Page 147 - leadership-experience-2008

CikguOnline
CikguOnline
128 PART 3: THE PERSONAL SIDE OF LEADERSHIP
making! Robert Romany had further heated things up by saying that it was obviously far better
to go a little slower in such matters by trying any new program in one area first, rather than
having the committee look “unprogressive” by just “trudging along the same old cow paths”!
At this point, Ned had intuitively exercised his prerogative as chairman to stop the
trend that was developing. However, things were obviously so touchy among the members
that they simply refused to either offer suggestions or support any that Ned offered for
breaking the deadlock. Ned decided to approach each of the division directors for whom
the various committee members worked. In each area he visited, he learned that the direc-
tors were already aware of the problems, and each one had his or her own ideas as to
what should be done:
Division A: The director stated that he was not much in sympathy with people who
wanted to make a big deal out of every program that came along. He recalled a similar
problem years ago when the company first introduced decision support software, which was
hailed as the manager’s replacement in decision making. He noted that the software was still
in use but that he had probably made better decisions as a result of his broad background
and knowledge than any computer ever could. “When I’ve served as chair of a deadlocked
committee,” he said, “I simply made the decision and solved the problem. If you’re smart,
you’ll do the same. You can’t worry about everybody’s feelings on this thing.”
Division B: “I know you’ll want to use the best available information in estimating
any program’s potential performance,” the director of Division B told Ned. She sided with
Hillary Thomas and David Huntington that an investigative approach was the only way to
go. After all, the director said, it logically followed that a decision could be no better than
the research effort behind it. She also told Ned that she had told Thomas and Huntington to
go ahead and collect the data they needed. “My division will be footing the bill for this, so
nobody can gripe about the cost aspects.” she said. “Any price would be cheap if it awakens
some of the people around here to the tremendous value of a scientific approach.”
Division C: The director of Division C bluntly told Ned that he didn’t really care
how the decision was made. However, he thought the best course of action would be to
carefully develop a plan and implement it a piece at a time. “That way,” he said, “you
can evaluate how it looks without committing the company to a full-scale expansion. It
doesn’t take a lot of figuring to figure that one out!”
Division D: “We’ve got a time problem here,” the director of Division D said. “The
committee simply can’t look at all possible angles. They need to synthesize the information and
understandings they have and make a decision based on two or three possible solutions.”
Source: This is a revised version of a case by W. D. Heier, “Ned Norman, Committee Chairman,” in John E.
Dittrich and Robert A. Zawacki, People and Organizations: Cases in Management and Organizational Behavior
(Plano, TX: Business Publications, Inc., 1981), pp. 9–11.

QUESTIONS
1. Based on the whole brain concept, what different thinking styles are represented
by the committee members and division directors? Do you believe they can ever be
brought together? Discuss.
2. What personality characteristics do you think could help Norman resolve this
dilemma and break the impasse? Discuss your reasons.
3. If you were the chairman of this committee, what would you do? Discuss.

References

1 Chip Cummins, “Workers Wear Feelings on Their Hard Hats and Show Job Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology (February 1993),
True Colors: On Oil Rigs and Assembly Lines, Sensitivity Training Pays pp. 111–118; J. S. Wiggins and A. L. Pincus, “Personality: Structure
Off,” The Wall Street Journal, (November 7, 2000), p. A1. and Assessment,” Annual Review of Psychology 43 (1992),
2 J. M. Digman, “Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor pp. 473–504; and Carl Zimmer, “Looking for Personality in Animals,
Model,” Annual Review of Psychology 41 (1990), pp. 417–440; of All People,” The New York Times (March 1, 2005), p. F1.
M. R. Barrick and M. K. Mount, “Autonomy as a Moderator of 3 Del Jones, “Not All Successful CEOs Are Extroverts,” USA Today
the Relationships Between the Big Five Personality Dimensions and (June 6, 2006), p. B1.