Inside Leadership At Intel 6f636s

Most job-centered, least employee-centered Grove has to be the most job-centered among the five, and the least employee-centered as well, because he focused his intentions on growing the company tremendously, with little concern for establishing better relations with the employees, as evidenced by the immense growth of Intel’s profit and capitalization during his tenure as CEO. Least job-centered, most employee-centered, least exemplifies I-S behavior The least job-centered would have to be Noyce, whom I also consider to be the most-employee centered, because he encourages the employees to be at ease at work so they may be able to more efficiently perform their tasks. Since he simply allows the employees to take charge of themselves, I think I can fairly say that he also least exemplifies initiating-structure behaviour. Mostly exemplifies initiating-structure behaviour Craig Barrett mostly exemplifies initiating-structure behaviour because he clearly states what he wants and determines the methods of accomplishing them, as evidenced by the “copy exactly” strategy he developed to minimize expenditures related to the manufacturing process. Position on the Leadership Grid Bob Noyce – Middle of the road (balanced leadership, democratic) Gordon Moore – middle of the road (similar to Noyce with less interaction) Andy Grove – authority-compliance (arrogance as representation of lesser concern for people) Craig Barrett – team management (organizational interdependence) Paul Otellini – authority-compliance (highly concerned about production and lesser concern for people) Leadership behaviour (directive, ive, participative, achievement-oriented) Bob Noyce – ive (casual in dealings) Gordon Moore – ive (very much like Noyce, constantly mentoring) Andy Grove – directive (maintains standards of performance) Craig Barrett – directive (defines specific goals and expectations) Paul Otellini – achievement-oriented (sets challenging targets and innovative modes of accomplishing them) Pros/cons of mentoring & long-term leadership development from within Pros - Mentoring allows for the indefinite flow of information and the opportunity to learn from past mistakes, with direct access to the source of information, which is the mentor. - Long-term leadership development from within allows the organization to be able to assess the potential of an employee to lead and deliver. Cons - Long-term leadership development from within does not make use of the opportunity that a lot of employees outside the organization might be better candidates for the leadership position, regardless of the mentoring experience. - Mentoring might influence the subject to follow existing procedures and ideals and might prevent the subject to become more innovative or experimental and thereby miss opportunities for growth that might bring significant gains to the company. Pros/cons of alternating leadership styles Pros - alternating leadership styles allows the firm to experience different approaches to similar situations and realize the best one for every situation - it provides the organization opportunities to tap into unrealized ventures and achieve industry-wide advantage Cons - alternating leadership styles create a confusion among subordinates and delay the development of present projects as the organization arrives at a halt during times of adjustment - consistency creates lasting values that flow through all the departments within the organization. Alternating leadership styles does not help create consistency which might be useful in integrating the organization’s goal and principles into the employees’ work values which directly and indirectly affects the employees’ productivity and the organization’s profitability.