Rsat Task 1 Essay Example

Rsat Task 1 Essay After reading through the different types of leader styles, I sat and analyzed how I deal with managing issues. I concluded that I am a Problem Solver type of leader. This individual uses a systematic approach to combating issues that arise. When a situation rises that needs attention, I figure out exactly what the problem is; lay out scenarios to resolve the problem and working toward a goal that eliminates the problem. I then devise a plan or map for the solution to the problem. I also take input from all that would be affected by the problem and even those affected by the outcome, and weigh that input when deciding a plan to resolve the problem. Strengths and Weaknesses Every leadership style has strengths and weaknesses. Being a problem solver, I can easily understand how spending too much time discussing the problem itself, and not arriving at a solution could be a big weakness. This weakness never allows for the problem to be solved, just analyzed over and over. On the flip side of this, a leader that listens to input from their team members is also strength to this type of leadership. We will write a custom essay sample on Rsat Task 1 specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Rsat Task 1 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Rsat Task 1 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer This leader then has a wide range of diverse views regarding the problem and possible solutions. The leader is subjecting itself to points that they or other members may not be able to see regarding the problem. This will allow for a more in depth view of the problem and possible ways to solve it that could be more beneficial for the team as a whole. A strength to the problem solving leadership style is that you surround yourself with capable experts on the subject matter. You are not spending time attempting to solve the problem yourself. The overall decision may be yours, but having a team of experts allows you to view different angles and solutions to efficiently get to the root of the problem and put the solution into place. A weakness of surrounding yourself with experts on the subject matter is that you, as a leader, could become or appear to over accommodate those experts. In an attempt to please everybody you could miss the whole point, and not be successful in solving the problem at hand. Over involvement can be a big weakness in this leadership style. Not taking every recommendation of your team members into consideration and weighing the outcomes of the proposed solutions, only to make your own decision in the end can turn out to be a huge mistake if your decision does not have a beneficial outcome or solve the problem. This is where over involvement on your side can hurt you, your team, and the circumstances. Other weaknesses include the amount of time spent in meetings instead of actively working on the solution. The length of time it takes for solutions to finally come about is long because of the amount of input you are receiving. Comparison While my personal leadership style is the Problem Solver, not everybody will have the same style. In fact, however many people you have in the group will probably be the amount of different leadership styles that will also exist within the group. Group H in my Leadership Class group had five members, but each of us brought a different style of leadership. Natalie Morice, for example, stated that her personal leadership style was â€Å"Delegator. † This particular type of leadership style is one that empowers the members of her team to make decisions and carry through with those decisions. While my leadership style entails me to take input from my team members and make the final decision myself, Natalie has her team members responsible for making the decisions while she supervises with progress reports. While her team members have accountability for their work, Natalie loses that accountability in the finale. Empowering team members that cannot handle the responsibility or do not have the experience or confidence to make decisions or solve problems, can cause the team to fail, and ultimately cause the leader to fail. The Problem Solver allows their team to make input, but ultimately makes the final decision; and while ultimately it could be the wrong decision and the team could still fail, it is the decision that the leader is accountable for. The Problem Solver is accountable for the decisions they made, while the Delegator is accountable for decisions that her team member made. While the Delegator has empowered her people and gets progress reports periodically, the Problem Solver is involved with the team during the decision making process, and keeps on top of every facet of the problem solving. There is more support for the team when the leader is the Problem Solving style, rather than the Delegator style. Another team member, Monette Mudie, stated that her leadership style was the â€Å"Developer†. The developer style is the middle of the Problem Solver style and the Delegator style. This style empowers the team members to make decisions of their own, but is more hands on with them while they are arriving at those decisions. This leader assists and mentors the team members if they are struggling with the solution process, but in the end, it is the team member that makes the final decision. The Developer is much like the Problem Solver in that both leaders assists, encourages, and mentors their team members with the decision making process. They are different in that the Problem Solver ultimately makes the final decision, while the Developer’s team makes their own decision with the help of their leader. Both styles (Developer and Problem Solver) can be construed as micro-managing on the leader’s part. Team members who are confident and prefer to work alone may find the constant interaction from the leader distracting or annoying. Team members under the Developer may feel more confident and take more pride in the work that they ultimately had the final say in, while team members under the Problem Solver may feel as though the leader didn’t appreciate their input or feel that they are not getting credit for their work. Understanding Understanding that there are many types of leadership styles is a start to improving your method of leadership style. When working with a group, knowing the leadership style of those you are leading can be helpful for several reasons. . Knowing the leadership style will give you insight to how the person works, whether alone or in a group; you will know how they will likely fit into the culture because of their style. 2. The leadership style of your members will give you insight as to how to effectively communicate to different members. Not all team members will react the same way to one type of communication. If you have a peek at how they, themselves lead, then you will kno w how to lead them effectively. 3. Knowing the leadership style of your team members will let you know who can work independently or as a team better, therefore you will know who will require more or less support and you can be proactive, instead of reactive to this. Having this information or foresight into the style of your team members will allow you to form a team that you can lead effectively because you will know the diversity of their styles before the project gets started. This will allow you to foresee any possible issues and possibly allow changes within the team or your method of communicating or leading to be proactive. Knowing your own leadership style is important also in being an effective leader. You should always know what your strengths and weaknesses are, the characteristics of your style and how different leadership styles may react to this. This is beneficial if somebody is having a problem with your leadership style, you can pinpoint what that problem is before the issue is blown out of proportion. The many leadership styles of your team can motivate you to make changes in your leadership style so that the team works to its maximum capacity. This will also allow you to motivate, inspire and reward the team members in ways that they will appreciate more. Knowing the different styles of your team will help you to get the team members to engage more within the team project. Knowing how to motivate or inspire people gets people to put more toward the project and allows for great commitment, an effective method of solving problems, and higher productivity within the team. Lastly, a leader cannot be a leader without communicating. Different styles require different methods of communication. If you know the styles of your team members, you will have the benefit of knowing the most beneficial way of communicating with and to that team member. Differences Leading a team with so many different members and different leadership styles can be a difficult task. There are many problems that a leader can experience due to the differences. One big problem could be differences in how people approach work situations. Some people are leaders and others are not. You may find that some team members will step right up to the plate, while others will await for tasks to be assigned to them. Not knowing that people are different like this could cause some friction within the team. The assertive â€Å"leaders† may think that the passive members are lazy, not enthusiastic, or just not team players. Passive members may assume that the assertive members are pushy, trying to monopolize the work, or just not team players. A way to combat the difference in assertive and passive (leadership style) team members would be to know your team members styles ahead of time, and assign tasks according to the strong attributes of their particular style. Also, salting your team of a mix of members would work better than having a whole team of assertive or a whole team of passive members. Another problem could occur if you have members on your team with the same leadership styles as yourself. If you have members on your team that are Delegators, the same as you, there could be some other team members that feel that all the work is being pushed off onto them as yourself and the team members with the same Delegating style are delegating to team members that are not Delegators. Again, the way to combat this problem would be to assign tasks to all team members, giving them a particular part of the project to work on that belongs to them. The Developer type of leadership style allows team members to be empowered to make decisions on their own. If you are the developer and have team members on your team that are indecisive or not confident or knowledgeable enough to make decisions on their own; then you will have team members that cannot reach the goals needed for the project. The only way to combat this problem is to ensure that your team members are knowledgeable and confident with the information needed to participate in this project. Let them know that you are available for assistance or mentoring if they find they are at a point where they cannot or do not feel comfortable making decisions on the project. Also, let the team know that they can also consult with other team members for input. In any team situation, there must be open communication for all avenues in order for the team to work as an actual team. Without communication, it is lmost guaranteed that the project team will fail. Make sure the avenues of communication are open and being utilized to their full extent. Synergies With four different styles of Leadership Styles, it is highly likely that you will have an assortment of different leadership styles in your group. There can be both advantages and disadvantages but you can definitely use the different leadership styles to your advantage a nd create a strong team. You will need to evaluate or have the knowledge ahead of time as to what leadership styles the different members of your team have. Copyright  © 2012 by Lisamarie Pettit TO: Maryse Vriotte, Chief Executive Officer FROM: Lisamarie Pettit, Elementary Division Manager RE: Ralph Hall Constructive Discharge Suit In regards to the Constructive Discharge suit brought against Bockers Toy Company, stating that Ralph Hall (Employee) has filed a claim against Bockers Toy Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, constructive discharge, after a work schedule policy change took effect requiring employees to work shifts of 4/12 hour days, subsequently having 4 days off and then repeating. Mr Hall states that this change in shifts requires him to work on a religious holy day, discriminating against his religious beliefs, therefore, causing constructive discharge. Constructive Discharge is a legal concept conceived by the National Labor Relations Board and is defined legally as: â€Å"Evidence of objectively difficult or unpleasant working conditions to the extent that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign, if the employer has been given at least fifteen days notice by the employee that the employee intends to resign because of these conditions, and the employer fails to respond to employees concerns. (www. uslegal. com) Two specific intent tests must be looked at when deciding if Constructive Discharge has taken place: * Would a reasonable person find conditions to be unbearable? * Were conditions created to force person to resign? The proof of burden falls on the employee to prove that the employer intended these consequences through the two scenarios above. Under the specific intent tests, it is determined that a reasonable person would not find conditions at Bocker’s Toy Company to be unbearable; and also that the change in shift was not created to force Ralph Hall to resign. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is also stated that if an employee feels they are under the terms of a Constructive Discharge, then steps should be taken to allow the employer to remedy the situation. These steps are as follows: * Notify employer, in writing, that a working condition exists that the employee believes is objectively so difficult or unpleasant that the employee feels compelled or intends to resign. * Allow employer fifteen calendar days to respond in writing to the written communication. * Read and consider employer’s response. If employee is uncomfortable working in that fifteen calendar day waiting period, they have the option to take a leave for the duration. It is up to the employer is this is a paid or unpaid leave. In regards to Ralph Hall, Mr. Hall did not notify Bocker’s Toy Company or any management working at Bocker’s Toy Company that the working condition existed, or that he was intending to resign from his position. No written notice if needed if evidence of outrageous conduct by the employer or manager, including sexual assault, threats of violence, or pattern of discriminatory harassment took place and if this pattern caused the abrupt resignation. We feel this did not happen and not giving us a fifteen day notice did not give Bocker’s Toy Company the opportunity to remedy the situation before suit was filed. TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Section 2000e-2 states: * It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer to limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants of employment in any which way would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (www. eeoc. gov) Based on the above section s of Title VII, we cannot discriminate against Mr. Hall in respect to his work conditions, terms, or privileges of employment (work shifts) due to his religion. The second bullet point makes clear that we cannot limit employment opportunities because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. RECOMMENDATION My recommendation to avoid court and legal proceedings and to save costs regarding both is to offer Mr. Hall to return to his position. The implications surrounding his being unable to work on his holy day of Saturday due to his religious beliefs can easily be remedied by the following, without undue hardship to Bocker’s Toy Company. Mr. Hall will work the same scheduled 4/12 hour shifts as other workers. * On the four days that one of Mr. Hall’s scheduled days falls on a Saturday, Mr. Hall will not be required to report to work on Saturday, but on those weeks, will add a day at the end of his 4/12 hour shifts due to the skipped Saturday. (see table A) * It is the responsibility of Mr. Hall to inform his manager when a Saturday falls within his 4/12 hour shift so that Manager is able to find r eplacement staffing if needed. Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall HOLY Hall Hall HOLY Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Yellow indicates Holy Religious Day Blue indicates day added to make up Mr. Hall’s need for Saturdays off will leave the shift short one guy, and then on days that he is making up his 4th day will leave shifts extra one guy. It is up to the manager to look at the workforce need on those days to decide if he would like to give the option to other employees on Mr. Hall’s make up day to exchange that day for Saturday when Mr. Hall is off. The probability is that being short on Saturdays, the extra person on Mr. Hall’s make up day will make up for it and it will even out in the end. EEOC vs. Cinram Wireless, L. L. C revealed a case similar to ours where an employee asked for a different shift due to her Holy Sabbath Day from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Cinram Wireless at first agreed to the shift change; but then refused stating that if they made allowances for this employee, they would have to make allowances for all employees. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations as long as it does not cause undue hardships. The EEOC stated that Cinram made no reasonable effort to accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs, and did not successfully demonstrate that doing so would provide undue hardship. In the case of EEOC vs. Generation Properties dba Staybridge Suites, Generation Properties was made to pay a $27,500 settlement to an employee for failing to accommodate her Sabbath observance, and subsequently discharging her. The case of EEOC vs. White Hall Nursing and Rehabilitation Center; White Hall Nursing was made to pay a settlement of $24,000 to an employee for accommodating the employee for one year, and then refusing any further accommodation for her Seventh Day Adventist Sabbath observance, and subsequently was terminated. The above case examples show serious infractions against Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s act to not discriminate against employees for their religious beliefs. I believe that accommodating employees for their religious Sabbath would not cause undue hardship and it is in our best interest to offer Mr. Hall to return with the above specified accommodations recommended to him.