Question: So, we are doing Simulearn scenario, basically, we just play a role as a manager (I am Coery)in the scenarios, this last meeting includes three bosses (Alen-senior vice president/Herman-director. Internal audit/Will-manager) and one subordinate (Rosa-manager, customer relations). The power will be: Alen>Herman>Will>Corey (me)>Rosa.
SimuLearn Orientation (this one is the real people role-play the scenario 5)
Question 2-6 is based on scenario 5: each question write about 180 words.
1. Describe a team situation at your workplace or in a course where others want to continue with old ways of doing things when new ways are required, and/or describe a situation where you are challenged with leading people above you or from other departments.
2. What are organizational crisis? Think of an example in the recent news. Describe the organizational, crisis, and its handling (cite your sources).
3. Discuss the real-world consequence of a meeting like this where you are going to decide whether or not you Downplay this incident to the press.
4. If you were coaching someone else in a situation like this, how would you tellthem to approach the scenario?
5. Explain how you help generate new ideas how did you help pass the right mix of ideas that best meet organizational objectives in the midst of high tension?
6. Describe a situation in your workplace, a school team, a volunteer group, or your personal life in which you (and the others involved) were faced with a crisis or extremely difficult issue. Page 175 table 6 list 5 typical mistakes made during crisis handling, which one did you observe in the example you related here.
The following is from Internet: https://barbradozier.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/1449/
Scenario 5: Meeting in the Board Room / Crisis and Opportunity
The present scenario poses Corey into a situation of a conflict between his bosses, and the dilemma of who will report to the press, and how much truth will be communicated. The most effective step for Corey is to apply the directive leadership style from the very beginning of the conflict and to take the issue off the agenda by assigning some person, either Herman or Will, and instilling the focus on saying all truth to the press. The principles of dealing with the crisis from a leadership perspective state clearly that being calm, focusing on the future, and telling the truth are the basic preconditions of successful pursuit of a way out of the crisis (Daft 2008). After this issue has been resolved, Corey again should apply directive leadership to draw the focus of the employees on the critical work that needs to be done to get out of the crisis. If the participative or delegating leadership style is adopted in such a situation, the team will get too much involved in their problems, and will never find the way out, yielding to panic and being paralyzed by it.
After the direction of looking for the future of the company is set, the most effective decision for Corey is to take a participative leadership style to help the team make common decisions, thus increasing their sense of belonging and commitment to dealing with the crisis. Deciding on the relocation, and making decisions regarding best products, best service, and low-cost providers are among the strategic objectives for Corey at that moment. Nevertheless, other leaders such as Herman, Will, and Alan are present at the meeting as well, so after the situation is taken under control and tension is decreased, so the most appropriate decision for Corey in preserving the respect to his bosses in the team is to take a delegating leadership style to help Will and Herman regain their confidence and formal leadership positions in the conditions of a crisis. The key learning point of this scenario is that managing a team in the times of a crisis may be not a bad experience, but a path to opportunities - the outcome depends on the strategic thinking of the leader and his or her ability to focus the team not only on the present problem, but also on the future potential, thus reducing the tension.
The fifth scenario is a pure example of contingency theory of leadership according to which the leader's position in the situation is dictated not by responsiveness to the needs of each separate employee involved, but the destiny of the overall company. In such a situation, the leader should be firm and calm, and the best choice in such a situation is the directive style of leadership, since it is the surest way to save the situation, and help the subordinates and bosses to focus not on the present panic, but on the future fate of the whole organization.