Stepping out of the box at northern box company: parts A & B.

Golove, Robert ; Armandi, Barry ; Sherman, Herbert 等

CASE DESCRIPTION

The overall purpose of this case is to examine the managerial and organizational nuances associated with supervising a dysfunctional high level and loyal employee. Students obtain a "real-world" feel for the overall business setting, and, in particular, the individual forces that help shape the work environment. Students are asked to probe beyond personalities and the immediacy of the moment (Richard's resignation) and examine the broader issues posed in the case.

This case was written for two distinct audiences: students taking a human resource management course and students in a business ethics course. In terms of the human resource management course, the case places students in management's shoes. Students need to understand the ramifications associated with accusing an employee of theft from both an issue of procedural integrity and employee rights. This case (Part A and B) should be introduced after the students have read material on workplace justice and the handling of employee theft (Kleiman, 2000, Chapter 11; DeNisi and Griffin, 2002, Chapter 15), and career planning (Newman and Hodgetts, 1998, Chapter 15; Dessler, 2003, Chapter 10).

CASE SYNOPSIS

This case deals with an important issue that many students may themselves have to deal with during their own professional careers; how to deal with an employee who you believe has been dishonest with you (and perhaps stealing or planning to steal from the company) and how to deal with accusations by others of dishonesty, disloyalty and possible theft.

INSTRUCTORS' NOTES

This case deals with an important issue that many students may themselves have to deal with during their own professional careers; how to deal with an employee who you believe has been dishonest with you (and perhaps stealing or planning to steal from the company) and how to deal with accusations by others of dishonesty, disloyalty and possible theft.

SUMMARY--PART A

Peter Mitchell, had a long history with the NBC Box Company, having originally been hired as a sales person, then being promoted to co-sales manager under the auspices of Bruce Caesar due to his excellent sales skills. When Bruce became regional general manager he hired a new general manager, Michael Useliz, to replace him and had Peter report directly to Michael. When Peter's relationship with Michael became very rocky (Peter claimed that Michael set him up to purposely fail at a meeting by not informing Peter of the changes to the sales force compensation plan), Peter returned to the sales force and became NBC's largest producer. Michael was subsequently fired for poor work.

An incident occurred with one of Peter's accounts, POPCO, that lead to accusations of theft and dishonesty by the owner of NBC, Joe Green, and his son, Morgan. Peter did not directly respond to the accusations but presented evidence indicating that the allegations were quite false. The owner apologized stating that the ex-general manager had accused Peter of stealing and that he had a signed affidavit from an employee supporting the charge. Peter stated that his integrity had been challenged and that he was quite upset.

Peter's ex-boss Bruce (who still worked for the company) took him out for dinner and tried to convince Peter not to quit given the fact that he had a family to think about and that he was making an excellent salary. Peter discussed the issue with his wife and was going to make a decision to either stay or leave.

SUMMARY--PART B

Peter e-mailed Bruce that he as resigning but would stay on to help the company train his replacement and service his current customers who he felt he owed allot to. He proposed a new wage package and a consulting arrangement with the company. A month later, with no response from Joe or Morgan concerning his resignation letter, he is accused by Morgan of hiring an ex-truck driver in order to steal accounts from NBC.

Intended Instructional Audience & Placement in Course Instruction

This case was written for two distinct audiences: students taking a human resource management course and students in a business ethics course. In terms of the human resource management course, the case places students in management's shoes. Students need to understand the ramifications associated with accusing an employee of theft from both an issue of procedural integrity and employee rights. This case (Part A and B) should be introduced after the students have read material on workplace justice and the handling of employee theft (Kleiman, 2000, Chapter 11; DeNisi and Griffin, 2002, Chapter 15), and career planning (Newman and Hodgetts, 1998, Chapter 15; Dessler, 2003, Chapter 10).

For the ethics course, students are to consider the employee's position at the end of Part A and Part B. In Part A and B, the employee must balance the needs of his family with his need to work in an environment where there is trust and respect; where an employee is innocent until proven guilty. This case may therefore be introduced after the students have read material on employees and the corporation (Post, Lawrence and Weber, 2000, Chapter 17; Carroll and Buchholtz, 2003, Chapter 16) and ethical dilemmas in business (Post, Lawrence and Weber, 2000, Chapter 5; Carroll and Buchholtz, 2003, Chapter 7)

For other management courses, the case could be introduced after a discussion of developing an environment of employee trust (DuBrin, 2003, Chapter 11), and disciplinary procedures (Schermerhorn and Chappell, 2000; Chapter 7).

Learning Objectives

The overall purpose of this case is to examine the managerial and organizational nuances associated with supervising a dysfunctional high level and loyal employee. Students obtain a "real-world" feel for the overall business setting, and, in particular, the individual forces that help shape the work environment. Students are asked to probe beyond personalities and the immediacy of the moment (Richard's resignation) and examine the broader issues posed in the case. Specific learning objectives are as follows:

* For students to analyze the implications of Richards leaving the firm and what actions David Ming should take have taken prior to Richards resignation as well as those actions he now needs to take.

* For students to employ leadership theory in analyzing Ted Shade's style of management.

* For students to develop recommendations concerning Ted Shade's future with the company.

TEACHING STRATEGIES

Preparing the Student Prior to Case Analysis

There are several approaches, none of which are mutually exclusive, that an instructor may employ in terms of utilizing this case. It is strongly recommended that regardless of the specific methodology employed, that students prior to reading this case be exposed to some material on leadership theory (Yukl, 1994), how to deal with difficult employees (Perry, 2001), and employee termination (Bayer, 2000). Furthermore, it is suggested that a brief overview be presented on the chip manufacturing process (specifically the use of advanced manufacturing technology) so that students understand the workflow as it relates to both the organizational charts and Ted Shade's position (Noori, 1990).

This conceptual framework may be delivered prior to assigning the case by using at least one (1) of the follow methods:

* a short lecture and/or discussion session on the above noted topics.

* a reading assignment prior to reading the case that covers several of the topics mentioned.

* a short student presentation on each topic.

* a guest lecturer on one of the topics.

Traditional Case Method

In the traditional case method, the student assumes the role of a manager or consultant and therein takes a generalist approach to analyzing and solving the problems of an organization. This approach requires students to utilize all of their prior learning in other subject areas as well as the field of management. This case, in particular, will also require students to draw upon their knowledge of leadership and human resources. It is strongly suggested that students prepare for the case prior to class discussion, using the following recommendations: allow adequate time in preparing the case, read the case at least twice, focus on the key management issues, adopt the appropriate time frame, and/or draw on all their knowledge of business (Pearce and Robinson, 2000).

The instructor's role in case analysis is one of a facilitator. The instructor helps to keep the class focused on the key issues; creates a classroom environment that encourages classroom discussion and creativity, bridges "theory to practice" by referring back to key concepts learned in this or prior courses, and challenges students' analyses in order to stimulate further learning and discussion. There are several variations of the aforementioned approach including written assignments, oral presentations, team assignments, structured case competitions, and supplemental field work. Regardless of the variation employed, it is recommended that the students' work be evaluated and graded as partial fulfillment of the course's requirements.

Role-Playing

Role-playing "enacts" a case and allows the students to explore the human, social, and political dynamics of a case situation. There are several opportunities for role-playing in this case with the most obvious role-play being a meeting between Ted Shade and his supervisor, David Ming, to discuss Ted's future with the company. A second role-play could entail David Ming discussing the recent resignation of Chuck Richards with senior management with a third role-play being the exit interview with Richards.

Prior to role-playing the case, students should be asked to read the case but and answer the following questions:

(a) Who are the key participants in the case? Why?

(b) What is the "role" of each of these participants in the organization?

(c) What is the motivation, rationale, or benefit these participants derive from the situation?

(d) How do the assigned readings relate to the case?

(e) Are there legal and/or ethical issues related to the case?

The instructor may either go through these questions prior to case enactment or wait for the role-playing exercise to be completed in order to use this material to "debrief" the class.

Starting the Role-Playing Exercise

The case ends with Mr. Ming learning of Mr. Richard's resignation. This would seem to be a logical place to start the series of role-playing exercises in that the student who role-plays Mr. Ming can now summarize the case with two issues in mind: "How do I deal with Richards' resignation?"; and two, "How do I deal with Shade's ineffective management style?"

Step 1: Assignment of Roles (5 minutes)

The class should be broken up into groups of 5-6 students. Assign the key roles of Mr. Ming, Mr.Richards, and Mr. Shade to three of the members of each group. Class members not chosen for the role-playing exercise become members of the management team. (See Organizational Chart 2 for management team members.) Students are observers for parts of the role play in which they are not active participants.

Step 2: 1st Enactment (10 minutes)

The student enacting the role of Mr. Ming should be instructed to start the role play with a summary of the situation (including problem definitions) and include comments concerning both Richards' resignation and Shade's future with the company. The student should then be directed to develop a series of meetings (one with Richards, one with Shade, and one with Ming's management team) to try to solve the identified problems. The instructor during this phase of the exercise should note how well the student enacting Ming's role covers the major issues surrounding the case. Student observers may also be given specific assignments by the instructor or may be asked to merely summarize their observations.

Step 3: First Meeting (15 minutes)

Based upon the decision of the student enacting Mr. Ming, the first meeting may be with either Mr. Richards, Mr. Shade, or the management team. At the end of the meeting, the observers should be asked to report on their specific "assignments" and/or to comment on the general flow of the meeting. The instructor should assist the observers by helping them to focus on both the group process and meeting results.

Steps 4 and 5: 2nd and 3rd Meetings (15 minutes each)

Repeat Step 3 until all three meetings have been completed.

Step 5: Exercise Debriefing (20 minutes)

The three meetings should be debriefed as a whole in each group. Once the in-group debriefing is completed, the management team should then address the class as a whole and then the discussion should be opened to the entire class. The instructor might want to ask the following questions or provide these questions to each group for guidance:

* With whom was the first meeting with and why did the student enacting Mr. Ming choose to meet with that person or group first?

* What were the goals and results of each meeting? Did Mr. Ming accomplish his objectives?

* What alternative results might have occurred from this meeting? Best and worst scenarios?

* What theory(ies) from the course helped the students to understand the case situation and recommend solutions to the defined problems?

Students should also be given the opportunity to comment on the role-playing exercise as a learning instrument. The instructor might ask the class the following questions:

* Did this exercise animate the case? Did students get a "feel" for individual and organizational issues surrounding the case?

* What were the strengths and weaknesses of the exercise? What changes would they make to the exercise given their experiences with it?

SUGGESTED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The following questions may be employed by the instructor either as guidelines for the instructor for case analysis and/or as questions to be distributed to the class in conjunction with the case. This methodology provides the instructor some latitude in terms of how much direction he or she wishes to provide the student and therein allows the instructor to modify the difficulty of the case to fit his or her class's needs.

* What actions should David Ming haven taken to prepare for or reduce the possibility of Chuck Richards leaving the firm?

The are at least two actions that David Ming could have taken prior to Chuck Richards leaving the firm that might have minimized the impact of this eventuality.

* Employee Retention--it is clear that the V.P. for Manufacturing (VPM) is one of the most critical positions in this organization (departmentation by function--see Chart 2) since the lion-share of departments report to this senior manager. Since it is apparent to Mr. Ming that Ted Shade cannot go back to being VPM (see Chart 1) given his ineffective leadership style, Ming's comment about having to "reconsider my entire organization" demonstrates his lack of foresight in either retaining or eventually replacing Chuck Richards. In terms of employee retention, Perry (2000) recommends that managers: provide career growth and opportunity, talk with employees (get to know them), encourage feedback and participation, recognize achievement, provide adequate training, and hire the right person for the job. The case does not provide information on what actions Ming took in retaining Chuck Richards, except for Richards receiving a promotion from "trouble shooter" to VPM in order to handle the Ted Shade situation.

* Management Succession--Although normally discussed in the context of employee retirement, management succession can be applied to issues of employee turnover in key management positions. "Succession planning is vital, particularly in closely held companies, and needs to be considered years in advance" (McCrea, 2001, p.63). It usually involves anticipating management needs, comparing those needs to an employee skills inventory, creating replacement charts, and providing management development training for those individuals scheduled to fill senior level positions. (Dessler, 2003, p. 205) Again, Ming's comment about the need to reassess his organization demonstrates his lack of planning for Richard's possible departure.

* What are some of the implications of Chuck Richards leaving the firm at this time?

There are several implications associated with Chuck Richards' departure. First, Mr. Ming's surprise at Mr. Richards' resignation denotes Mr. Ming's relative detachment from Mr. Richards. As his direct supervisor, Mr. Ming should have had some inkling as to Mr. Richards' unhappiness with the current work situation, especially given the problems associated with Ted Shade.

Secondly, Mr. Ming might have thought that his new employees, like Chuck Richards, would exhibit what Laabs (1998) would have called "old fashion loyalty." This loyalty, as exhibited by Ted Shade over the years of his employment, includes: long-term attachment to the employer, no interest in changing jobs, and the firm and its goals are the employee's top priorities. However, as Laabs (1998) pointed out, "the old brand of loyalty is dead." (p. 35) Employees put their own interests above the organizations, have short-term attachments to their employers, and are therefore quite prepared to change jobs.

Chuck Richard's leaving might also serve as a signal to Mr. Ming that perhaps his own management and leadership style should be reconsidered (besides those of Ted Shade's). Certainly Mr. Ming should be questioning his protection of Ted Shade (which will be addressed in question three) and its broader impact on the firm--not only in terms of the departure of lower level employees but his inability to retain his valued VP for Manufacturing.

Lastly, Mr. Ming must be prepared to deal with the "aftermath" of Richards' departure, not only because of the direct impact on the firm's performance relative to the VP for Manufacturing position, but also due to the message his departure sends to the rest of the firm. Weick (1995) argued that "people can make sense out of anything" (p. 49) and that managers "need to pay close attention to ways people notice, extract cues, and embellish that which they extract." (p. 49) Ming must deal with the possible negative rumors associated with Richards' resignation and must be prepared to directly address them.

3) What actions should Ming take now, post resignation?

David Ming has at least two issues he needs to confront: the resignation of Chuck Richards, and the disruptive behavior of Ted Shade. Although these concerns on the surface may seem to be separate (the first a short term problem, the second a more long-term and insidious dilemma), they are tied together by the fact that numerous employees have left the firm due to the harsh treatment they have received from Ted Shades and his supervisors.

The departure of Chuck Richards, interestingly enough, can be viewed as an opportunity for David Ming to become reacquainted with the operational aspects of the firm and experience some of the problems caused by Ted Shade and his supervisors. Mr. Ming will certainly have to step into the VP's position, even on a temporary basis, given the fact that there is currently no one described in the case who has the expertise in which to take over managing the operation. Plainly, putting Ted Shades back into his old position would be disastrous.

While the search for a new VP of Manufacturing is being conducted, David Ming can then finally resolve the Ted Shade situation. Ming will have to:

* Analyze Ted Shade's behavior as a manager--does he seem to demonstrate leadership characteristics?

* Given Ted Shade's leadership style, determine if Ming can re-engineer either the man or a job to create a better employee-task fit.

Once Ming has made these decisions (see questions 4 and 6), he then needs to turn his attention inward and ask himself how he could have let the situation with Ted Shade become so volatile. Yet facing problem subordinates is not easy.

Veiga (1988) cautioned managers to "face your problem subordinates now!" (p. 145) but noted that a "problem subordinate often produced a kind of autistic hostility" in managers, managers' anger would "feed upon itself." (p. 146) Managers become quite frustrated with these subordinates and search for "overwhelming proof" (p. 146) before taking any action--the data gathering process becomes another method for avoiding the need to deal with the problem employee.

Veiga would recommend that Ming should be candid and direct when confronting Ted Shade but Ming should also be supportive to assist Ted in confronting his own behavior. Veiga observed that most managers, however, try to apply restrained stress on the subordinate to leave the firm. Secondly, Veiga warns that the current deviant behavior of the employee can be inextricably coupled to past performance - in Ted's case his hard work in dedication (especially during the formative years of the firm). "Once previously held views are put aside, the potential for new insights can be enormous." (p. 150) Third, Veiga indicated that managers tend to ignore early warning signals and need to own up to the part that they played in creating and harboring the problem employee. David Ming needs to understand that he has aided and abetted Ted Shade's behavior by continuing to neglect the problem once it had been uncovered. He needs to act and he needs to act now.

4) Analyze Ted Shade's behavior as a manager--does he seem to demonstrate leadership characteristics?

Ted Shade was appointed by the organization and given formal authority to direct the activity of others in fulfilling organization goals, however, he seems ineffective as a leader in that he is unable or incapable of influencing and empowering others to accomplish their goals. His methodology for influencing others seems to be punitive in nature and his ability to communicate with his staff is minimal. He does appear to be highly organized, hard working, and technically competent however he lacks the people-skills necessary in order to create a team environment and positive employee morale. His immediate subordinates do not perceive him as a good role model and they question his selection as a Vice-President.

5) Describe Ted Shade's leadership style employing contingency, path-goal theory and transformation leadership theory.

Employing the Fiedler contingency model results in the following findings. Ted Shade describes his co-workers and employees in a very negative manner and would therefore receive a low score on the least-preferred co-worker (LPC) questionnaire. Given Shade's low LPC score, his leadership style would be labeled as "task oriented." A task-oriented leader is appropriate, according to Fiedler, when the three contingency variables (leader-member relations, task structure, and position power) create very favorable or very unfavorable managerial situations. (Fiedler, Chemers, and Mahar, 1994)

a) Leader-member relations: given the comments of Ted Shade's three subordinates and the fact that Ted has described his current dealings with his associates as being very formal in nature, one could classify these relationships as unfavorable to very unfavorable.

b) Task structure: the jobs seem highly structured (production operations) and could be classified as favorable to very favorable.

c) Position power: Ted Shade's power position within the organization has recently decreased (change in job title and reduction of duties) reducing his position power.

It also appears that Ted would fire his "lazy" workers if he had the authority to do so. We could then classify his position power as unfavorable. See Figure 2, below.

The cumulative effect of the three variables is that Ted Shade is managing in a "mixed" (between favorable and unfavorable) situation--a situation that calls for a relationship oriented leader. Given the fixed nature of leadership (according to Fiedler), Ted's effectiveness can only be improved by changing the amount of power the leader has over organization factors such as salary, promotions and disciplinary action or by moving him into a leadership position that better matched his style of leadership.

It is interesting to note that the application of House's path-goal leadership theory leads to a differing set of analyses. In the path-goal theory, the leader's job is to modify his or her style of leadership in order to assist followers in attaining goals, and to provide direction and support needed to ensure that their goals are compatible with the organization's. (Bass, 1990) This differs from Fiedler's theory which treats leadership style as a fixed or "given" in the leadership equation.

For House, a leader's behavior is acceptable to subordinates when viewed as a source of satisfaction, and motivational when need satisfaction is contingent on performance, and the leader facilitates, coaches and rewards effective performance.

It is apparent from the case that Ted Shade's leadership style could at best be described as achievement-oriented since he set challenging goals and expected subordinates to perform at their highest levels. It is also obvious from the case that the workers were highly dissatisfied with Ted Shade's leadership style given the subordinates' perception of their own abilities to do the job coupled with their work experience--they wanted more control of their work environment.

Secondly, the highly stressful nature of the work environment (caused by the need to meet production schedules as dictated by industry competitiveness), as described by the subordinates, necessitated providing emotional support (empathy). Since employee performance and satisfaction are likely to be positively influenced when the leader compensates for the shortcomings in either the employee or the work setting, Ted Shade's leadership style needed to be more supportive to defray the stress in the work environment.

Transformational leadership, the ability to create and articulate a realistic, credible, and attractive vision for the future of the organization that improves upon the present situation, is certainly not evident in Ted Shade, or his boss (David Ming). (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 1999)

The CEO (Robinson) of the company had a vision of "to create and maintain an organizational commitment to satisfying customer needs, staying on the cutting edge of technology, and engendering a mutual respect among and between employees", however, his departure and subsequent return did not engender inspiration or a particular value system.

More importantly, Galactic's rewarding of Ted Shade (who merely emulated his previous boss's behavior) sent a clear message as to the real values held by Galactic management--loyalty and meeting deadlines! Ted Shade was not the only senior level manager to practice punitive style management and can be perceived as a product of the real work environment at Galactic.

6) Given Ted Shade's leadership style, determine if Ming can re-engineer either the man or a job to create a better employee-task fit.

The answer to question five (5) determined that Ted Shade was not well suited for a leadership position in the firm given the people-centered requirements of the task as compared to Ted's task-centered approach. This question forces students to confront the question "what do we do with Ted?"

In determining what should be done with Ted, Ming needs to take a hard look at Ted. First, Ted is 49 years old and therefore the easy way out of "early retirement" is not an option. Ted's interview with Dr. Robinson (the consultant) should reveal to Ming that Ted is a very structured individual who seems to understand his limitations but is still a slave to them. Ted knows that "a person who is negative to you, people who yell and don't understand the employees' jobs, they're probably bad managers" yet the three things he would like to change about himself is "my ability to communicate ...; being able to accept other peoples' shortcomings and walk away from them without getting upset ...". Ted's most revealing statement is his concept of the perfect and worst job, "The most ideal job for me would be as a forest ranger in the mountains. You are away from everything, and you are with the animals, the forest, and nature overall. The worst job I can imagine is any job in Manhattan. There are too many people there. There's too much of everything."

David Ming should be able to discern from Ted's comments that Ted not only knows that he lacks interpersonal skills but would prefer a job that has minimal contact with coworkers. Since most managerial positions involve managing people and/or supplier/customer interface, it may not be possible for Ming to find Ted an equivalent high level position in the firm (Ted has already had the equivalent of a demotion moving from VP of Manufacturing to VP of Supplier Management). Students might recommend that given Ted's penchant and interest in planning and structure that Ming might suggest "Peter Principling" Ted and making him a VP for Planning reporting directly to the President. At first brush this might be considered a viable option, except that Ted had a very bad experience with both the President and the Chair of the Board. "In retrospect, if I could change the past I would make certain that I didn't present anything in front of Al (President) and Pat (Chairperson & CEO). One time I was asked to make a presentation before them, and they shot down what I was saying. I began arguing with them, but it was no use; they had their minds made up. From then on I just kept my mouth shut. Also, I never volunteered for anything. It was always given to me. These two items may have hurt me more than anything else." The VP of Planning would not seem to be a viable option either.

If students believe that Ming cannot engineer the job to fit the person, students might suggest that Ted Shade take some form of human relations training (i.e. sensitivity training) in order to help deal with his poor interpersonal skills. It is evident that Ted knows what makes for a "good and bad" manager, however, the real question is whether Ted is willing and able to work on changing his behavior. Ted wants to be able "to communicate and work with my kids better" and perhaps this could provide Ted with the motivation he would need in order to assist in the change process.

Mr. Ming must be prepared support Ted if he decides that human relations training is a viable option. Mr. Ming must mentor Ted through this process. This may include Ming giving Ted a leave of absence (preferably paid), providing coaching, counseling and role modeling appropriate employer-employee interaction.

Some students may assume that the training would fail or that Ted Shade would not be willing to participate in any human relations training. If this is the case, then Mr. Ming is left in a very difficult position. What does he do with a "loyal" employee who just isn't working out? Mr. Ming must unfortunately be prepared to do what Ted Shade himself would do, lay him off. In Ted's own words "the best way of handling a problem is getting rid of people who should be let go. You can't keep deadwood. It wastes resources." Ted acknowledges that firing people is a difficult job, by one that has to be done for the benefit of the company. Mr. Ming must put his personal feeling about Ted aside and do what is best for the firm. Students might suggest that Ted's departure would serve as a positive indicator to the employees--that inhumane treatment of employees will not longer be tolerated and rewarded.

EPILOGUE

At this point, Peter called Bruce and told him what had happened. He told him that the "games were over". He was leaving and moving his business to a competitor. Realizing that the loss of business could be disastrous to the Division, Joe, Morgan, and the executive vice president met with Peter three times to ask him to stay. The first meeting they told him that they would accept his plan. He told them that the plan died with the second accusation. At the second meeting they threatened to sue him if he left, due to his "non-compete clause." He told them that the customers and his fellow salespeople would revolt, shutting down the Division immediately. At the third meeting, they offered to have give Peter anything he wanted as long as he stayed. Peter reminded them that it was not about money, but rather about respect. He went on to say that "once respect is gone, it can not be replaced."

Bruce eventually stepped into the negotiations and reached a settlement with Peter. Peter left the Company and worked for a company in a different industry. Sometime after Peter's departure he received a phone call from a designer at NBC who told him that he found one of the missing dies in the plant. When the designer informed the production staff, they told him not to say anything to Peter.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnard, Chester I. (1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bass, Bernard M. (1990) Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York: The Free Press.

Bayer, Richard (2000) "Termination with Dignity" Business Horizons, September/October, 4-10.

Brown, L. David (1983) Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Conger, Jay A. and Rabindra N. Kanungo (1998) Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

DeNisi, Angelo S. and Ricky W. Griffin (2001) Human Resource Management. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Dessler, Gary (2003) Human Resource Management. 9th Edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

DuBrin, Andrew J. (1998) Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Fiedler, Fred E., Martin H. Chemers, and Linda Mahar (1994) Improvong Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader Match Concept. 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley.

Field, Richard H.G. and Robert J. House (1990) "A Test of the Vroom-Yetton Model Using Manager and Subordinate Reports," Journal of Applied Psychology, June, 362-366.

French, Wendell L. and Cecil H. Bell, Jr. (1995) Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. 5th Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hater, John J. and Bernard M. Bass (1988) "Supervisors' Evaluations of Subordinates' Perceptions of Transformational and Transactional Leadership," Journal of Applied Psychology, November, p. 698- 704.

Hughes, Richard L., Robert C. Ginnett, and Gordon J. Curphy (1999) Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. 3rd Edition. New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Laabs, Jennifer (1998) "The New Loyalty: Grasp it. Earn it. Keep it." Workforce, November, 35-39.

Lawrence, Paul R. and Jay W. Lorsch (1969) Developing Organizations: Diagnosis and Action. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Lussier, Robert N. (2003) Management Fundamentals: Concepts, Applications, Skill Development. Mason, Ohio: South-Western.

Maidment, Fred H. (2000) Annual Editions: Human Resources 00/01. 10th Edition. Guilford, CT: Duskin/McGraw-Hill. McCrea, Bridget (2001) "When Good Employees Retire" Industrial Distribution, March, 63.

Nelson, Debra L. and James Campbell Quick (2000) Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Realities, & Challenges. 3rd Edition. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Pearce II, John A. and Richard B. Robinson Jr. (2000) Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation, and Control. 7th Edition. Boston, MA.: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Perry, Phillip M. (2001) "Disengage the Rage: Defusing Employee Anger" Rural Telecommunications, January/February, 64-67.

Perry, Phillip M. (2000) "Retaining Tope Employees In a Tight Labor Market" Die Casting Management, September, 32-34.

Peters, Thomas J. and Robert H. Waterman (1982) In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. N.Y.: Harper & Row.

Peters, Tom (1987) Thriving on Chaos: Handbook for a Management Revolution. New York: Harper Perennial.

Robbins, Stephen P. (2001) Organizational Behavior. 9th Edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Veiga, John F. (1988) "Face Your Problem Subordinates Now!" The Academy of Management Executive, 2 (2), 145-152.

Vroom, Victor H. and Arthur G. Jago (1988) The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Weick, Karl E. (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing. 2nd Edition. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley.

Yukl, Gary (1994) Leadership in Organizations. 3rd Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Robert Golove, Long Island University

Barry Armandi, SUNY-Old Westbury

Herbert Sherman, LIU-Southampton College

FIGURE 2

TED SHADE'S LEADERSHIP STYLE: FIEDLER'S CONTINGENCY APPROACH

Leader-Member Relationship Task Structure Position Power
Unfavorable/very unfavorable Very favorable Unfavorable