REFLECTION

Question 1: Assume that hiring a general manager of operations was a good idea, what
leadership style would be most effective in this position? Why?

As a Manager of Operations, most successful style of leadership is that of transformative

leadership. Transformational Leadership relates to the leadership style that incorporates the
leader work in hand with teams with the purpose of obtaining the desired outcomes. Developing
a culture is crucial in accomplishing transformative leadership. When developing a culture and
earning faith in the ideas as a leader, two key aspects apply. For one, the notion should be
realistic, attractive, and also clear. Two, the stance of a leader has to be clear and show an
indisputable dedication to that goal. As a General Manager of Operations, one may employ
Esprit de corps, which is a French phrase that, once translated, means "spirit of the body,"
however the body, in this instance, is a group. This statement ideally indicates, every individual
in the company embraces a similar vision, is passionate about spreading the concept, and is
operating toward a well-defined aim making this form of leadership the most successful. After
developing a culture, transformative leadership needs cultivating the esprit de corps to allow
individuals to buy into cultural tradition (Arnold et al. 2016). (Arnold et al. 2016). For the health
of the operations company, a leader must drive communications, not merely speak about contact.
Communication promotes dedication as well as trust among the followers as well as those we
lead. Transformational leaders inspire workers and rejuvenate companies. I believe that Howser
should have gently applied changes to the sections of the organisation that required them,
analysed what was functioning effectively and left those things alone. A delayed introduction of
changes would have offered staff the time to adjust to the new environment.

Question 2: What leader behaviors did Brad Howser exhibit? How well did they fit the
needs of the ad agency?

As a result, I feel Brad Hower demonstrated both transactional and pseudo-transformational

leadership styles. Even when real concerns were made, he was inflexible in his stance because of
the childcare arrangements still in place, he leveraged his position of authority. Instead of
utilising the topic of if they were being responsible stewards of the company's money while
buying goods as a teaching opportunity, he removed the control away from them. His weekly
feedback sessions were an effort to heal the gap he had created by encouraging team members to
submit suggestions; unfortunately, no one was ready to do that because of the pattern he had
made in other areas (in my view).

Brad Howser demonstrated a distinct set of leadership traits in this approach. Some of them were
a good fit for the firm, while others created a breach between management and personnel. On the
list of bad habits is developing his own set of regulations without contacting other managers or
supervisors, which he does without their permission. There were some conflicts within the
corporation because of this. Another quality he displayed was commitment to the agency's
culture, but from a different perspective. In order to avoid becoming leaders themselves, the
three founders decided to pick Brad Howser alternatively. The organization, on the other side,
really benefited from his transactional skills. With regards to finances, this was particularly true
because of the company's adoption of cost-cutting techniques.

Question 3: Consider your own leadership style. What are some of your tendencies, and
how might you change your perspective?

On a personal level, I believe that my leadership style is based on the principle of contingency.
There is no "best" method to lead or make choices in an organisation, as per the leadership
theory. Only way to address this is to discover the best possible path of action. Also, according to
the contingency theory, the two most important factors in determining the optimum course of
action are the leader's capacity to manage a situation and the leader's types of leadership. The
only thing contingency theory demands of leaders is to adapt their leadership style to the
circumstances rather than the other way around (Heckmann, Steger, & Dowling, 2016).
Leadership can adapt to the new viewpoints that have been offered when a company goes
through a transformation because of this. Because the contingency theory demands that a
management or leader adapt into the culture, rather than the culture fitting into a manager's
leadership style, contingency theory protects organisational culture.

When I'm in charge, I like to look myself also as a charismatic leader. I have a difficult time
stepping back and understanding that a different viewpoint or perspective can be more beneficial.
I believe the best approach for me to fix this is to be more open-minded and attempt to
understand things from other people's perspectives before discarding them as inaccurate because
they conflict my own.