Leadership is one of the critical factors influencing the functioning of every organization. The correct choice of theory and style can boost performance and help to achieve the existing goals, and on the contrary, the wrong employment can promote negative effects (Northouse, 2020). I have seen the implementation of the transformational and the Great Man theory and can outline critical differences between them. I am sure that the first one was more effective and contributed to the significant improvement of the team’s work. The leader was ready to cooperate and help team members to move forward by cultivating specific qualities in them and emphasizing the fact that everyone can become a good leader if he/she is ready to engage in continuous training and development. It motivated the staff and contributed to better performance rates.
On the contrary, the employment of the Great Man leadership theory did not have many positive effects. It was supported by authoritative leadership with little freedom given to workers. As a result, they felt unconfident and not motivated. Moreover, in most cases, their visions or suggestions were disregarded or viewed as irrelevant ones. It deteriorated the climate within the collective and outcomes. For this reason, I am sure that the first model was more effective. However, these strategies were aligned with business strategies as in the first case, more creativity was demanded, while in the second one, the lack of time required practical work of the collective to accomplish the task and provide the result.
Speaking about the organizational structure, I have recently observed the employment of the hierarchical method to align the functioning of the unit. It presupposes a pyramid-shaped framework with strict subordination patterns (Galbraith, 2014). The command goes from the top down, and every member has a supervisor responsible for the accomplishment of the task. This model ensures a better understanding of existing authority levels, shows existing patterns of cooperation, and motivates employees to follow direct orders (Galbraith, 2014). At the same time, the workers are deprived of the chance to innovate some processes or provide their own suggestions or solutions. It also reduces their motivation and increases the risks of conflicts because of the direct commands and the absence of options.
I think that the given model was not the best choice for the organization as it disregarded the abilities of team members, their visions of the company’s future, and their readiness to become a part of the firm. At the same time, in some cases, the lack of specialists and qualified opinions. The shift towards the product team structure can increase effectiveness and lead to better results. It presupposes the creation of a pool of specialists supporting the product during its lifecycle and reporting to a product manager. The workers will acquire a higher degree of autonomy and can offer their motivation and visions on how to attain better results or meet clients’ demands. I am sure that the choice of the correct organizational structure is vital for success; however, peculiarities of the market and current needs should be considered.
References
Galbraith, J. (2014). Designing organizations: Strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise levels (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Northouse, P. (2020). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Robertson, M. (2021). Sustainability principles and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.