Section 1
RIM Leadership Challenges Based On The Interactional Framework
Ultimately, interactional leadership affirms that a leader’s behavior will significantly benefit, determined by their personality and the situation and circumstances in which they are bound to operate (Thompson et al., 2021). It also has a ripple effect on the leader’s expertise and the impact on the follower’s behavior, values, and norms. There are also organizational challenges in talent management and organization structure. A case in point is that talent retention was not based on performance metrics because the leaders were reluctant to send away underperforming human capital. It was a result of the consensus decision-making model. Additionally, the hierarchical structure within the organization was rigid, impacting accountability and coordination at the Research In Motion company. It provides the challenges of managing human capital effectively and impacts human capital retention based on performance and merit.
Leadership Challenges
Ultimately, despite the implementation of consensus-oriented leadership, there were extensive challenges and differences in the interactional leadership framework between the two leaders. One leader was more outgoing and focused on leadership and product development, while Lazaridis t focused on analytical dynamics based on an engineering-minded culture. It had a significant impact on the overall decision-making and the culture within the organization.
Reason For Allowing Bureaucratic and Engineering Culture
The first reason for creating an engineering-minded bureaucracy is the perceived competitive advantage that the organization would have attained. Engineering-minded companies are deemed more successful and affirm quality, leading to market dominance(Carberry & Baker, 2018). Additionally, the leaders allowed the culture because of the founder’s background and expertise. A case in point is that Jim Balsillie Lazaridis’s background meant they favored the quantitative business-orientated culture, which showed success in the initial production and product development stages. The Leadership styles also informed the culture while being impacted by other aspects, such as implementing the consensus leadership agreement in decision-making.
Section 2
Challenges Faced by Followers And How the Challenges Contribute to Followers’ Misfortunes
Lack of Initiative: Several challenges contributed to contributed optimal lack of productivity. Some followers needed help to voice concerns and provide innovative alternative solutions to management(Watson, 2013). It significantly challenged human capital because it allowed for more flawed decisions and strategies that impacted productivity. The analysis of performance has different metrics because negative productivity was favored. After all, bad-performing individuals were not let go.
Complacency: The company had an initial spike of success and later faced a reduction in quality and performance (Watson, 2013). The aspects combined with the diversity in leaders and management styles where bad behavior still needed to be eliminated could lead to complacency. It would affect the reluctant human capital to challenge existing organizational culture.
Handling Underperformers
There was a lack of accountability by the leaders because of the implementation of their consensual leadership in decision-making. It, therefore, meant the leaders who wanted to do away with the underperforming human capital. It has, therefore, contributed to a lack of accountability within the organizational culture, leading to complacency in managing human capital.
Subsequently, there was a perceived impact on the product quality, limiting the organization’s overall competitive advantages. Organizational organization ds the end of performance led to BlackBerry software glitches and poor customer satisfaction. Therefore, despite previous market dominance, the organization’s performance metrics and top-level leadership accountability impacted the potential return on investment.
What Should Have Been Done Differently
The Research In Motion Company should foster innovation. Followers should be encouraged to move away from the conventional norms and integrate innovative approaches to problem-solving (Watson, 2013). Adaptability to market trends will also lead to faster response to the market and mitigate the competitor’s threats. Additionally, the culture should be shifted to ensure accountability for the followers and leaders despite the implementation of consensus leadership. Thus, performance metrics are integrated and eliminate complacency for failing to address underperforming human capital. Talent retention should be based on merit.
Section 3
Leadership Tasks
Leaders were tasked with several aspects, such as strategic adaptation, to navigate the constant change in consumer preferences. Research In Motion has to adapt the technology, culture and structure to the changes, thus requiring constant cultural innovation. The second task for the leadership is aligning organization goals, organizational engagement, and market dynamics are vital for sustainable returns on investment.
Organization Research In Motion
The challenge is the need for cultural shifts. The ever-evolving market and consumer preferences mean that the company has to move from the bureaucratic culture and focus on engineering-minded leadership to ensure optimal adaptability and agility. The customer-centric focus would be vital for success.. additionally, there is the aspect of competitive pressure. The intense competition from companies such as Samsung and Apple requires swift change in consumer preferences and means the company had to adapt to maintain the competitive edge.
The Environment RIM leaders were Operating In
The leaders operated in an environment with different managing styles and challenges from the macro environment. The environment was grim and was likened to the soviet era management styles. Balsillie and Lazaridis implemented consensus in decision-making, which was rigid because it requires more agreement across departments for approval (Watson, 2013)—additionally, the dynamic market environment in which teams constantly adaptation of their leadership and management styles. A case in point is that the case study identifies the leadership rifts, with some leaders favouring the engineering-minded culture to production. In contrast, others implemented decisions based on the cost-benefit analysis, hence the perspective that the iPhone was too expensive. With the combination of external market pressure through the changes in consumer behavior and internal conflicts, Research In Motion had challenges in maintaining optimal returns and implementing a consistent organizational culture.
Based on the research in motion case study analysis, it can be determined that incorporating proactive leadership and transformation leadership will yield positive outcomes. To this effect, a cultural transformation should focus on continuous learning and a culture of accountability. Integrating the accountability culture will be essential in mitigating the current problems of complacency and eliminating the existing bureaucracy in the behavior of leaders and their followers. Transformational leadership will provide foundations for innovation, inherently encouraging consistent internal competitive advantages and long-term business agility, irrespective of the leadership transition within the organization. The organization of the cultural transformation and leadership style will ensure that the Research In Motion Organisation deals with the macro environment problems, such as technology disruption, and adapts to changes in consumer preferences.
References
Carberry, A. R., & Baker, D. R. (2018). The impact of Culture on Engineering and Engineering Education. Cognition, Metacognition, and Culture in STEM Education, pp. 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66659-4_10
Thompson, G., Buch, R., Thompson, P.-M. M., & Glasø, L. (2021). Transformational leadership and Interactional Justice impact follower performance and organizational community context. Journal of General Management, 46(4), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306307020984579
Watson, T. (2013). Leadership At Research In Motion. Ivey Publishing.
write