Brief overview of leadership style differences in the text.
In the following, two different styles of leadership will be explained, and how they apply to management styles and organizations. The two styles are the Vroom model of Leadership and the Fielder Contingency, and they operate on two very different notions (Bateman, 2011). Two organizations will be approached which have different business models, and analyzed based on these two models and whether they would be effective or not. Finally, a comparison between the two will be drawn based on the findings of the comparison.
The first company has a global company with a very simple business model and is hinged on product, McDonalds (Nair, 2013). This company utilizes fast delivery of standardized product to deliver consistent food to its patrons and community. The Vroom model in this instance would be effective, though a bit overdone, at least at the basic management level. The decisions that happen are very few, and are rarely complicated to the point that a problem statement would be recommended (Bateman, 2011). The Fielder model however, would land much more in place with management, as it allows for a summary of events based on a set scale with set standards. This comparison of standards would keep in line with McDonald’s proven business model and keep the pressure off of managers and the extensive existing turnover.
The second business approached will be American Airlines. This company is large, and every action that they take must be planned and executed not only on their internal regulations, but government regulation as well (Aa.com, 2014). Decisions are large, and affect many people, so priority in leadership is very key. The Vroom model here would work very well, as it leads to a clean prioritization of tasks, and warrants a powerful way to communicate with many people at one time. The Fielder model would work here, but not in the same sense, as it would be too general to meet the minute details required by the heavily regulated company. The Vroom model would be more appropriate since it rides on priority, giving chase to every issue regardless of size. This keeps the minutia from falling through the cracks, and avoids possible issue in the future.
Finally, the two models work very differently to accomplish a similar goal. McDonald’s would benefit much more from a