Academic Integrity: tutoring, explanations, and feedback — we don’t complete graded work or submit on a student’s behalf.

Assigned questions for Case: “The Power of Leadership Teams” What lessons do you

ID: 325656 • Letter: A

Question

Assigned questions for Case: “The Power of Leadership Teams”

What lessons do you think the company learned about transforming its leadership system to a team based organization?

Chapter 8:Quality Teamwork 355 As the plant manager considered the requirements isions. The previous GM had that had failed miserably associates were bitter and had conflicts for the future, he determined that the structure, pro- cesses, and culture of the plant would need to change Therefore, top management must change how it oper ated, broadening capabilities at all levels. Processes and many artments. There seemed to be a ad aia thought that the expectations of were needed to manage decision-making risk and gain be overwhelming and were consensus on direction. A new organizational structure m Procesf the team failed, they would be held was one of the early steps in their transformation. The nsible and their careers would be structure provided an "outside in" focus--identifying at Others thought that their jobs might rdy the operations function as the primary internal cu in ted tomer, and grouped plant activities into several func tional areas. stared at this list and wondered what she had However, plant management knew that simply to. What recommendations would yo caing the boxes on an organization chart was not ake to her to address these issues? sufficient for real change. In the summer of 1995, the plant manager and nine other employees took their first The Power of Leadership Teams$2 Then the top management group at Georgia Power roles and responsibilities on this new team and be Company's Plant Hammond decided to become a developing team relationships. They agreed that t step toward becoming a team when they came togeth at a facilitated off-site meeting. They clarified individual In cam, everyone was quite sure that they were already role of each leadership-team member should be one of team and worked pretty well together. The top lead- "shared responsibilities with a functional focus." Top managers at the plant could no longer make decisions fro only their own departments view. In fact, man agers were required to consider the impact of their ership group in early 1995 was 10 people from three gement levels and two individual contributors. The management style was much the same as they had been using for many years in the utility industry decisions-not only on the total plant but also on the total operating system of the Southern Compan as characterized by an emphasis on the chain of command for most decisions-with the important Each member took on the responsibility to cham- ion specific transformation activities for the leader made by one or two people. Information and p business results were communicated on a need to ship team. The team know" basis. For the most part, each department session meetings w operated and made decisions independently e-da here they discussed and made deci sions on strategic and operational issues. This man agement team took a key developmental step in 1996 , given its business requirements. The business was relatively predictable and structured with a regu ing them to their organizations durin This management style served the utility business by setting expectations for their behavior and present g reviews of the 1996 plant strategic plan. Putting these expectations rate of return, regional market protection, and percent control of access to its own distribution on the record" built incentives to acr accordingly A watershed development, however, occurredThe team tound several tools to be helpful in its operation and development. One was a common n the early 1990s-a move toward deregulation. This demanded fundamental changes in the way Plant Ham- work plan that served multiple purposes: (1) to ensure integration of their efforts and to track team results; (2) to establish member accountability; (3) to facilitate traditional plant manager tasks; and ts resources. In the early 1990s, the plant had reduced the num ber lagement levels and fewer managers in those levels. (4) as a catalyst In early 1995, the paren to surface strategic issues. Each team responsibility for the accomplishment o er of employees by about one third, resulting in fewer the delegation o , the parent organization, Southern Com member took resp pany, implemented a transformation process improve the plant's ability to compete. to particular parts of the work plan e team also used various assessment instru ments to understand and deal with the different indi am members. Each team member an emphasis This transformation processr business results at all levels and creation of an vidual styles of te discussed his As a result, members made commitments for or her assessment in an open forum. 0 organization culture that could deal with uncertainty and competition

Explanation / Answer

1 Ans:- The leadership was earlier based on decision of one or two key members. The decision moved from the chain of command. There are various lessons that company learned by transforming its leadership system to a team based organisation:-

a. After transforming to team based organisation the top management had to look for the impact of it's decision on total operating system of southern company.

b. Integration of efforts and track result. Each team member took responsibility to accomplishment of particular part of plan.

c. Each team member formulated his own plan based on his acceessment.

2 Ans:- There are certain conditions for management teams to become real teams like:-

a. To become real team, every management team should look from holistic perspectic to achieve results and now for its own benefit.

b. They should work towards a common objective to achive their goal.

c. The team should take the ownership to deal with any adverse situation and deliver results accordingly.

3 Ans:- There are few challenges like:-

a. Delegation of power at different levels can create confusion in decision making.

b. To make the decision from overall perspective can harm certain departments result.