“The Rules of Engagement” presents a multi-faceted, dynamic situation for any student of leadership, whether in the military or not. This paper attempts to tease apart the complex mix of motivational, generational, and cultural differences between the individuals, while situating them within the larger context of the priorities of the modern Navy, with the goal of presenting recommendations and leadership lessons any reader can take from this case into their professional lives.
Critical factors that influenced leadership behavior
Panorama’s Style of Leadership, and How It Affected His Subordinates
Senior Chief Petty Officer Panorama is an old-school naval officer. He enlisted many years ago, rising through the ranks under the old Navy culture, …show more content…
Panorama is described as “authoritative, abrasive, arrogant, and condescending, but always got the job done” (“Rules of Engagement,” 2014). His communication is solely focused on goal achievement, not on meeting any supportive needs of his team. Meanwhile, Petty Officer Second Class Dan Bailey would be classified as a D3 development level -- he is a competent employee who did not exhibit the commitment or motivation desired by his …show more content…
Task motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal, whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships.” The contingency model places an emphasis on three critical factors that influence leadership: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. According to the contingency theory, Panorama ranks in the high LPCs (Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale). He exhibits poor leader-member relations: the fact that the Equal Opportunity Office was able to compile evidence against him so quickly (and at all) demonstrates the poor leader-member relations he had with his subordinates, and, as the case notes, he never fostered a cohesive, collaborative atmosphere among his followers. He has a high task structure, as suggested by his desire to document Bailey’s insubordination and violations, and as supported by his reputation for always getting the job done. He also has strong position power, where he had the ability to dole out punishments or rewards, and where there were two managers below him that were also capable of handling the problem. These factors would support a LPC measure of
Critical factors that influenced leadership behavior
Panorama’s Style of Leadership, and How It Affected His Subordinates
Senior Chief Petty Officer Panorama is an old-school naval officer. He enlisted many years ago, rising through the ranks under the old Navy culture, …show more content…
Panorama is described as “authoritative, abrasive, arrogant, and condescending, but always got the job done” (“Rules of Engagement,” 2014). His communication is solely focused on goal achievement, not on meeting any supportive needs of his team. Meanwhile, Petty Officer Second Class Dan Bailey would be classified as a D3 development level -- he is a competent employee who did not exhibit the commitment or motivation desired by his …show more content…
Task motivated leaders are primarily concerned with reaching a goal, whereas relationship-motivated leaders are concerned with developing close interpersonal relationships.” The contingency model places an emphasis on three critical factors that influence leadership: leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. According to the contingency theory, Panorama ranks in the high LPCs (Least-Preferred Co-Worker Scale). He exhibits poor leader-member relations: the fact that the Equal Opportunity Office was able to compile evidence against him so quickly (and at all) demonstrates the poor leader-member relations he had with his subordinates, and, as the case notes, he never fostered a cohesive, collaborative atmosphere among his followers. He has a high task structure, as suggested by his desire to document Bailey’s insubordination and violations, and as supported by his reputation for always getting the job done. He also has strong position power, where he had the ability to dole out punishments or rewards, and where there were two managers below him that were also capable of handling the problem. These factors would support a LPC measure of