Motorola Innovator-in Chief
Is Zander providing a road map for transformational leadership that will work in almost any type of organization? Why or why not?
Obviously, Zander was providing a roadmap for transformational change on the ground that it was obvious for him that the “status quo was not delivering” and difficulties the company is experiencing in bringing new product in the market was due to the lack of innovations. He made this clear when he was asked to describe his leadership approach to Motorola. Zander said “Companies that that do not innovate do not survive….” Indeed, historically, the former bosses of Motorola have been keen in innovations that put the company ahead of most of its competitors.
Zander himself realize that that company executives should learn to take risk and must learn to set clear innovations goals. He emphasized that good leaders must be driven by innovations and should be willing to take risk.
How can someone pursue Zander’s leadership suggestions while meeting the conditions of authentic and servant leadership?
Zande’s leadership suggestion is quite unconventional in the sense that it looks to radical regarding change of status quo than a servant leadership in the company. He said, “Leaders who do not innovate are replaced by those willing to take risk” and that A good leader for him needs to shake things up by “breaking the business.” However, he stated that by changing the company’s organizational structure, it allows people to interact, which mean that he is willing to accommodate ideas that will be helpful in the attaining success of the innovations the company is aiming. In other words, even if the idea would require him to submit to such ideas, he would be willing to do.
In effect, zander exercised a servant leadership while at the same time providing people the means to follow his leadership ship suggestion.
What role do the force-coercion, rational persuasion, and shared power change strategies play in leadership that is as committed to change and innovation as Zander was at Motorola?
The force-Coercion strategy according to P.A. Luning F. Devlieghere, and Roland Verhe explained that in force-coercion strategy, power is the basis of legitimacy. They stated “Reward and punishment are the primary inducements to change and the out comes are immediate and often temporary…. The new behavior continues only as longs as the opportunity for rewards and punishment is present’ (p. 266).
Rational persuasion on the other hand “attempts to initiate change through persuasion supported by special knowledge, empirical data, and rational argument (Luning, Devlieghere, & Verhe p.266). The out come of rational persuasion according them “is the ultimate compliance with reasonable commitment (p. 266).
The Shared Power Change Strategy on the other hand, Luning, Devlieghere, and Verhe “engages in people in a collaborative process of identifying values, assumptions, and goals from which support for change will naturally emerge” (p. 267). They stated that this process is slow yet this process yields a long-term commitment.
The role that all these strategies play in Zander’s leadership that is committed to change and innovation at Motorola is that each of these strategies provides particular contribution towards aggressive efforts to achieve not only the commitment but also the full potential of the employee. In the case of the forces-coercion was the reward and punishment, which according to Luning, Devlieghere, and Verhe creates a new behavior that is vibrant and more aggressive towards doing their best. The same with rational commitment, which insures the employees’ reasonable commitment, with Zander’s innovative change, and the shared power strategy, which help people, identify company values, assumptions, and objectives. The importance of this is that employees can relate themselves to the values and objectives of the company for them to stay and contribute towards achieving those values, assumptions and goals.
What problems might a leader like Zander experience after having a high profile success such as the Razr?
The problem that a leader like Zander might encounter is the initial reactions of the people both under him and above him. These reactions some time are expressed in very critical statement and opposition. Furthermore, misunderstanding of his intention is also common problem particularly if people in the company have long been used to some procedures and company policies. Their reaction therefore to such innovation is skeptical, as they would need to adjust to the strategy, which they are not used to. John C. Kunich and Richard I. Lester stated that leadership is the competence to convert intentions, goals and objectives into reality. Thus, Zanders emphasized on such terms as risk taking, Shook up stodgy corporate culture, and breaking the business which means that he has experience such things and those things generally triggers negative reactions from the people in the company.
However, these problems gradually diminish as the results of his leadership proved a powerful source of the company’s success and growth. The result is admiration and respect that people voluntary attributes in appreciation for such leadership. However, if his innovation fails, he suffers terrible problem not only regarding his failed innovation but his leadership ability suffers from distrust and shame.
Kunich, J.C. & Lester R.I. Profile of a Leader: The Wallenberg Effect
Luning, P.A. Devlieghere, F. & Verhe, R. (2006) Safety in the Agri-Food Chain The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishing