Leadership Challenge: Who Gets the Project?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The department is success driven and people who are appointed to run the project must bear this in mind. The head of department, therefore, needs to determine the right individual who would give the very positive results that are of essence to the company. The ramifications of having the four would be dire as it would lock out other interested parties. To avoid this, the process of selection must be evaluated afresh and take the following format.

Evaluation of employee’s history is important to ensure that only employees with the right character and attitude are put on board. Promoting employees whose only current character alone has been scrutinized is not good because most people can camouflage their behavior to get a promotion. This can lead to project failure in the future. It would thus be wise for the head of department to carry out a history follow up of individuals who are interested in the project (Bernard, 2007).

This would be hard to do given the high number of forwarded interests focused on influencing the choice of the four stars. The manager should only promote individuals he has known for a long time and has shown a lot of interest and hard work in the project. This is not an act of favoritism but a precautionary measure to ensure the project lands in the right hands.

Academic competence, this is the best and the most fair way of ensuring that only deserving employees are mandated to the project. It is possible that the firm has people of varying academic levels. All that the head of the department needs to do is to attach an academic value to the post.

After studying the obligations that come with the new positions, a bachelor’s, master’s or a PhD levels are settled upon and this would make all those who do not attain the stipulated level drop their ambitions thus resizing the competition. The position of the four pre selected stars would not be considered in this criterion but most likely they are individuals who have academic credentials set by the department.

Personal demeanor; the conduct of the employee communicates a lot about their personality and that the ease of one to learn new ideas, to change from old ones and to share with others in an aim to device appropriate ways of solving a problem are all in the individuals character (Bernard, 2007). The mannerism of the individuals appointed to run this new project must reflect the positivity that is required by the position.

Positivity of attitude and team player traits are of essence in running this project. The head of department would therefore be well within his prowess to select the four stars and set them aside for the assumption of the new positions. For the four to be selected and referred to as star, they must have possessed these team player abilities in the past, it would not be wise to select sulky individuals who would nag the whole process down.

Having considered all the above criteria, the four stars would be the best candidates selected for the new project. They are the most likely people to meet the above criteria and carry out the project effectively. The implications of having them would be dire on the part of the remaining staff members. Some are likely to call the department head partisan and having showed favoritism but these can easily be dispelled by providing to the human resource the credentials of the four and the fact that they met all the laid down qualification requirements.

Work at the department would slow down, this can still be rectified and the positivity if the staff restored through a number of other ways. The most important implication will be that the project will have been placed in the most trusted hands and chances of the desired results being realized are indeed high.

Leadership Challenge: Implementin Unpopular Change

The change is absolutely inevitable and cannot be abetted no matter what. In as much as relaying this news to the department would be a heart breaking endeavor it would have to be relayed, it would be wise to separate personal and social attachment to the job specification. The head of department would thus have no other alternative but to face the rest of the members and tell them that there was a change to be effected in the nearest future and it would tag along its consequences, key among them being the location change and some members of the department losing their positions at the department.

Personality is a major contributor to performance at work place and no matter how much one would resist it, there is normally the tendency of personal preferences to influence how he or she performs at work place. The informal groupings bring personal emotional attachments and these, in the long run, affect the output of the staff. It requires effective management to bring a restructuring of these groupings and the elimination of one member of the staff would most certainly result in this. It calls for restrain and a lot of charisma in effecting such changes that would result in an individual being laid off especially given the very cohesive nature of the relations at the department (Nahavandi, 2011).

The only best chance that the department head has of laying off one or two members of his staff without causing a friction, would be to use the new technology as an edge and use it to let go the part of staff that would not embrace it. A department can never be homogeneous. This implies that there are some members who are a bit older than others (Albert, 2006). These old individuals are not likely to respond to the intended change with similar enthusiasm as the young and energetic members of the staff. The new system to be installed would require that all the staff members go through training.

The old would not embrace the idea of a class work again, in one way or the other they would be laid off. In case their resourcefulness to the department overrides the need of the new system and they are willing to undertake the training, it would be wise to use merit to determine who leaves and who stays (Jeffery, 2001). The result of the training should act as the new merit criteria upon which new members to the new department are selected.

The two who come last would most definitely be organized for a farewell party as they leave the department. This would be accepted as fair and humane. During the farewell party, it would be wise to hand them gifts to show appreciation for the service they rendered to the department and organize how they would be paid all their dues given the fact that it is the department that has found them redundant.

References

Albert, N.(2006). Leading change. New York City: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Bernard, K. (2007). Structural Fighting: Strategies and Tactics. New York City: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Jeffery, F. B. (2001). Introduction to Business Law. Boston: Boston University Press.

Nahavandi, A. (2011). The art and science of leadership. Upper Saddle:Pearson Prentice Hall.

Click Here To Order Now!

Leadership Challenge: Who Gets the Project?

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)