Introduction
Corporate management is complex as challenges are often diverse. The ability of the managers to maintain efficient performance and the ability to prove resilient to the management wrangles are considerable factors that make managers proficient (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004). More frequently, controlling the top management officials where personal interests and professionalism are constant dilemmas often proves challenging (Yukl & Lepsinger, 2004). The case of Pfizer’s Palace Coup is among the cases that present significant management dilemmas. Pfizer is a global pharmaceutical firm.
Sometime in 2010, the company, under the Chief Executive Officer, Kindler encountered some significant leadership scandals. This essay presents a case analysis of the case of Pfizer’s Palace Coup to evaluate the scandal of leadership approaches.
Case Analysis: Main Issues
Leadership design or style- a management problem that presents itself in the case of Pfizer’s Palace Coup is a poor leadership style (Elkind & Reingold, 2011). A paramount aspect that dominates the case is the idea of how leadership influences performance and strategies of adopting changes in organizations. In the case of Pfizer Palace Coup, Kindler seemed to use an authoritarian style commonly known as the dictatorial leadership in his management (Elkind & Reingold, 2011). From a management perspective, authoritarian or dictatorial management style happens when leaders use coercion to carry out their administrative duties. The issue of changing the leadership technique in the case of Pfizer Palace Coup, is however complex and dilemmatic, as several demanding issues were pertinent to this scenario.
The technique of using authoritarian leadership to handle the surging management pressures at Pfizer matches the assumptions of Chris Argyris, a theorist who developed the theories of double-loop learning, single-loop learning, and the theories of action (Argyris, 2010). In his management theories that discuss actions, Chris Argyris believes that human beings have mental maps that determine how they act in situations. Every situation in Pfizer was complex as certain situations required logical decisions on how to handle personal relationships and professional relationships (Elkind & Reingold, 2011). Kindler deployed the wrong management techniques to deal with serious concerns in the company. Kindler favored some behaviors of the senior managers and disfavored the behaviors of others due to the influence of personal relationships.
Whereas Kindler wanted to implement changes that may have positively influenced the performance of the organization, the approach that he used was unprofessional. However, the problem was not dependent on Kindler as the C.E.O of the organization. In the case, it is noticeable that the leadership scandals were allover the management system as most of the managers complained about the board members (Elkind & Reingold, 2011). The managers believed in handling the company problems through what Chris Argyris refers to a single-loop learning approach. In single-loop learning, leaders often affirm their positions and administrative demands through the established goals, values, rules, or plans (Argyris, 2010). The fall of Kindler was also the fall of all managers since all of them believed in similar leadership styles.
For the managers in Pfizer, and especially Kindler, everyone under his authority was to abide by the authoritatively imposed plans. Kindler and other managers believed that members should ensure that plans, objectives, goals, and commands should remain embraced rather than being questioned. This kind of leadership is coercive and workers tend to resist in an environment where managers use excess authority to implement their strategies or command their actions in the management (Argyris, 2010). In Pfizer, each manager, especially Kindler, tended to rely on the established policies and regulations to impose authoritative leadership skills in the management. The scenario at Pfizer reveals that managers can sometimes remain overwhelmed by their management roles and use wrong management techniques.
Yukl’s Real Life Suggestions in the Case
Based on the case of Pfizer, managers tended to use their techniques to influence leadership in the company (Elkind & Reingold, 2011). Such approaches are contrary to Yukl’s management taxonomy that suggests that leaders should embrace flexible and adaptive leadership techniques when unusual circumstances arise in their companies (Yukl, 2013). Yukl’s management taxonomy asserts that managers should develop adaptive behaviors to deal with unique dilemmas or unusual circumstances that occur within their leadership (Yukl, 2013). According to Yukl (2013), management practice involves encountering several crises, and dealing with such crises requires leaders to act with unusual behaviors and actions to solve the management complications that arise. Yukl’s management taxonomy also suggests that leaders should be good at problem-solving.
Conclusion
The case of Pfizer’s Palace Coup presents several leadership lapses that have persistently marred the effective performance of the Pfizer. Kindler and other managers tended to believe in a management approach that dwelled on the foundations of the theory of single-loop learning. The manager believed that rules, regulations, plans, and commands should remain upheld and operational rather than questionable among the employees. Chris Argyris believes that a single-loop approach can sometimes be unachievable because management is a complex practice. Kindler was also against the right leadership approaches suggested by Yukl. Yukl believes that when unusual circumstances occur in leadership, managers should develop adaptive and flexible leadership techniques to deal with the situations.
References
Argyris, C. (2010). Chris Argyris: theories of action, double‐loop learning and organizational learning. Web.
Elkind, P., & Reingold, J (2011). Inside Pfizer’s palace coup. Web.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations Global Edition. United Kingdom, London: Pearson Education Limited.
Yukl, G., & Lepsinger, R. (2004). Flexible Leadership: Creating Value by Balancing Multiple Challenges and Choices. United States, Albany: John Wiley & Sons.