Leadership in Ford

Influence of organisational place put downtings on attractorship in crosswalk in the US and europium. Introduction like a shot organizational context is actuall(a)y important, because leading spend a penny to make decisions relying on big amounts of information, which smorgasbords e genuinely day. More over depending on various situations leading theories live on distinct, it makes hard to predict the consequences of decisions relying only on theory. Depending on organizational context diverse leading way of life can be used.Throughout the history of carrefour, follow distinguished itself by iron control of Henry Ford the starting signal and the second. Their great man flack brought success to Ford, except level offtually this approach became ineffective due to globalization and changing purlieu. This endinged in the need for following of Henry Ford the second to introduce the big change for fraternity, change in lead approach and organizational culture. In addition Ford opened branches almost all over the world, so new approaches, trance and leading is needed.This essay will cover questions about different way of lifes of drawing cardship in Ford in the US and europium, key contextual issues that carry on on strategical leading in Ford and will meditate main contextual challenges for Ford leaders. Depending on the context effective leader must be able to gain his style to the demands and changing environment (Northouse, 2010). Question cardinal The contextual issues significantly impact on strategic leadership. 2 main contextual issues that impact on strategic leadership in Ford organizational culture and communityal culture.Organisational culture is a set of moral precepts, determine, norms of behaviour in particular confederacy accepted by members (Besanko et al, 2010). National culture is a set of values, rules, customs, traditions shargond by mountain speaking the same language and having similar mindsets and moral principles (Northouse, 2010). globalisation has created many challenges for organizations including effective selection of leaders, adaptation to many cultures, creation of different approaches to nationally various employees (Northouse, 2010).It became requirement for top off managers to take into seeation peculiarities, mentality, values and characteristics of different cultures to develop business abroad, because many problems in relationships between people can occur due to variations in norms, habits and values (Needle, 2004). Ford was not an exception and needed to turn the company around. As a company that was operating not only in US, but also in europium and still doing it, Ford had to create unique dodge and organizational culture for both argonas, which differ from each former(a).To build a thriving strategy it is necessary to know national features of countries where organization is freeing to lease. agree to GLOBE researchers who place 10 clusters of co untries (depending on cultural data), US were set into Anglo cluster and atomic number 63 was divided into four clusters Eastern Europe, Latin Europe, Germanic Europe and Nordic Europe (House, et al, 2004). These clusters have their own characteristics affecting leadership in particular aras, so demands for leaders in these clusters are different. twain describe how different cultures view leadership behaviors in others GLOBE researchers identified six global leadership behaviors(House & Javidan, 2004 in Northouse, 2010, p. 348). First is charismatic/value-based leadership that includes being decisive, self-denying and performance oriented, being a motivator and galvanizer (Northouse, 2010). Second is team-oriented leadership that includes team building, establishing common goals and such characteristics as diplomacy, collaboration (Northhouse, 2010). Third is participative leadership that means degree to which leader involves employees in decision-making ( Northouse, 2010).Next i s humane-oriented leadership that emphasizes being supportive, considerate, compassionate, and generous (Northouse, 2010, p. 348). Last is self-protective management that puts on top leaders who are face saving, conflict, aware of their status (Northouse, 2010). In that steering Anglo countries including US want leaders to be charismatic, humane-oriented, extremely motivating and visionary, democratic, moreover leaders have to focus on team and to be independent (Northouse, 2010). For this intellectual cod Petersen and Harold Red Poling with their mindsets perfectly corresponded this requirements.Europe, divided into 4 clusters has its own characteristics, but they are more entangled due to peculiarities of clusters. Ideally it is better to have a particular approach for each cluster, nevertheless there are some common requirements for leaders in Europe such as charismatic and value-based person (Norhouse, 2010). As Ford has its offices and plants in Germany, England, Romania, R ussia, Belgium, Spain, France and Turkey, it is necessary to consider Latin Europe cluster, Eastern Europe cluster and Germanic Europe cluster. there are three branches in Germanic cluster devil in Germany and one in Belgium.For this cluster ideal leader is pass judgment to be charismatic, inspirational and autonomous, to have participative style, to focus on team (Northouse, 2010). Two branches are located in Latin Europe Cluster one in Spain and one in France. In this cluster leader has to be team oriented as well, has to be participative and self-oriented (Northouse, 2010). Two more branches operate in Russia and Romania. For the Eastern European countries it is necessary for leader to have self-protective leadership style, to be team-oriented, to make decisions independently (Nothouse, 2010).All this factors and characteristics of clusters make it very complex to take care perfect leadership style, nevertheless there are some points of turn over between these clusters. tha t GLOBE identified 22 leadership attributes that are universally desirable (House, et al, 2004, p. 39). As a result leader is a person who is honest, charismatic, value-based and team-oriented (Dorfman et al. , 2004, in Northouse, 2010). In addition Hofstede (2010, in Needle, 2004) identified 5 characteristics on which countries differ from each other. Power distance is the extent to which members of golf-club accept that superpower is distributed unequally (Needle, 2004, p. 148). It was found that in France for example power distance is large, on the contrary Germany and the USA, where power distance is small. Individualistic societies are the US and the UK, but Germany and France have also high rate of individuality (Needle, 2004). It means that these countries prefer more to look after yourself or your quick family group (Needle, 2004, p. 149). Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which members of society feel self-conscious with uncertainty (Needle, 2004, p. 49). Accordin g to Hofstede (1994, in Needle, 2004) France and Germany tend to be more eager about the future than UK and US. Masculine societies like USA, UK and Germany used to prefer genuine success and achievement, while France is more anxious about quality of livelihood and equality between sexes (Needle, 2004). Long-term orientation is not common uncomplete in Germany, or US and UK, so these countries more used to short strategies (Needle, 2004). Taking all this facts into thoughtfulness becomes clear it is not smooth to gamble conquer leader for multinational companies like Ford.Leadership style has to be very adaptable and leader has to be competent and skilful. Organizational cultures in Europe and US were different and impacted leadership style in particular way. In US reorganized organizational culture, which was based on employee betrothal and participative management demanded leadership style, based on participation, team-orientation, humane-orientation, such qualities as v isionary, pauperization and inspiration were necessary for leader. In Europe organizational culture has to be perfectly balanced due to the difference in national cultures.In that way organizational culture context in Ford in Europe is closely linked with national culture context and it is very complex mission for leaders to create strong organizational culture in Europe. It is not good for company, if its organizational culture is weak, because it sets the scene for the determination of strategy and hence the operational aspects of organizational life (Needle, 2004, p. 238). Question two There were different contextual challenges for leaders in Ford in Europe and US as a result they managed with them in a different way.One of the most important challenges for leaders in Ford in the US and Europe was getting power in company and control over staff. Power in terms of leadership means capacity or potential to stoop (Northouse, 2010, p. 8). They all had carriage power and it was nec essary for them to modify their short letters in company by getting more power. Petersen with his leadership style engaged people feelings, introduced participative management and managed to strengthen his position in company by this approach.This approach perfectly corresponded to main values of Ford, because Petersen obtained ideas and opinions of employees, integrated their suggestions into top decision-making (Northouse, 2010). As a result he got not only position power, but also a personal power. It made possible to influence followers as they saw him as knowledgeable and likable (Northouse, 2010). but it helped him to mould control over employees, who were happy, because they could participate in top-decision making.From that moment he knew the ideas of his followers, and he was using them in the interests of Ford. While Don Petersen was using participative leadership and reshaping goals of employees through mission of Ford, Harold Red Poling was controlling final goal set ting. Petersen and Poling managed to brought to Fords top team an intuitive and feeling approach to decision-making, something which is seldom found at that level (Starkey, 1996, p. 379), because participative leadership and management helps employees learn what leads to what (House & Mitchell, 1974, p. 92, in Northouse, 2010).As Peterson and Poling received more power and control over their followers, there was no need to find new cadres, this resulted in formation of strong team, which was easy to lead. Billy Hayden, Europes Vice President of Manufacturing was in other situation. He had to get used to peculiarities of leading in Europe and to adopt his own leadership style. Moreover the situation was more complex than in the US due to high standards of the main rival Toyota. Billy Haeden was going to change behavioural patterns and mindsets in Ford in Europe, but postal code really changed.It caused many problems afterwards. As a result there was no strong team with an intuitive a nd feeling approach to decision-making which was needed even more than in the US, his leadership style was backward looking, so the whole organization was not able to compete with Toyota. The only power he had was legitimate power, and without balance like in case with Harold Red Poling and Don Petersen, he was using it in a wrong way. Billy Hayden did not managed to create strong team, because he has given a steady overturn of top cadres and nobody could be a counterbalance for him.Eventually the change in organization, which brought success to Ford in the US, was introduced in Europe, but it was too late. Moreover values, mindsets, norms, patterns that were introduced in the US should be adapted to Europe and leadership style of Billy Hayden did not match these approach. Conclusion Organizational context became very important to every leader, manager and company on the whole. Without taking into consideration organizational context it is very hard and risky for any leader to mak e important decisions and lead company to success.Organizational contexts influence on leadership style, and depending on different peculiarities of context, appropriate leadership style can be chosen. Due to globalization culture context has great impact on leadership style, it became necessary for leader to know main features of mentality of nation in country, where he operates. Ford as a company, which has its branches almost all over the world, faced challenges and it was crucial to find a leader with appropriate leadership style. Don Petersen and Harold Red Poling with their tandem led Ford US to success mostly due to perfect balance of power and participative management.Their style perfectly matched need of Ford in visionary leadership with necessary control. Petersen and Poling also showed the importance of power context. They managed to use not only position power, but personal power as well. Billy Hayden was in different situation, he did not managed to get personal power, and as a result he did not create a strong team, he did not adopt to the national cultures and his leadership style was not able to bring success. These situation emphases on the importance of cultural context, if company operates worldwide.Reference list Besanko, D. , Dranove, D. , Shanley, M. , Schaefer, S. , (2010). economic science of strategy, John Wiley & Sons House, R. J. , Hanges, P. J. , Javidan, M. , Dorfman, P. W. , Gupta, V. , & Associates (Eds. ). (2004). Culture, leadeeship, and organizations The GLOBE study of 62 societies. potassium Oaks, CA shrewd Needle, D. , (2004). Business in context, an introduction to business and its environment, Thomson Learning, London. Northouse, P. G. , (2010) Leadership Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA Sage