Convenience of the company

Evaluating the two styles of leadership from Acme & Omega Presidency with the Path-Goal Theory [House, House & Dessler, 1974], could be observe the weakness and strength of each president. Measuring the leadership from Acme his style result more effective in terms of a mass-fast production, control of the subordinates, departments, and control of information (Information Power; Pettigrew, 1972; Mintzberg, 1973). Acme becomes ineffective in terms of motivation, job satisfaction and the capacity to react to uncertain situations.

The rigid hierarchy and control of departments within the company, the existence of rules and the formal communication, increase the pressure and inconformity within the staff. Contrary to Omega the style is more effective in terms of Problem Solving situation, the ability to deal with uncertain situations, the expert power [Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schneck, & Pennings, 1971; Patchen, 1974], increase the communication, the possibility to give ideas or suggestions, are motivation factor for the staff. Become ineffective in aspects of structure and concentration in other important areas such costing and increase effectiveness to gain contracts.

According to Belhing & Starke, 1973; Mitchell, 1974; Schriesheim & Kerr, 1977, the Path-Goal Theory has some conceptual deficiencies. “The greater weakness is the use of expectancy theory as

the primary basis for explaining leader influence. This rational decision model provides an overly complex and seemingly unrealistic description of human behaviour)” Yulk, G. (2001), pp 216, this theory does not take into account reactions and decisions dilemmas, such as denial or distortion of relevant information, also don’t include some important aspects of human motivation such as self-concepts.

Fleishman (1953), expressed in studies that a leader behaviour have two factors, first “(The dimension) consideration reflects the degree to which the supervisor’s behaviour indicates respect for subordinates’ ideas, trust, and warmth”, Siegel & Lane (1982), pp 330, this explain, that a considerate leader is concern with the subordinates needs and feelings. The other factor is “(Initiating structure), supervisors high on this dimension define both the role and those of their subordinates with respect to organizational goal attainment”, Siegel & Lane (1982), pp 330.

Therefore the supervisor’s be likely to plan ahead, push for high productivity and quality output. According to Mullins (1999) people’s behaviour is determined by what motivates them, in Omega can be identify some aspects of motivation, a good example, is when the president of Omega, had been inform about the missing component and the possible delay of the production, the senior management meet and disuse about possible solutions, someone come with an idea, but the decision still been made by the president Jim Rawls, that idea was an option to take an solve the problem of the missing component.

Contrary to Acme, the lack of Self-actualizations needs [Maslow’s, 1943], of the staff to realise of one’s full potential. Conclusion: As consequence of this case study, I can say that, both companies had show the full potential and the capacity of the leaders to carried out their task and give influence to their staff, the weakness and the strength of Acme & Omega, and the most important subject that how human beings react and respond to a different situations or circumstances, taking account the environment, leadership, motivation and power.

Additionally, there are some recommendations that could be suggested, in terms of productivity, relationship, communications, motivation, team work, management and Organization of the company. Omega should design a new or stick with the old structure, that give the chance to define the jobs to a specific area, to increase the productivity and see ways of how to reduce of costing of the products, give him more control over departments, control of the flow of the information through the company, and keep improving the motivation to the staff.

Acme should be informal, try to recognize the knowledge of the professionals in the company, do meetings more regularly to improve the relation between departments, share more often information, relevant to and for the convenience of the company, give more power and control to subordinates to increase knowledge and expertise in certain areas.

Bibliography

George, J. M. & Jones, G. R. (2000), Essentials of Managing Organizational Behaviour, USA, Prentice Hall. Mullins, L J. (1999), Management and Organizational Behaviour, 5th Edition, London, Prentice Hall. Siegel & Lane (1982), Personnel And Organizational Psychology (Irwin Series in Management and the Behavioural Sciences), USA, Richard D. Irwin, INC. Yulk, G. (2002), Leadership In Organizations, 5th Edition, USA, Prentice Hall.