Reference no: EM13756607

Learning Activity 3

John Kotter in his article “What Leaders Really Do" makes the following statement " Managers promote stability while Leaders press for change, and only organizations that embrace both sides of the contradiction can thrive in turbulent times." After reading the case below, explain what you think Dean Adams’ role should be in light of this quote; the leaders or the manager’s? Identify the two roles leader and manager.   Be sure to include in your comments the different solutions that may result from a leader's perspective and that of the manager's perspective as well as where they overlap. Finally, suggest which role’s perspective is best for Adam and the organization and why.

Studer International

At 7:30 a.m., Dean Adams hit the snooze alarm for the third time, but he knew he could never go back to sleep. Rubbing his eyes and shaking off a headache, Adams first checked his BlackBerry and read an urgent message from his boss, explaining that Sue Chan, chief security analyst, had resigned this morning and needed to be replaced immediately. Frustrated, Adams lumbered toward the shower, hoping it would energize him to face another day. After last night’s management meeting, which had ended after midnight, he was reeling from the news that his Wall Street employer, Studer International, was spiraling toward a financial meltdown.

Adams scratched his head and wondered, “How could one of the world’s largest insurance companies plummet from being the gold standard in the industry to one struggling for survival?” At the end of 2007, Studer had $100 billion in annual revenues, 65 million customers, and 96,000 employees in 130 countries. One year later and staggered by losses stemming from the credit crisis, Studer teetered on the brink of failure and was in need of emergency government assistance. Studer had been a victim of the meltdown in the credit markets. The collapse of this respected financial institution sent shock waves throughout the world’s economy.

Within Studer’s Manhattan office, Adams and his coworkers felt growing pressure to respond to this crisis quickly and ethically. But morale was sagging and decision making was stalled. New projects were on hold, revenues were not coming in fast enough, and job cuts were imminent. Finger-pointing and resignations of key managers had become commonplace. Strong leadership was needed to guide employees to stay the course. Adams knew his first priority was to replace Sue Chan. When leaving the meeting last night, his boss had told him, “It’s critical that we keep key managers in place as we weather this storm. If we lose any, be sure you replace them with ones who can handle the stress and can make tough, maybe even unpopular, decisions.”

Working up a sweat as he rushed into his office, Adams began sorting through the day’s priorities. His first task would be to consider internal candidates to replace Chan. He pondered the characteristics required of a chief securities analyst and scribbled them on a notepad: experienced in security and regulatory issues; strong decision-making skills; high ethical standards; able to make job cuts; comfortable slashing budgets; and respected for calm leadership. Adams immediately thought of Julie Cobb, a senior analyst who had been vocal about her desire to move up and had recently shown steady leadership as the organization started to crumble.

Cobb had worked her way up through the organization, becoming a respected expert in her field. She had developed a strong team of loyal employees and made training and job development a priority. She was likable, sensitive to her employees, and a consensus builder. While many managers within Studer had made questionable business decisions, Julie had held herself to a high ethical standard and created a culture of integrity. Cobb was focused on the future—a go-getter who knew how to get results.

With the future of the company at stake, however, Adams wondered if Cobb could handle the tough challenges ahead. Although he valued her team-building skills, she could be soft when it came to holding employees accountable. A large part of her motivation was to have people like her. When she reported a shortfall in earnings in the last company meeting and came under fire, she’d become defensive and did not’t want to point fingers at employees who were to blame. In fact, Adams recalled another instance when Cobb recoiled at the thought of firing an employee who had developed a pattern of poor attendance while caring for her sick husband. She confessed a hesitation to confront poor performers and employees struggling to balance home and work life.

Adams stirred his morning coffee and wondered aloud, “Is Julie Cobb capable of balancing kindness and toughness during a crisis? Can I count on her to be decisive and focused on top- and bottom-line results? Is she too much of a people pleaser? Will it impact her ability to lead successfully?”