Running head: NEW-STYLE VS.

OLD-STYLE

New-Style vs. Old-Style Organization Jennifer R. Williams Ferris State University

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE Abstract Old-style practices have been an essential component to business success throughout time; however, new leadership styles are now coming into play. Relationships, communication, sustainability, and diversity are now considered to be essential components to a successful organization (Shriberg, D, & Shriberg, A., 2011). This paper discusses multiple organizations that hold characteristics of old-style, new-style, or both management/leadership styles. There is a final determination regarding each organization and their current management/leadership orientation. Research finding suggest that oldstyle and new-style organizational leadership practices are significantly different and that new-style management/leadership has become the new norm. A conclusion and summary identify that the utilization of new-style management techniques, even in an old-style organization, is the more successful approach to management, leadership, and organizational outcomes.

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE New-Style vs. Old-Style Organization New-style versus old-style organizations; which style works the best? Old-style is essentially based off of business goals and increased production. This style means that there is not significance to the follower. These individuals are essentially hired to perform, revise, and perform better. This type of organization is functional and leaders can be selffocused and individually oriented. New-style organizations are educational and learning focused. Followers are evaluated as a whole person and leadership is based on relationships, values, and ethics. Teamwork and organizational goals are valued above individual goals. There is a workable balance that incorporates communication, technology, sustainability, and diversity to achieve knowledge, build trust, and maintain community consecutiveness (Kinicki, & Kreitner, 2009). This paper will discuss multiple organizations that hold characteristics of old-style, new-style, or both styles of management/leadership. There will be a final determination regarding each organization and their current management/leadership orientation. To conclude, there will be a discussion comparing old-style and new-style organizational leadership practices. A summary will identify what research finds as the most successful style along with other significant points of research. Bronson Hospital Bronsons vision, mission, and values include the goal to be a national leader in quality, and to provide excellent healthcare. In addition, Bronson claims to strive for integrity, patient and family centered care, successful teamwork, utilization of evidencedriven improvement, enhancing education, and maintaining community commitment. Bronson has a commitment to maintaining a diverse and ethical environment by

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE maximizing unique strengths and talents of their employees and leaders. They are able to demonstrate this commitment through an already established diversity council employee cultural competence training, available language translation and interpretation services, cultural observances and celebrations, and partnering with community-based agencies and organizations. Bronson further claims to have developed a culture of excellence to best serve employees, patients, and families. This organization has a leadership executive team that focuses on care quality, employee resources, technology and informatics, staff development, and communication. They also have an ongoing focus on quality outcomes and process improvement through transitional leadership and inspiring their employees to create a successful environment (Bronson, n.d.). The evidence shows that Bronson Hospital is a new-style organization. It is apparent that this organization is employee and customer focused. They are successfully involved in the community through established relationships (Shriberg, D, & Shriberg, A., 2011). In addition, there is a significant focus of ethical behavior and the development of a successful culture within the organization. Perceived behaviors like power sharing, acting fairly, and clarifying role boundaries are ideal behaviors that allow organizational leaders to create a culture of excellence (Kalshoven, & Den Hartog, 2009). It is apparent through research that ethical leaders create ethical followers. This theory demonstrates the perceived ethical leader behavior has a lasting positive impact on organization followers (Kalshoven, & Den Hartog, 2009). The behavior of a senior leader often has a direct relationship to the culture of an organization. Bronson has a diverse executive leadership team that assists in creating an ethical and diverse culture. It is

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE essential that leaders incorporate their ethical behavior into their leadership style and in turn shape the culture of the organization. The application of a strong vision, mission, and values is essential to this process (Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). Google Google is known to be a one of a kind company that claims the people make them the kind of company that they are. Google states that they hire only smart and determined individuals that share common goals and visions for the company. Google favors ability over experience and encouraged an active and happy lifestyle both inside and outside of the work environment. Google maintains and open culture in which all employees are able to share ideas and opinions. There is a diverse culture of openness and communication that propels this organization to success. Google also has a significant focus on technology; this is directly related to the fact that they are a search engine company. Google believe that the customer should always come first and that you may not always be at your desk to need an answer to a question. Google is an internet company with multiple organizational locations. They do utilize modern communication strategies through virtual communities within the organization. Google is somewhat of an entrepreneur in this area of business communication (Google, n.d.). With their focus on employees and the importance of a successful organizational culture, it is evident that Google is a new style organization. It is apparent that Google utilizes a successful form of situational leadership. Situational leadership focuses on the diversity of organization. This type of leadership allows leaders to learn to deal with issues and challenges related to the culture of the organization. The use of situational leadership

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE allows leaders to identify obstacles, the reason for the obstacles, and to develop opportunities to overcome these obstacles. Employees are inspired to and able to find their own leadership practice. Situational leadership allows leaders to observe from more than one perspective, adapt to situations, and to integrate logic and techniques to provide the appropriate leadership techniques to the appropriate environment. This type of leadership can be extremely successful in an open organization environment where employees are encouraged to be themselves (Mujtaba, & Sungkhawan, 2009). Google obviously has a huge focus on virtual organization and relationships. Building community in a virtual world is important. It is in most cases, a sense of community is an essential component of a successful virtual organization or team (Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). Intrapersonal trust is found to be one of the main contributing factors of establishing community in a virtual world. Self-efficacy and compatibility are also considered contributory factors (Chen & Hung, 2010). It is essential to provide social interaction with virtual team members as well as a structured working environment (Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). Google has access to and utilizes virtual project management software and documents allow virtual teams to remain connected throughout projects. These forms of technology allow team members to remain in contact with other team members and monitor ongoing progress of the project; thus supporting a sense of openness and community (Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). Starbucks Starbucks is a successful international organization that thrives on supporting community, the environment, and wellness. They are also committed to offering highquality ethically purchased products. Starbucks designs their stores with community in

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE mind. They have a goal to reflect the character of the stores surrounding neighborhood and to promote a sense of family. Starbucks is known for their high level and quality of sustainability. They are further recognized by their employees as a company that values its people. Starbucks inspires the human spirit through employment based on values. This organization celebrates diversity and creates a quality environment for both employees and customers (Starbucks, n.d.). It is apparent that Starbucks is a new style organization. They use a combination of transformational and ethical leadership to inspire both employees and customers. The new style organization engages in a holistic view of their position within the community. The new style leader incorporates societal values and focuses more on ethical standards. Organizational relationships are the new norm and leaders are not longer focused only on individual goals (Avolio, Walumbwa, Weber, 2009). Leadership is evolving into a culture of community where the voice of followers is being heard. The new-style organization will continue to work to serve their followers through encouragement and empowerment (Shriberg, A., & Shriberg, D., 2011). Fifth Third Bank Fifth third bank can be traced as far back as the year 1858. Originally known as Bank of the Ohio Valley; Fifth Third Bank was officially established in 1871 after taking over the smaller company during a merger. This merger propelled Fifth Third Bank into a 130 year history of banking. The leadership structure of this bank is identified as a board of governance. This structure includes a board of directors, a CEO, and a lead director. In addition to these positions, each branch also has a manager and additional lead positions within each (Fifth Third Bank, n.d.).

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE Even though Fifth Third Bank is a well-established and long lived organization, they are also involved in current organizational techniques including community outreach, and other sustainability projects. Corporate social responsibility projects include a financial literacy program, youth education programs, community development, diversity and inclusion, and environmental stewardship. In addition to the projects, Fifth Third bank also boasts about their commitment to creating a successful environment for their employees by encouraging ideas and innovation through employee inspiration (Fifth Third Bank, n.d.). Through a significant amount of research on this organization, it was identified that this Fifth third Bank actually uses a combination of old-style and new-style organization. Although this bank is committed to sustainability, they continue to hold on to old-style practices within their management and leader format. Many old-style organizations focus more on individual processes and organization process and tend to neglect interpersonal processes (Griffin, & Moorhead, 2010). A hierarchy format remains within the Fifth Third organization with the lead CEO followed by a board of governance, and branches of management at each bank (Fifth Third Bank, n.d.). Without adequate relationships, performance variables outweigh the incorporation of a successful employee environment. Fifth Third Bank continues to portray an obvious and significant focus on efficiency with strictly defined roles. This individualized process can hinder the success of providing a motivating and inspirational environment for employees (Griffin, & Moorhead, 2010). On the other hand, it is evident that Fifth Third Bank utilizes new-style approaches to counteract their ongoing use of oldstyle practices. In the end, there seems to be an adequate combination for ongoing success.

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE The United States Social Security Administration The United States Social Security Administration (SSA) was created in 1935. This government organization is focused on monitoring and providing funds to individuals that meet the criteria for Social Security Programs. The original social security board consisted of three presidentially appointed executives. Though this organization is directly related to the American government, it is an independent entity where business is concerned and is considered and independent agency. By 1983, the government decided that the SSA needed to be a broader span of control. During this time the SSA was reorganized with the addition of a deputy commissioner and six supplementary associate commissioners. Although this was a significant change in the structure of the SSA, this organization has not made further changes since that time. There are now multiple social security offices in place; however there remains a strict hierarchy of management (SSA, n.d.). The SSA has no obvious focus on ethics, values, or sustainability. The main focus of this organization is to evaluate, determine, and release funds to the appropriate individuals. This process is very systematic and sharply defined. As evidence of the minimal amount of change from 1934-1983, it is obvious that this organization is slow to change. There is a definite portrayal of vertical power with no significant focus on relationships or employee empowerment (SSA, n.d.). Even a visit to a local social security office would tell any individual that this office is task focused and has no true value placed on customer service. During research of the Social Security Administration, it is evident that this is an old-style government organization. A significant difference between hierarchy and

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE emergent leadership practices include the significant consequences in outcomes. Isolation and a lack of innovative influences to inspire individuals within organizations can greatly affect the perception of the organization as well as its success. Old-style or task focused organizations typically fail in creating a successful environment; not only for their employees but for their customers as well. Hierarchy not only significantly decreases the satisfaction for these individuals but it interferes with intellectual curiosity, collaboration, and problem-solving. Although the use of hierarchy can create advantages in performance, the pros significantly outweigh the risk (Huey, 2010). Ford Motor Company The Ford Motor Company was established in 1903. They are currently a strong company with a business focus. This company had an original goal of innovation and to change the way that the world moved. Ford boasts about their four point business strategy that allows them to achieve success globally. Though Ford is an old company, it is identified that they have a focus on the new world. This organization has a significant focus on the value of a team and has a strategy of one team, one plan, and one goal. Although they have a straight forward and task oriented production line that is derived of planning, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution, this company has a large focus on diversity, community involvement, and employee inspiration (Ford Motor Company, n.d.). The Ford Motor Company has a passion not only for business, but for their customers, employees, and stakeholders as well. Ford strives to inspire these individuals through community involvement and support of diversity. While researching the past of the Ford Motor Company, it is further identified that this organization was well ahead of the rest in sustainability, even from the beginning. Ford offered higher wages to individuals

10

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE within the organization in 1913 to attract immigrants and other diverse populations for employment. The diversity of this origination continued throughout the years as Ford employed individuals of different races and disabled veterans returning from World War I (Ford Motor Company, n.d.). Although this organization was originally identified as old-style, it has become apparent that the Ford Motor Company has excelled in sustainability and diversity for many years. Sustainability should focus on multiple social dimensions as well as strategies that focus on both internal and external commitments (Baumgartner, & Ebner, 2010). Ford Motor Company efficiently maintains these strategies through multiple sustainability projects and a huge focus on diversity (Ford Motor Company, n.d.). Corporate sustainability allows companies to base conventional strategies on opportunistic market advantages and improve their bottom line (Baumgartner, & Ebner, 2010). It is evident that the Ford Motor Company has a good balance of business and corporate sustainability through identified projects that will not only benefit community, employees, and stockholders but will improve the overall success of the organization. Old-Style vs. New-Style It has been identified through research that old-style does not necessarily relate to the age of an organization. Old-Style versus new-style is essentially based on the management type and leadership style that is utilized. Old-style organizations are typically task focused with a managerial hierarchy and a transactional type of leadership (Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopnman, 1997). It is essential for managers to identify specific traits that will have positive or negative effects on the organizations leadership style. It is also

11

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE essential to know when and where to utilize these traits to improve upon a leadership approach (Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). In an old-style setting, leader-follower relationships tend to be based on a series of exchanges and bargains; there are no significant interpersonal relationship created. Followers are directed to follow orders and complete required tasks without any type of inspiration to do so. The leader is then required by their hierarchy manager to compensate for their followers lack of follow through or success. Followers are given a transactional reward, only if their performance leads to a successful outcome (Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopnman, 1997). On the other hand, new-style organizations are relationship based and have multiple branches of management along with team significance and a focus on environment. Transformational leadership is incorporated and followers are values as part of a team. Management supports and encourages the leaders within the organization. A transactional leader motivates and inspires his/her followers (Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopnman, 1997). A true leader must instill confidence in his/her followers through trust, integrity, and respect (Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). Transformational leaders are able to motivate their followers to move past individualized goals and to see the purpose and mission of the organization as a whole. Each require individuals that lead by example, influence others to accomplish goals, and value relationships. Leaders are tested through their followers reactions and responses (Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). In this type of setting, followers tend to forgo their own self-interests and focus on the importance and value of quality outcomes (Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopnman, 1997).

12

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE It is apparent that leadership is an ever changing concept. There continues to be a debate over what makes an organization successful. It is evident that there needs to be a perfect combination of components to complete this task. The culture of an organization should be ever changing. It is essential for management and leaders to communicate effectively with each unit of the business and to identify with their followers. New relationships should continually be formed and followers are should become increasingly optimistic of organizational philosophy. Leadership styles are continually being created; not only because of a new generation but because originations choose to create a sense of comradery rather than that of individual gain (Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). It is apparent that new-style organizations are typically more successful in creating successful relationships with employees, customers, and community. This in turn makes it easier to lead those individuals. When followers are inspired and motivated, they tend to look to their leaders for guidance and resist less (Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). Oldstyle organizations have stable task related philosophies that promote increase production. Although it is obvious that though old-style organizations have a systematic practice that allows for increased production, this success can often be short-lived. In order for an organization maintain longevity and success in operation, it is apparent that the incorporation of new-style concepts like a focus on diversity and sustainability are essential (Griffin, & Moorhead, 2010; Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopnman, 1997; Kinicki, & Kreitner, 2009; Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). This conclusion is visible through the identification of old-style organizations incorporating new-style practices as time moves on. It was difficult to find many old-style organizations that have not already incorporated some form of new-style behaviors in order

13

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE to improve marketing strategies and productivity through consume employee, and stakeholder satisfaction. Thus, research identifies that organizations are typically more successful and less complicated to manage/lead when new-style practices are incorporated (Griffin, & Moorhead, 2010; Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopnman, 1997; Kinicki, & Kreitner, 2009; Shriberg, D., & Shriberg, A., 2011). Summary Old-style organizations are task focused with a vertical hierarchy and have a focus on production and business. New-style organizations are relationship and team focused with additional incorporation of diversity and sustainability to provide an environment supportive of ethics and values. It has become clear through research that new-style organizations are typically more successful in satisfying the needs of customers, employees, and stakeholders; thus more straightforward in management/leadership needs. Though old-style behaviors can be effective in improving production and revenue, there is a noticeable loss of balance within these organizations. It has been further acknowledged that many old-style organizations have come to the realization that the incorporation new-style activities can significantly improve overall quality outcomes. Therefore, it has been concluded that when it comes to management and leadership, newstyle organizations are the less complicated of the two.

14

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE References Avolio, B.M., Walumbwa, F., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 Baumgartner, R. J., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development, 18, 76-89. doi:10.1002/sd.447 Bronson. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.bronsonhealth.com Chen, C. J., & Hung, S. W. (2010). To give or to receiver? Factors influencing members knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities. Information & Management, 47, 226-236. doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.03.001 Fifth Third Bank. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.59.com Ford Motor Company (n.d.). Retrieved from http://corporate.ford.com Google. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.google.com/about/company Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2010). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Wester, Cengage Learning. Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 19-34. Huey, W. S. (2010). Innovation as group process: Hierarchy, status, and the dilemma of participative leadership. Graduate School of the University of Maryland, Dissertation. Retrieved from http://drum.lib.umd.edu

15

NEW-STYLE VS. OLD-STYLE Kalshoven K., Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Ethical leader behavior and leader effectiveness: The role of prototypicality and trust. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 102-119. Retrieved from dare.uva.nl Kinicki, a., & Kreitner, R. (2009). Organizational Behavior: Key concepts, Skills & Best Practices (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin Mujtaba, B. G., & Sungkhawan, J. (2009). Situational leadership and diversity management coaching skills. Journal of Diversity management, 4(1), 1-11. Shriberg, A., & Shriberg, D. (2011). Practicing leadership: Principles and applications (4th ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Starbucks. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.starbucks .com The United States Social Security Administration. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ssa.gov

16