Coglin would be choosing a skills-based approach to leadership since Boyd seemed to emphasize his skills and abilities to rescue the company from the situation. The skills approach focuses on conceptual, human, and technical skills of the leader (Northouse, 2021). Boyd had gained technical skills from his previous employment, which gave him the proficiency needed at House, Hearth, and Home. Technical skills entail training employees on how to become more competent, which is exactly what Boyd was involved in. Boyd has the human skill to work with employees. He had proven that he could confront any worker who did not follow directions.
Boyd listened to everyone and if one had a good reason for doing things differently, he would alter the procedure or work with the individual to arrive at a compromise that met the organization and employee’s needs. He, however, let the worker straighten up when they could not provide a viable rationale for the failures (MacMillan, & Woodwark, 2012). He applied conceptual skills by talking about his ideas and showing the economic principles for the company. Boyd exemplified cognitive ability, motivation, and the right personality to take the company forward.
Therefore, Coglin needs a leader who could challenge complex organizational problems by showing dominance and control over employees to show them the right direction to meet company objectives and goals (Heifetz, & Laurie, 1997). Boyd is the type of person who got everyone pumped up on the importance of work and getting everyone committed to clients. He brought forth the hidden opportunities to impress customers and should be rewarded with a managerial position.
References
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75, 124-134.
Heskett, J. L., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164-174.
Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 25-33.
MacMillan, K., & Woodwark, M. (2012). House, Hearth and Home: Managing leadership change. Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation.
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th Ed.). Sage Publications.
Rooke, D., & Torbert, W. R. (2005). Seven transformations of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 83(4), 66-76.
Treacy, M., & Wiersema, F. (1993). Customer intimacy and other value disciplines. Harvard Business Review, 71(1), 84-93.
Leave a Reply