discussion answer

When working on the tasks associated with closing the installation, Lt Col Adams faced several challenges that resulted in his failure to meet the goals of the organization during the transition. The skills model, presented by Mumford, identified the skills a leader is able to acquire to make them successful (Northouse, 2019). Using this model, we can identify areas in which Lt Col Adams had strengths and weaknesses that contributed to his ability to lead the organization through the transition of closure.

The skills model utilizes 5 components: individual attributes, competencies, leadership outcomes, career experiences, and environmental factors (Northouse, 2019, p. 47). Each component contains a series of subitems to help further define the overall characteristics. Lt Col Adams shows strengths in the areas dealing with individual attributes. He has demonstrated his cognitive abilities and his motivation throughout his career, as shown through his previous assignments, accomplishments, (Jones, 1991)with resistance, there may some personality weaknesses in his ability to help people cope with the complex changes, thus weakening his ability to lead them.

His background in engineering makes Lt Col Adams a strong problem solver for technical issues, however his lack of experience in leading large teams, understanding the complex nature of the base, and the human factor, makes him weak in this competency for his new position. He failed to formulate multiple plans to consider actions that may be taken outside of the scope of his control, failed to think creatively and use input from other stakeholders in the process, and executed his own plan without wisdom or sensemaking for those it would impact. The problem-solving process compounded the weaknesses he possessed in social judgement skills. These skills would have enabled him to work with others, understand their perspectives and goals, and given him the tools to communicate his vision for all to work toward a common goal (Northouse, 2019, p. 51).

Additionally, Lt Col Adams placed additional undue hardship on the members under his leadership by imposing additional cuts to his work centers to make the DOD target goals. Given his proximity to the employees affected, questions arise about its ethical standard. Evidence suggests that layoffs within ones area would have greater moral proximity than layoffs in other areas (Jones, 1991). Since Adams did not demonstrate empathy on his own members and caused them to be more burdened through an already difficult time, his subordinates will likely conclude that he operates unethically. His shortfalls in his personal attributes and his competencies, ultimately determined his failures in leadership outcomes. The decisions he made, had negative impacts across the base and caused the base to fail meeting their operational requirements. In this case, Lt Col Adams failed to perform his required task of balancing the timelines for closure and meeting operation requirements while doing so.

To help Lt Col Adams become a more effective leader, mentoring should take place in his areas of weakness. At his level of leadership, technical skills are no longer the focal point. Lt Col Adams needs to develop human and conceptual skills. Katz identified these skills as being the most needed for middle and top management (Northouse, 2019, p. 45). These skills would help Lt Col Adams in dealing with and working with people within his organization and allow him to better understand the diverse nature of the needs of each section. These skills directly relate to the social judgement subsector of competencies identified by Mumford. Lt Col Adams past career experience with small technical teams did not give him the experience to deal with large teams with conflicting goals and processes. First Adams must understand each of the organizational goals within the wing and then he can begin to work with the leaders to find compromises to meet operational needs while meeting mandated closure deadlines.

sample response

xxxxxxxxx,

I enjoyed your post. I absolutely agree with your statement that Lt. Col. Adams’ lack of experience was a significant factor in his failures. I also agree that the lack of communication from his superiors was a significant factor in his failures. However, I do believe that Lt. Col. Adams did in fact ethically consider the bigger picture in his decisions. Lt. Col. Adams understood the ramifications of any staffing shortages to his subordinate’s livelihoods. One area where he may have exhibited shortcomings in the application of Jones’ Issue-Contingent model was establishing moral behavior (Jones, 1991). Lt. Col. Adams most certainly achieved the prior step of establishing moral intent when he took into consideration the act of destroying his subordinate’s livelihoods. The decision to act on moral considerations constitutes successful moral intent (Jones, 1991) Lt. Col. Adams fully understood the ethics inherent ins his power over this decision. However, his subordinates did end up bearing the weight of his failures. The exact nature of his failures regarding moral behavior are slightly ambiguous. I believe that the nature of his failure can be located precisely in two areas: lack of decision resilience and the fundamental attribution error. Jones (1991) makes clear that moral behavior must overcome situational impediments. Lt. Col. Adams succumbed to his superimposed obstacles and his moral behavior failed as a result. Furthermore, Lt. Col. Adams implicitly saw his failures as a result of his superiors dispositional qualities (Northouse, 2019). This constitutes a textbook application of the fundamental contribution error (Jones, 1991). Rather than understanding these failures as a result of, say, bureaucracy or politics, Lt. Col. Adams implicitly chalked up his superiors as incompetent or inconsiderate (Northouse, 2019). I look forward to further discussion throughout our class!

Sincerely,

xxxxxxx

References

Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Please go into the Jones (1991) model in more depth as the respond

Please go into the Jones (1991) model in more depth as the respond

Please go into the Jones (1991) model in more depth as the respond

Please go into the Jones (1991) model in more depth as the respond

Please go into the Jones (1991) model in more depth as the respond

Please go into the Jones (1991) model in more depth as the respond

Please go into the Jones (1991) model in more depth as the respond

Please go into the Jones (1991) model in more depth as the respond

Please go into the Jones (1991) model in more depth as the respond

Please go into the Jones (1991) model in more depth as the respond