Arab Academy for Science & Technology - AAST

Cardiff Metropolitan University

Master of Business Administration- MBA

Study of Arctic Mining Consultants Case

By Group 1, supervised by Dr. Ola Elgeuoshy

1. Introduction
Leadership is the mixture of characteristics or personality traits in an individual that
induces that person to encourage others to achieve goals. (Bertocci, 2009) Without the
leadership, there is an increase in the probability of errors happening with more and
more reductions in prospects for success (Al-Khaled and Fenn, 2020). Subordinates'
behavior is highly affected by the applied leadership style and their productivity
correspondingly (Deshwal and Ashraf Ali, 2020). Many theories are introduced in the
leadership field like trait and personalities, behavioral, contingency, situational
transactional, transformational, and self-leadership approaches (Deshwal and Ashraf
Ali, 2020, Talal Ratyan, Khalaf et al., 2013). Through this research, leadership theories
will be used to analyze the case of arctic mining consultants. The literature review will
be discussed, case summary, case analysis, and finally, the recommendation and
conclusion.

2. Case summary
Arctic mining consultants sent a crew of four members, one member acting as
project manager (Parker) and three subordinates (Talbot, Boyce, and Millar). The
project goal is to stake a claim near Eagle Lake. The project manager planned one
week to complete the task and promised a bonus of $300 for each member if the job
was completed in time. Each member should complete 7.5 lengths per day as per
the work plan. Parker and Talbot were doing well, while Boyce and Millar were late
to achieve the daily target. Parker was furious; he shouted at Boyce and Millar. Even
when Miller had achieved the daily target, Parker kept silent and had not
encouraged Miller or appreciated his efforts. Millar felt demotivated. Millar had never
worked for Arctic Mining Consultants again, despite being offered work several times
by Parker(McShane, Von Glinow et al., 2000).

3. Literature review
3.1. Traits and behaviors
Certain personal traits are widespread among the best leaders or inheritable
attributes like cognitive, social, honest, competent, forward-looking, motivating,
credible, and problem-solving skills that enable leaders to tackle and solve the
problems even before they happen (Sarla, 2020, Schermerhorn Jr, 2013).
Traits are relatively permanent, whereas behaviors can be learned and altered
(Sarla, 2020). Ohio State University and the University of Michigan did research
studies that focused attention on two factors of leadership behavior: 1 st concern
for the task to be accomplished, and 2 nd concern for the people doing the work
(Schermerhorn Jr, 2013).

1
Arab Academy for Science & Technology - AAST
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Master of Business Administration- MBA

3.2. Classic leadership theory

3.2.1. Autocratic leadership
Autocratic leadership is leadership that is enforced on an organization and is
sometimes referred to as coercive leadership. An autocratic leader never
considers staff decisions, and there is a gap between the leader and staff
(Chukwusa, 2018). The autocratic leadership advantage is incredibly
effective, Decisions are made swiftly(Chukwusa, 2018) and can be
implemented immediately. While the disadvantage, most staff dislike being
dealing with in this way(Amanchukwu, Stanley et al., 2015, Bhargavi and
Yaseen, 2016). Autocratic leadership reduces innovation, creativity, and
engagement (Al-Khaled and Fenn, 2020).
3.2.2. Democratic leadership
Democratic leadership is a kind of leadership style in which subordinates are
more involved in the decision-making process(Bhargavi and Yaseen, 2016,
Nwokocha and Iheriohanma, 2015). The leaders even offer guidance in
executing the role to the subordinates(Al-Khaled and Fenn, 2020).
Democratic leadership advantage, Subordinates are inspired to post their
capabilities, producing better ideas and more creative problem solving (Arif
and Akram, 2018). In contrast, the cons of this style consuming more time in
the decision-making process.
3.2.3. Laissez Faire
Laissez-faire is a French word means "let it be" and is also referred to as
"hands-off style" (Nwokocha and Iheriohanma, 2015). In the leadership
describes leaders who allow people to work on their own (Amanchukwu,
Stanley et al., 2015). This style supports setting up a comfortable work
environment (Al-Khaled and Fenn, 2020). This style can be efficient if the
leader monitors performance and advice the subordinates frequently. The
main pros of this style is that allowing subordinates so much independence
can lead to high job satisfaction and improve productivity. It can be harmful if
subordinates do not administer their time well or do not have the knowledge,
experience, or motivation to do the tasks effectively (Amanchukwu, Stanley
et al., 2015).

3.3. Blake and Mouton leadership grid

Blake and Mouton made a similar distinction between concern for production
and concern for people in the development of their managerial grid (Jex and
Britt, 2014). The grid's unique developers are the board theoreticians Robert R.
Blake and Jane S. Mouton, and they established the model during the 1960s
(Vidyakala, 2020). The administrative framework model recognizes five
significant diverse leadership styles dependent on the concern for individuals
and the concern for production. The framework of this model is isolated into the
following five potential notable leadership styles: (Vidyakala, 2020,
Schermerhorn Jr, 2013).
 Impoverished Leader: A leader who either "assigns or abandons leadership"
this sort of leader has neither concern for individuals or errands and
exercises the slightest effort to complete the work from subordinates.
2
Arab Academy for Science & Technology - AAST
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Master of Business Administration- MBA

 Authoritarian Leader: A leader who "directs, coordinates order the

adherents" this sort of leader has a high concern for task however low
concern for individuals.
 Country Club Leader: A leader generally worried about the requirements
and sentiments of individuals from his group. This style has a high concern
for individuals and a low concern for creation.
 Middle-of-the-road Leader: This leader has the inclination of playing safe by
giving some concern to the two individuals and creation. Managers were
utilizing this style attempt to adjust between organization objectives and
worker's needs.
 Team Leader: The leader energizes cooperation and commitment among
workers and has a high concern for individuals just as the errand. This is the
best administrative style. The group leader worries for high creation and
workers fulfillment similarly and accepts that the individuals who are fulfilled
will be focused on high creation.

3.4. Path-Goal Leadership Theory

Path-goal theory is one of the contingency leadership theories originally
developed by Evans (1970) and modified by House (1971)(Polston-Murdoch,
2013). The principle of the theory is to explain the effect of a leader's behavior
on a subordinate's satisfaction, motivation, and performance. The theory
recommended that the different behaviors of leadership can be applied in
different situations by the same leader(Talal Ratyan, Khalaf et al., 2013).
The theory defines four leadership styles (McShane and Von Glinow, 2009) to
increase subordinates' motivation , based on two sets of situational variables,
such as:
 Environment characteristics.Including task structure, authority system,
and work group.
 Subordinate characteristics.Including the locus of control, experience, and
perceived ability.
The four behaviors are described as below.
 Directive leadership: is a task-oriented leader, clarifies expectations and
gives specific instruction to accomplish the desired targets based on the
sat time frame, performance standards, and organizational rules (Polston-
Murdoch, 2013), needed When job assignments are
unclear(Schermerhorn, Davidson et al., 2013).
 Supportive leadership: When worker self-confidence is low, a leader can
do things to be friendly and make work more satisfying; treating team
members as equals; showing interest in the wellbeing of
subordinates(Schermerhorn, Davidson et al., 2013).
 Achievement-oriented leadership is behavior directed toward inspiring
performance excellence: setting challenging targets, seeking
improvement, emphasizing continuous improvement in performance, and
displaying confidence that subordinates are meeting high standards of
performance (House, 1996).

3
Arab Academy for Science & Technology - AAST
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Master of Business Administration- MBA

 Participative leadership: When performance incentives are insufficient

involving team members in decision-making consulting with them and
asking for suggestions using these suggestions when making
decisions(Schermerhorn, Davidson et al., 2013).
The Path-Goal model highlights the importance of the leader's ability to
understand follower's needs perfectly and to react flexibly to the needs of a
situation.

3.5. Leader-Participation Model (Vroom-Jago models).

Leader-Participation Model (Vroom-Jago models) fall within the class of
situational or contingency models of leadership. The optimum leadership style is
believed to be dependent on the situation faced by the leader(Vroom and Jago,
1995). leader's decision-making style fall into thee following three categories:
(Schermerhorn Jr, 2013).
 An Authority decision is prepared by the leader then communicated to the
group.
 A Consultative decision is prepared by a leader after receiving
information, advice, or opinions from group members.
 A Group decision is made by group members themselves.

Three factors are biasing the leader's choice among the alternative decision-
making methods:
 Decision quality: is based on who has the data needed for problem-
solving.
 Decision acceptance: is based on the importance of follower acceptance
to the decision's eventual implementation.
 Decision time: is based on the time available to make and implement the
decision(Schermerhorn Jr, 2013).

3.6. Fiedler's contingency model

Fiedler's contingency theory assumes leaders' performance depends on the
interaction between the leadership style and the particular organizational
situation(Bertocci, 2009). Fiedler's contingency theory proposes that a leader's
success depends on the interaction between characteristics of the situation and
characteristics of the leader(Jex, 2002).

3.7. Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership model

Situational leadership is a management concept introduced by Hersey and
Blanchard to help people try to influence leaders' behavior to be more effective
in their everyday interactions with others(Hambleton and Gumpert, 1982).

4
Arab Academy for Science & Technology - AAST
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Master of Business Administration- MBA

4. Case analysis
Parker had expertise power based on traits and behavior (He had specialized
knowledge and experience.). Parker had position power (Many of the programs were
operated by a project manager who reported to Parker.). Parker had the reward power
(he said there is a $300 bonus for each man.).

Blake and mouton's theory point of view Parker had a high concern about production. At
the same time, he had a low concern about subordinates. Parker was focusing on the
subordinates' daily production whatever the subordinates face difficulties or face any
issues. So, parker is classified as Authority- obedience manager.

From the classic theory perspective, parker is an autocratic leader. Parker rejected
talbot's suggestion and shouted to Boyce and Millar. Parker did not involve subordinates
in the work plan preparation. Parker was giving orders to subordinates and not giving
them a chance to participate in the decision-making process.

Parker's emotional intelligence was poor in self-regulation and motivation. Parker

shouted at his team when he was under stress.

From the path-goal leadership theory perspective, Parker can be considered as a

Directive leader, he had clarified the task structure and the expectation, set the plan,
schedule, and time frame. Parker could not use the four leadership behaviors. Parker
rejected Talbot's suggestion. So, he failed to be a Participative leader to accept the
subordinate's opinion or involve them in decision making. When Miller and Boyce's
productivity was low, Parker could not be an Achievement-oriented leader to motivate
them to work with their fullest potential and seeks continuous improvement. When Miller
was exhausted and stressed, Parker could not be a Supportive leader, friendly,
approachable, makes work pleasant, or treats everyone as equals.

Leader-Participation Model perspective, Parker was An Authority, Decision Maker. He

sat the plan alone and just informed the team, although if he had participated the team
in decision making and plan preparation, the team would be more engaged and felt in
charge of their work.

According to Fiedler's contingency model

a. Parker had poor leader-member relations because of the following
observations. Parker exploded with anger on Millar and Boyce when they
didn't finish their task. Also, Parker rejected Talbot's suggestion. On the
fourth day, he didn't show any interest when they reported their production.
He didn't motivate or encourage the team when they did good work.
b. The task structure was high because the task is well known for all the team
as mentioned in each of the four stakers (Parker, Talbot, Boyce, and Millar)
would have to complete a little over seven "lengths" each day.

5
Arab Academy for Science & Technology - AAST
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Master of Business Administration- MBA

c. Parker's position power is strong because he had the decision to select the
project team. He promised them by bonus if they get the job done in time.

According to the Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership model, the project team

(followers) task readiness:
a. Talbot: he finished his daily tasks, sometimes helped his colleagues, and
gave a suggestion to the leader. So, he was able, willing, and confident.
b. Boyce: he didn't finish his daily tasks, but he tried. So, he was unable, willing,
and confident
c. Millar: he didn't finish daily tasks, but maybe if he took another area, he
would complete the task, so he lost passion for tasks. So, he was able,
unwilling, and insecure.

5. Recommendations
Parker should improve his emotional intelligence so he can control himself during the
stress time. He should be the concern of subordinates. Should listen to subordinates
and engage them in the decision-making process. The democratic style will help him to
improve the production.

According to path-goal, Parker needs to improve his communication skills, motivation,

and coaching capabilities to increase the subordinate's performance in different
situations. Parker needs to give more importance to teamwork. Parker should not just
focus on the result but how to achieve it

According to the leader participation model, it is better for Parker if he was a

consultative decision-maker as the follower's acceptance and task commitment were
necessary for implementation.

According to Fiedler's contingency model and the above analysis. figure 1 illustrates
that the situation is a moderate-control situation, and the relationship-motivated leader
is the best fit for this situation

6
Arab Academy for Science & Technology - AAST
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Master of Business Administration- MBA

Figure 1 Predictions on style–situation fit from Fiedler's contingency leadership model.

According to the Hersey-Blanchard model and above analysis, If Parker would be a

successful leader, he had to adjust his style according to the project team task
readiness. So, in Talbot's case, he had to be delegating and allowing him to take
responsibility for task decisions. In Boyce's case, he had to be telling, giving him specific
task directions, and closely supervising work. But in Millar's case, he had to be
Participating and emphasizing shared ideas and participative decisions on task
directions.

6. Conclusion
Leadership is a crucial factors to improve the organization and productivity. Various
leadership theories were developed. It is a continuous process. They were using
different leadership theories to analyze Arctic mining consultants' cases.
Parker had different powers like expertise, position, and reward powers. Parker had a
shortage of emotional intelligence, had an autocratic leadership style, classified as
Authority- obedience manager as per Blake and mouton Grid. From the viewpoint of
Path goal leadership theory, Parker can be considered as a Directive leader. While he
was supposed to act within the different leadership behaviors according to the particular
situations with the subordinates, From the Leader-Participation Model perception,
Parker was An Authority, Decision Maker. In comparison, it was highly recommended to
involve the followers in the decision-making and giving the opinion to be more engaged.
The case situations were poor leader-member relations, but high task structure and
strong leadership position power, so the relationship-motivated leader is the best fit for
this situation. And Parker should be delegating with Talbot, telling with Boyce, and
Participating Millar.

References.
Al-Khaled, A.A.S. and Fenn, C.J. 2020. The Impact of Leadership Styles On Organizational Performance.
Berjaya Journal of Service and Management 13(1) 55-62.

7
Arab Academy for Science & Technology - AAST
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Master of Business Administration- MBA

Amanchukwu, R.N., Stanley, G.J. and Ololube, N.P. 2015. A review of leadership theories, principles and
styles and their relevance to educational management. Management 5(1) 6-14.
Arif, S. and Akram, A. 2018. Transformational leadership and organizational performance: the mediating
role of organizational innovation. SEISENSE Journal of Management 1(3) 59-75.
Bertocci, D.I. 2009. Leadership in organizations: There is a difference between leaders and managers:
University Press of America.
Bhargavi, S. and Yaseen, A. 2016. Leadership styles and organizational performance. Strategic
Management Quarterly 4(1) 87-117.
Chukwusa, J. 2018. Autocratic leadership style: Obstacle to success in academic libraries. Library
Philosophy and Practice 1.
Deshwal, V. and Ashraf Ali, M. 2020. A systematic review of various leadership theories. Shanlax
International Journal of Commerce 8 38-43.
Hambleton, R.K. and Gumpert, R. 1982. The validity of Hersey and Blanchard's theory of leader
effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies 7(2) 225-242.
House, R.J. 1996. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The
Leadership Quarterly 7(3) 323-352.
Jex, S.M. 2002. A Scientist-Practitioner Approach, Organizational Psychology. New York: Jhon Wiley &
Son 103.
McShane, S. and Von Glinow, M. 2009. Organizational Behavior: McGraw-Hill Education.
McShane, S.L., Von Glinow, M.A.Y. and Jing, R. 2000. Organizational behavior. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Nwokocha, I. and Iheriohanma, E. 2015. Nexus between leadership styles, employee retention and
performance in organizations in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal 11(13).
Polston-Murdoch, L. 2013. An Investigation of path-goal theory, relationship of leadership style,
supervisor-related commitment, and gender. Emerging Leadership Journeys 6(1) 13-44.
Schermerhorn, J. et al. 2013. Management, 12th Edition: John Wiley and Sons.
Schermerhorn Jr, J.R. 2013. Management (12e): John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Denver, MA. USA.
Talal Ratyan, A., Khalaf, B. and Rasli, A. 2013. Overview of Path-Goal Leadership Theory. Jurnal Teknologi
64(2).
Vroom, V.H. and Jago, A.G. 1995. Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of leader
participation. The Leadership Quarterly 6(2) 169-181.