Liberty University Situational Leadership Group Research Case Study
There are 4 leadership categories that the class will be studying: 1) personal attributes of leadership (trait and skills theories); 2) situational leadership (contextual, etc.); 3) contemporary leadership (transformational, authentic, etc.); and 4) interpersonal leadership (leader to employee, team approach, etc.) Each team will be assigned 1 of these 4 areas to master and research.
Group 2: Situational Leadership – Case Study 5.2 (pp. 107-108) Contextual Approach.
Each group will complete a Group Case Study Paper related to the assigned leadership category. Each team has a Group Discussion Board; this will be utilized to coordinate the group’s work on the assignment and to dialog about the case study. Each student will research a particular aspect of the leadership category assigned to the group. A case study related to each particular leadership category will be provided.
The research paper must include the following categories:
1. An overview of their leadership category;
2. A review of the case study;
3. Answers to specific questions about the case study; and
4. A summary that includes a course of action and recommendations.
Jim Anderson is a training specialist in the human resource department
of a large pharmaceutical company. In response to a recent company wide survey, Jim specifically designed a 6-week training program on listening and communication skills to encourage effective management in
the company. Jim’s goals for the seminar are twofold: for participants to
learn new communication behaviors and for participants to enjoy the
seminar so they will want to attend future seminars.
The first group to be offered the program was middle-level managers
in research and development. This group consisted of about 25 people,
nearly all of whom had advanced degrees. Most of this group had
attended several in-house training programs in the past, so they had a
106 Leadership Theory and Practice
sense of how the seminar would be designed and run. Because the
previous seminars had not always been very productive, many of the
managers felt a little disillusioned about coming to the seminar. As one
of the managers said, “Here we go again: a fancy in-house training
program from which we will gain nothing.”
Because Jim recognized that the managers were very experienced, he
did not put many restrictions on attendance and participation. He used
a variety of presentation methods and actively solicited involvement
from the managers in the seminar. Throughout the first two sessions, he
went out of his way to be friendly with the group. He gave them frequent coffee breaks during the sessions; during these breaks, he promoted socializing and networking.
During the third session, Jim became aware of some difficulties with the
seminar. Rather than the full complement of 25 managers, attendance
had dropped to about only 15 managers. Although the starting time was
established at 8:30, attendees had been arriving as late as 10:00. During
the afternoon sessions, some of the managers were leaving the sessions
to return to their offices at the company.
As he approached the fourth session, Jim was apprehensive about why
things had been going poorly. He had become quite uncertain about
how he should approach the group. Many questions were running
through his mind: Had he treated the managers in the wrong way? Had
he been too easy regarding attendance at the sessions? Should he have
said something about the managers skipping out in the afternoon? Were
the participants taking the seminar seriously? Jim was certain that the
content of the seminars was innovative and substantive, but he could not
figure out what he could change to make the program more successful.
He sensed that his style was not working for this group, but he didn’t
have a clue as to how he should change what he was doing to make the
1. According to the SLII model (see Figure 5.1), what style of leadership
is Jim using to run the seminars?
2. At what level are the managers?
3. From a leadership perspective, what is Jim doing wrong?
4. What specific changes could Jim implement to improve the