Perot Systems

Perot Systems Leadership Paper

Leadership is the flourishing interaction between a leader and employees. "Leadership is a special case of interpersonal influence that gets an individual or group to do what the leader or manager wants done" (Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osborn, 2003, p. W-56). When employees are continually motivated to accomplish any task, leaders are successful. In today's progressive business world, leaders must adapt company policies, behaviors and procedures to maintain a healthy organizational culture. A successful leader does this by focusing on group dynamics and teamwork, and by motivating and reinforcing employees. The case study of the Perot Systems represents defining examples of behavioral theories of leaderships (2003)

Michigan and Ohio Behavioral Theories of Leadership

Research studies performed at the University of Michigan and Ohio State University identify two similar sets of leadership styles and behaviors. At the University of Michigan, "They sought to identify the leadership pattern that results in effective performance" (2003). These leadership behaviors are production-centered and employee-centered styles. Ohio State University "researchers identified two dimensions similar to those found in the Michigan studies" (2003) These studied leadership styles include consideration and initiating structure. Mr. Meyerson and Mr. Perot in the case study of Perot Systems give us two distinct perceptions of the different leadership styles and behaviors.

As the chief executive officer at Perot Systems, Mr. Meyerson combines the leadership style of consideration with employee-centered behavior. "A highly considerate leader is sensitive to people's feelings and, much like the employee-centered leader, tries to make things pleasant for his or her followers" (2003). This type of leader is driven by a concern and appreciation for the welfare of his employees. This leader builds solid relationships and believes in teamwork. Mr. Meyerson was not happy with the state of the organizational culture at Perot Systems. He "wanted to move Perot Systems toward a corporate model that recognized that the larger issues in life mattered as much as the demands for profit-and-loss" (2003). In analyzing the group dynamics, he did not like what he found. "Listening to senior management talk about how they handled low performers on teams bothered him" (2003). He decided to offer them something they couldn't "get in most high performance companies: a human organization" (2003). Perot Systems used a system of financial rewards as motivational incentives. In addition, Meyerson initiated a compensation system on job performance evaluation by peers and customers (2003). As long as the incentives are meaningful, whether they are intrinsic or extrinsic the encouragement is designed to give the worker satisfaction while taking the organization in the right direction. Mr. Meyerson showed that his primary concern of his leadership style and behavior was to benefit his employees.

In contrast, Mr. Perot combined the leadership styles of initiating structure and production-centered. "A leader high in initiating structure is more concerned with defining task requirements and other aspects of the work agenda; he or she might be seen as similar to a production centered supervisor" (2003). The primary objective observed from this type of leadership is achieving goals. At Perot Systems as well as at his earlier company EDS, Mr. Perot emphasized structured tasks, with little regards to his employees. His employees were "expected to do whatever it took to get the job done. In terms of priorities (at EDS), work was in first place; family, community and all other obligations" (2003). Mr. Perot put "emphasis on profit at the expense of people" (2003) and structured his companies to be "young, male military model corporate climates"(2003). Mr. Perot's style of leadership shows his primary concern is the accomplishment achieved by his organization.

Fiedlers's Contingency Theory of Leadership

Mr. Meyerson and Mr. Perot each have their own unique styles of leadership. Neither has a good or bad leadership style; each used methods they believed would work best for their situations. This is the basis for Fiedler's contingency theory of leadership. "His theory holds that group effectiveness