Twelve O’Clock High
Frank Savage was a high-ranking military general with an authoritarian style leadership. Savage was all about doing thing by S. O. P. (standard operating procedure), doing things by the book. Savage wanted to make sure that all subordinates knew that things were going to be held accountable to his strict, authoritarian style of leadership. When Savage arrives at Archery military base after taking Kith’s position, he Is allowed to pass through the security entrance with out showing credentials. He then scolds the guard telling him from now on you must check for proper credentials.
In this scene, Savage is displaying the method of Directive leadership within the Path-Goal Theory. Savage has a goal of turning the 18th bombardment group around from a less than successful group of what he believes to be lackadaisical solders, into finely tuned authoritarian subordinates. In addition to this initial showing of Savages leadership style, the following few scenes show similar authoritarian leadership to subordinates in comparable situations, mingle shocking them, to showing all under his command, directly and Indirectly that he Is going to be running a very tight ship.
Savage even goes as far as shutting down the only bar on base, which is the safe haven for an ailing solider. He models the leadership style of a transformational leader In the form of Idealized Influence. Savage presents himself as a no nonsense leader, who models his behaviors In a fashion to get subordinates to follow them, not what his squad was familiar with when Davenport was in command. As the film goes on, Savage starts to become more of a supportive style of leadership, using individualized consideration to give empowerment to his subordinates.
He instills confidence in his employees transforming for a score of to approximately a 4,9 on the managerial leadership grid by the end of the film. Savage seemed to divert his focus from being concerned with only getting the job done with maximum success and little focus on his soldiers needs to being overbearing to the point of not getting the best results possible out of missions. The Soldiers found Colonel Davenport to be a transformational leader, someone who they wanted to follow because of his Influential style of leader.
HIS style of Individualized consideration allowed the solders to feel like he really cared about them, and gained their respect. He coached them, paid attention to them, treated them as fellow human beings rather than subordinates, empowering them to have the confidence to maximize their potential. This strategy would generally work for a manager in an office setting, however given his military status a more intense ambition of individualized consideration along with a stern or strict idealized influence (modeling your behavior in hopes to get your subordinates to emulate your actions) would be more appropriate for his position.
General Pat Pritchard reprimands Keith Davenport for overlooking a mistake made by the navigator, Zimmerman, In a mission that could have potentially put his entire unit at risk. Keith made an Inappropriate decision by not punishing Zimmerman In some fashion for his error and was replaced by General Savage under General Brickyard’s command. According to the managerial leadership grid Pritchard would most closely relate to a score which represents an authority-compliance management style.
This style subordinates. An example of General Brickyard’s authority-compliance management style is when he ordered a bomb strike to be reduced from 19,000 feet to 9,000 feet, creating a possibility of severe risk for the bombardiers themselves. This decision clearly focused on the results rather than the safety and well being of the soldiers. This decision was inappropriate for a manager because he truly ignored potential active outcomes of the ass’s work environment.
Here, success was based solely off of the completion of the assigned task, where as with Colonel Keith Davenport he focused on building relationships with the ass’s. When we were first introduced to Colonel Davenport he had a very participative style of leadership, he would routinely join the ass’s on mission. In the path-goal leadership theory the leaders behavior directly affects the motivation and performance of their subordinates. Kith’s behavior was inappropriate for being a commanding officer in the military.
His actions in becoming close with his squadron compromised the accountability of the ass’s. Keith went from what we can assume was a more directive style leader, to an entirely participative and supportive leader. On the managerial leadership grid, Davenport would be listed as about 2, 9, meaning that he is not nearly as concerned with the success of the task given as he his relationship with his subordinates. By doing this he became incredibly close with his squadron, almost to the point where he lost track of his original leadership duties.
As a military commander, a directive leadership style almost seems necessary to ensure the maximum success of the mission. Where Keith is about a 2,9 on the managerial leadership grid, a seems like it would be a proper score for this position; Being directive in giving orders to his subordinates but also acknowledging the needs of his soldiers. His sympathetic style of leadership was seemingly learned, as a participative leader going on missions with the 18th squad, he lost track of maximizing both the potential of his employees and success of his objectives.