Movie Analysis - "Thirteen Days"

MOVIE ANALYSIS

“Thirteen Days”

by

Antony Gumi

The “Thirteen Days” movie describes how the 35^th president of United States of America (USA), John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis during the period of October 14-28, 1963. It shows how JFK’s leadership saved the world from having World War III (WWIII), or worse, Nuclear War. JFK’s crisis management and decision-making skills was tested during this period. He was under an extreme pressure, having the Cuban missiles were about to be ready to become operational and most of his Generals suggested him to launch a military strike, while he didn’t want to start a war and prefer to avoid one. To make things worse, the Joint Chiefs, who most of them were older than JFK, pressurized JFK to follow their solution to attack Cuba and they seem to barely be able to hold back their condescending attitudes towards the young president (JFK was about 45 years old at that time). Fortunately, JFK was not carried away by this situation; instead, he stressed his position to remind the chiefs of his authority as the president of USA who has the mandate from the American people to take the decision for the country. Finally, he successfully managed to end the crisis with a “peaceful” political negotiation with the Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev.

The definition of leadership was illustrated in how JFK influenced his followers to understand the consequences of launching an attack on Cuba (i.e. WWIII it is) and to agree upon having a more peaceful way to remove the missiles out of Cuba, which is to have a political negotiation. He influenced his followers’ interpretation of the event by always reminding them of the risk of starting a new war if they decide to follow their emotion to launch an attack. Thus, he asked for other choice of strategies and solutions from his followers. However, even after other solutions had been proposed, he still tried to influence the final decision by delaying it and hoping that the chance of having a political negotiation would arise to end the crisis. Among those proposed solution, JFK chose the “harmless” one, which was to run a blockade on Cuba. At first, most of his followers were not in full support of his decision of having this blockade since it was considered to be ineffective and slow. However, JFK managed to motivate them and gain their trust in this matter (As in some part of the movie shows how Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defence, convinced Admiral Anderson, the Chief of Naval Operation, not to start shooting until there was an order from JFK to do so). Having his followers’ trusts and supports at hand, JFK successfully organized and coordinated his followers to obey his orders during the crisis. He had also successfully shared his beliefs (i.e. launching an attack is a bad idea that could result in having WWIII) to his followers.

According to Mintzberg’s framework, people in this film portrayed Interpersonal Roles, Informational Roles, and Decision-Making Roles. The movie showed how JFK (the real leader) put Kenny O’Donnell (i.e. the one who direct subordinates, e.g. calling pilots and ask them to lie in order to keep the military from launching a counter-attack) and Bobby F. Kennedy (i.e. the one who coordinate subordinates, e.g. holding ExComm meetings and arranging consensus) in charge under his direct supervision. JFK also hold the figurehead role. It is shown in the movie how he represented the cabinet at Chicago and could not be substituted by other representatives (e.g. by Vice President Lyndon Johnson). Moreover, there was a funny part of the movie where it is shown that JFK was scared of cancelling his visit to Chicago (perhaps because his supporters are mostly from this state). For the liaison role, Kenny O’Donnell perhaps was one of those who had it. He had interacted with several people (e.g. pilots, newspaper publisher, his fellow reporters, USA representative to the United Nation, etc) outside the White House in order to keep things cool and under control. Besides Kenny, JFK also play part of his liaison role where he must interact with the USA military leaders who in turn, pressurized him to invade Cuba.

Regarding informational processing roles, monitoring role was hold by JFK as he indirectly scanned for information (i.e. in the reality, the U-2 spy plane pilots were the ones who do the dangerous photo-taking mission) about the existence of Cuban Missiles and about how to remove those Missiles out of Cuba, including the investigation on Alexander Fomin’s background that he delegated to Kenny and FBI’s Walter Sheridan. To disseminate the information, JFK trusted Kenny to pass his message to the subordinates (e.g. JFK told Kenny to tell the Press Secretary, Pierre Salinger, the truth about the crisis issue). In addition to monitor and disseminator roles, the movie also showed how Robert McNamara, The USA Secretary of Defence, act as JFK’s spokesperson in Pentagon, making sure that no action was taken without JFK’s approval. Adlai Stevenson also got his share as a spokesperson as he represented and spoke for USA in the United Nation (UN). Personally, I think Adlai is the coolest character in this movie since he was the one who propose the idea of political negotiation (i.e. trading American’s missiles in Turkey with Soviet’s missiles in Cuba) which what in the end became the final solution of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I also love the part of the movie where he gave his counter-argument to Soviet’s Zorin at the UN Security Council meeting.

Regarding decision-making roles, the cabinet and the military leaders act as entrepreneur as they initiate their ideas and strategies in order to solve the Cuban Missile Crisis. Regarding the crisis itself, JFK acts as a disturbance handler who responds to threats which could endanger the life of the American people. In different angle of perspective, Bobby F. Kennedy (BFK) and Kenny also act as disturbance handlers as they responded to threats which could endanger JFK’s presidency (e.g. Kenny threatened Scotty Reston, the New York Times Washington bureau chief, telling him not to print the crisis issue on the newspaper as it could inflame the situation and ruined JFK’s plan of having a more peaceful solution to end the crisis). Moreover, JFK was a resource allocator who chose which people would do which jobs and how much authority they would get during the process (e.g. assigning McNamara to supervise the blockade of Cuba, assigning BFK to set up a consensus, assigning Kenny to investigate Fomin’s background, etc). Obviously in the latter part of the movie, BFK who was negotiating with the Soviet’s ambassador about the mutual agreement, hold the negotiator role.

JFK showed balance between the task-oriented behaviour and the relation-oriented behaviour. The task-oriented behaviour was shown in how he did planning, organizing, leading, and controlling (POLC) efficiently and effectively. The film showed how he was upset when the military leaders were “playing” with his authority, but was not carried away with his anger. He tried to maintain good relationship with his subordinates, while in the same time, tried to stress his authority on the subject. We can see how JFK recognized his subordinates in the later part of the movie where he was recording his condolence to Major Rudolph Anderson’s (i.e. U-2 pilot whose plane was shot down in Cuba) parents. We can also see how close JFK’s relationship with his subordinates is by how loyal his subordinates are and how they always try to stick on JFK’s orders.

JFK showed effective participative leadership behaviours by involving the cabinet, the military leaders, and the Executive Committee (ExComm) in the decision making process. According to Vromm and Yetton model, JFK decision procedure is most likely fall into CI (i.e. leader shares problem with others individually and makes decision alone) and CII (i.e. leader shares problem with others collectively and makes the decision alone) categories. It is obvious that he tried to lead everyone to the consensus of having a political negotiation with the Soviet.

The quality of the decision making and the quality of the decision process significantly increased in this film. In the beginning, only JFK’s close friends agreed with his decision, while others were grunting behind his back (e.g. the movie showed how General LeMay and other military leaders were discontent of the Kennedys after a meeting). As more people were involved in the meeting and as JFK shared most of his thought about avoiding WWIII, his subordinates became less resistant to his decisions. As the movie progress, we could see how JFK let his subordinates to have more authority and finally delegated some important tasks to them. This includes how JFK told BFK to carry out the negotiation with the Soviet’s ambassador.

All characters in this film have the power to change a world (in a single meeting!). Just imagine how if JFK had decided to launch an attack on Cuba, we might have different kind of world today. Moreover, all of these characters tried to influence one another which finally tried to influence the president’s decision. Fortunately, it was not the military leaders but JFK who had the legitimate power as a president of USA to make the final decision. Regarding expert power, the military leaders had their expertise on war or military subjects, while Kenny and BFK had theirs on political subjects.

To force JFK to make decisions, the military leaders used rational persuasion tactics by displaying evidence of missile sites photographs and explaining why the missiles were so dangerous to the country in regard of the missiles’ ballistic range. Coalition tactics is employed by Adlai to seek the aid of UN and other countries to support USA in removing the missiles out of Cuba. BFK employed exchange tactic in negotiating with the Soviet’s ambassador. General LeMay employed pressure tactic on JFK but it was not a success. Besides his legitimate power, JFK also employed personal appeals as we can see in the movie how Kenny trusted JFK and gave his best friend his full support.

"Ben Samuels vs Phil Jones" Case Study

You might need to read the case study in Gary Yukl's "Leadership in Organizations 6th edition" book (page 80) first before continuing to the following questions and answers. - Antony Gumi, March 2008

1. What does this case illustrate about leadership?

It illustrates about 2 managers, Ben Samuel and Phil Jones, who have very contrast personalities and leadership behaviours. It is clearly described that Ben Samuels is a relations-oriented leader, while Phil Jones is a task-oriented leader. Regarding Ohio State leadership study, we can also say that Ben Samuels is a “consideration” type of leader, while Phil Jones is an “Initiating Structure” one. Throughout the story, the writer tries to describe both leadership behaviours’ effectiveness by stating their weakness and strength implicitly.

2. To what extent does each leader (Ben Samuels and Phil Jones) display the following behaviour?

§ Relations Behaviour (Supporting, Developing, Recognizing)

o Ben Samuels is a relations-oriented leader who is very supportive and very concern for the needs and feelings of his subordinates. He also tried to develop his subordinates’ skills by holding training programs, which later was abandoned by his successor, Phil Jones. He also recognized his subordinates by remembering their names and often communicates or chats with them. He treated people equally.

o Phil Jones is not a relation-oriented leader. He is not supportive and has less concern for the needs and feelings of his subordinates. We can also know from the story that Phil is slightly harsh towards his subordinates (i.e. he reprimanded them on the spot if they made mistakes). He also has no hesitation of sacking any under-performing employees (i.e. he only give 2 weeks for the employee to improve his/her performance, if there are no improvement shown, then he/she will be fired immediately).

§ Specific Task Behaviour (Clarifying, Planning, Monitoring)

o Ben Samuels is not a task-oriented leader. He did less or almost no monitoring to his subordinates’ working progress. He never conducted planning and he also delegates decision making to his subordinates since he believed that his subordinates are trustworthy and capable of doing it.

o Phil Jones is a task-oriented leader. His subordinates must consult with him before any decisions are made. He often conducts planning and closely monitors his subordinates’ performance.

§ What employee attitudes were influenced by each leader’s behaviour?

o Ben Samuels’ subordinates are very loyal to him and love him very much. It results in the company low turnover rate. However, his non-task-oriented behaviour has resulted in low productivity since employees were not encouraged for improvements. The company also spend more cost under his management since he spent more on building facilities, paying “unnecessary” employees, and never conduct any attempts to reduce production cost.

o Phil Jones’ subordinates are not loyal. It can be seen from the company high turnover rate and how employees dislike him. However, his task-oriented behaviour has resulted in high productivity. He also managed to lower the production cost.

3. If you were selected to be the manager of this plant, what would you do to achieve both high employee satisfaction and performance?

According to the story, it would be best if I employ both methods or adapt to both leadership behaviours at the same time. In order to achieve high employee satisfaction, I will be a relations-oriented leader who are supportive and concerns of people’s feelings and needs. At the same time, I will be a task-oriented leader who concerns toward improving company productivity. I believe that Ben Samuels was a good leader. I think what is wrong with his management is that his lack of concern in productivity and his equal treatment towards all subordinates regarding task delegation. Each person is unique; they have different level of skills and distinct personalities. What I mean is that Ben Samuels should have known his subordinates’ skills and personalities well before fully delegates (i.e. trust planning and decision making to subordinates without any monitoring) the task. Some people need to be monitored closely, while some others not. Also, some people can be trusted fully, while some others can’t. Thus, although it may be considered as “being unfair”, I believe that we can’t just treat people equally as Ben Samuels did. I will be selective and adjust my consideration-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviour based on situation.

My Article Review on "American Values in the French Workplace"

Perception of what constitutes the actions and behaviours of effective management in one country may not be perceived as effective in another country. This means that in domestic business environments, there is considerably less opportunity for ambiguity between subordinates’ perceptions of what constitutes effective management styles and actions. However, in global business era, misunderstanding subordinate perceptions is not only inevitable but also raises a new challenge to managers which can determine to overall company success. Managing people across two or more national cultures could be difficult for managers who are used to different cultural environments. In accordance to this issue, Claire Gouttefarde held a two years research to analyze French and American managers’ perceptions of difference in management styles.

Americans have a reputation abroad for ignorance and arrogance. One of the reasons is because they require other people to understand American culture rather than adapting to the culture of country where they work in. For example: Americans prefer their fellow French to speak English to them, rather than learning how to speak French. However, American expatriates working in France actually can avoid being victim of this negative opinion by accepting different culture and managerial styles that is adopted in French companies.

Firstly, it is important to understand the value system that is being applied in France. Power distance is one of the value systems that need to be understood. American expatriates should be aware of fairly high power distance that applies in France. French business people love formality to show rank. Managers often demand their subordinates to submit formal reports to them even if it’s not very necessary of having one. They also hold formal meetings frequently even though a decision had already been made before by the upper executives. In addition, French managers rarely have informal communication with their subordinates. The upper level managers prefer to communicate with their subordinates through middle managers. These middle managers will later communicate directly to the lower-ranking staff.

Furthermore, French managers gain satisfaction from accepting their staffs’ need for dependency since they have the autonomy. Autonomy is important in French working environment. Lower ranking staff will have less autonomy and hence become more dependent to their upper managers. Lower level manager would not have the authority of taking decision even for his own project. It is common to see a manager started a project and being told to pass the project before he is able to complete it.

In contrast, American managers tend to apply casual management style. They prefer informal form of communication rather than the formal one. It is common to see American managers having lunch and having informal conversations with their subordinates. They gain satisfaction by encouraging their staff to greater autonomy on the job or staff promotion. To display rank, American managers prefer to show material comfort as status symbols. They used tangible terms to prove their worthiness. In addition, American managers possess a competitive drive and prefer to make their-own decision rather than having the upper manager to make one for them.

Secondly, France’s high uncertainty avoidance can be seen in how French managers very much stress on details. They want to be kept better informed of every detail of operations. French managers also don’t easily trust newcomers. They need time to accept and trust newcomers. That’s why French manager often hesitate to demote or fire an employee. They believe that the longer a person stays in the company, the more trustworthy that person is. In addition, their need of having stable relationship with long-time members of the company introduces term of seniority, which means, the longer you stay in the company, the higher your position will be. French employees also respond in the same manner as they show their loyalty by working for a company for long period of time.

French managers often demand their staff to submit reports in order to be kept informed of the detail of staffs’ work progress. Showing that you have done something using written document is important for the French managers. They prefer having written proof rather than just an oral progress report. It also show how French managers love having office rituals which sometimes are not necessary. In addition, high uncertainty avoidance also can be seen in how French companies have so many rules in the organization.

On the contrary, American managers prefer non-ritual management style. They don’t like to have bunch of written documents or reports on their tables, except those that are necessary. They also don’t hesitate to demote or fire an employee whose work is not satisfactory, in order to gain efficiency. However, compared to French employees, American employees have less loyalty. They prefer to move from one company to another which can provide them with better material benefits.

Thirdly, French managers see the company or organization as a living organism, while American managers see the company as a machine. French managers act based on intuition and vision they have, while American managers act logically based on rational consideration. Since most of the decision in a French organization is made by top management who doesn’t know the limitation of its subordinates, it is more common to encounter impossible-to-implement decision. In carrying a task, American managers will tend to be analytical and prefer step-by-step approach. They reduce complex tasks to series of smaller ones and then define which task to be done first. In contrast, French managers like to do a complex task at once and do subtask randomly.

American expatriates working individually and do not want to involve in other colleagues’ task. Hence, French managers consider Americans as selfish people who don’t want to help others, while actually the American just don’t want to interfere colleagues’ prerogatives because they believe it as good manners.

The French believe that information is precious and should be disseminated only at the right time. Information should be kept confidential and distributed only to those who need it. In French company, certain department has certain responsibility for delivering information to members of the company. If they fail in carrying out the information delivery task, it will break the flow of information inside the company.

In communication, Americans tend to be low-context communicator, while the French prefer a more sophisticated style of communication. Thus, A French boss’ suggestion is in truth an order that should be done by the staff being suggested. The French requires their fellow Americans to be more sensitive in communication. On the contrary, the American will find it difficult since they are used to a straight-forward communication by saying things directly.

Finally, mutual respect and tolerance are needed in order to deal with all of these differences. It’s perhaps the best if both sides could adapt to each other’s culture. However, it is better for American expatriates to adapt to the French culture in order to improve working relation with the French. The following are several good advices:

1. Be aware of French high power distance and recognize your direct superiors and subordinates
2. Carefully analyze meeting. Remember that decision is always made by upper executives. Meetings are often only form of formality
3. Try to capture real messages in what you’ve told. Don’t hesitate to ask the speaker if you still cannot get the message
4. French staffs are flattered to be asked, so don’t hesitate to ask them for guidance
5. Do not intrude on French colleagues’ private lives
6. Greetings are sometimes important in building good relationship with your fellow French. Remember that it is hard for them to trust newcomers
7. Discuss with your superiors before distributing information
8. Try to build relationship by creating an atmosphere of trust and friendliness
9. When you received a task, consult with those who had previously done the task before making decisions. Also, remember to informs others about the decision you make
10. Respect formality and be aware that French employees are mostly loyal to their company
11. Criticize considerably; don’t let it turn into a form of offence
12. Learn how to speak French
13. Analyze critics and try to capture positive message from them

In overall, international management practitioners need to understand how subordinate perceptions of what constitutes an effective manager differ across national or cultural context. That is, international managers need to understand how particular cultural systems shape the collective concerns and preferences about the way an effective, successful manager should to behave. The significance of such awareness is that it maybe argued in practice that the more a manager’s actions, directives, and behaviours are consistent with the cultural preferences of subordinates, the more subordinates will perceive the actions and attitudes of individual managers to be appropriate. It is further assumed that subordinates will be more committed to achieve the goals and directives of their superiors.

While the traditional concern of cross-cultural researchers like Geert Hofstede have been to understand the value characteristics and behavioural orientations that are distinctive to managers of different cultures, there is a need to go further. With the rise of international organisations, there is an urgent need to go beyond describing the link between the value and behavioural orientations that characterise cultures and examine closely the way subordinates from different cultural perspectives think about management as a process. After all, subordinates are the one who managers manage in their drive to achieve organisational success and efficiency. Thus, managers should also think in subordinates’ point of view before applying their management style.

By Antony Gumi, March 2008

Reference:
Gouttefarde, C. (1996). American Values in the French Workplace. Business Horizons, 39 (2), 60-69

My Article Review on "Cultural Values and the CEO: Alluring Companions?"

There are numbers of business organizations in the world. Each of these organizations or companies would have Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Each CEO would have different style in managing their company. According to Henry Mintzberg’s book, The Nature of Managerial Work, CEO roles can be divided into three major groupings:

1. Interpersonal Roles

Interpersonal roles arise directly from a CEO’s formal authority. Interpersonal roles include:

1. Figurehead role: representing the organization in formal ceremonies
2. Liaison role: interacting with those outside the organization who may affect its success
3. Leadership role: directing and coordinating the activities of subordinates
1. Informational Roles

Informational roles arise as CEOs deal with information. Informational roles include:

a. Monitor role: scanning the environment for information the organization may need

b. Disseminator role: sharing information with and distributing it to subordinates

c. Spokesperson role: transmitting information to others in an official capacity

3. Decision-making Roles

Decision-making roles arises as CEOs is the one who have the authority to commits the organization to action by deciding based on information which have been given to them. Decision-making roles include:

a. Entrepreneur role: initiating innovative products or ideas

b. Disturbance Handler role: responding to threats and conflicts that are usually beyond the company’s direct control

c. Resource Allocator role: deciding who will get which resources and how much they will get

d. Negotiator role: dealing with others to obtain competitive advantages for the firm

Furthermore, cultures where these organizations hold their business may be vary. These cultures have certain values which can give impact on how organizations run. According to a research done by Geert Hofstede, a Dutch social scientist, impacts of cultural values on organizations can be seen in four dimensions or value systems:

1. Power Distance (POW)

It refers to the extent to which a culture encourages unequal distributions of power among people. Distinct characteristics of organizations on each extreme point:

1. Low POW

§ There are more interactions among people of different social classes

§ People with low-status position can easily move into higher-status position

§ Status differences are minimized

§ Flatter organization pyramids

§ Fewer supervisory personnel

§ Smaller wage differentials

§ Structure in which manual and clerical work are equally valued

2. High POW

§ People with high-status keep their distance from low ones

§ Status advancement are difficult

§ Tall organization pyramids

§ More supervisory personnel

§ Large wage differentials

§ clerical work are valued more than manual work

2. Uncertainty Avoidance (UNC)

It refers to the extent to which people of a society feel threatened by unstable and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid them. Distinct characteristics of organizations on each extreme point:

1. Low UNC

§ Less structuring of activities

§ Fewer written rules

§ More generalists

§ Variability

§ Greater willingness to take risks

§ Less ritualistic behaviour

2. High UNC

§ More structuring of activities

§ More written rules

§ More specialists

§ Standardization

§ Less willingness to take risks

§ More ritualistic behaviour

3. Individualism-Collectivism (IND)

It refers to the extent to which people will prefer to work individually or prefer to work in a team. Distinct characteristics of organizations on each extreme point:

1. Low IND

§ Organization is considered as family

§ Organization defend employee interests

§ Practices are based on loyalty, sense of duty, and group participation

2. High IND

§ Organization is more impersonal (lacking of friendly feelings)

§ Employees defend their own self-interests

§ Practices encourage individual initiative

4. Masculinity-Femininity (MAS)

It refers to the extent to which a culture values assertiveness, competitiveness, and the acquisition of tangible things as opposed to passivity, cooperation, and emphasis on feelings rather than goods. Distinct characteristics of organizations on each extreme point:

1. Low MAS

§ Sex roles are minimized

§ Organizations don’t interfere with people’s private lives

§ More women in more qualified jobs

§ Soft, yielding, intuitive skills are rewarded

§ Social rewards are valued

§ Intuition as problem solving mode

2. High MAS

§ Sex roles are clearly differentiated

§ Organizations may interfere to protect their interests

§ Fewer women in qualified jobs

§ Aggression, competition, and justice are rewarded

§ Work is valued as a central life interest

§ Hard facts as problem solving mode

§ More industrial conflicts

These dimensions represent cultural values of countries in the world. It is obvious that each country will belong to a certain extreme (i.e. low / high) of these four value systems. Ellen F. Jackofsky, John W. Slocum, Jr., and Sara J. McQuaid researched on how these cultural values relate to CEO roles which have already been mentioned in the beginning of this review. This research was done in 1988 by collecting articles printed in English which were published between 1977 and 1986. They conduct research on countries by clustering them and search for articles about top companies’ CEOs in each cluster. They analyzed 5 five countries.

1. France

Bergard Hanonof Renault and Jean-Paul Parayre of Peugeot SA were chosen as discussion topics. They described how France has high POW by pointing out how both CEOs were forced out of their positions by the labor unions. Not only pointing out the CEO departures, but they also discussed about how both CEOs were though-minded and had autocratic leadership style.

2. Germany

Carl H.Hahn of Volswagen, Karlheinz Kaske of Siemens, and Heinz Nixdorf of Nixdorf Computer, A.G., were discussed. These three CEOs’ have similar behaviours that could reflect Germany value systems. First, they applied extensive rules and regulations in their companies (high UNC). Second, they determined their success by career advancement, challenging jobs, and opportunities for recognition as a leader in the field (high MAS). Third, high MAS is also showed by how they solved problem using hard facts (i.e. rely on engineering principles). Finally, medium IND is shown by how they emphasized on stable employment, educational training, and the firm’s performance standards.

3. Sweden

Pehr Gyllenhammar of Volvo and Percy Barnevik of ASEA were discussed. Both CEOs reflect individual initiative (high IND) and high risk taking (low UNC). Low MAS is displayed on how Gyllenhammar manages with a peple-oriented style. Finally, low POW is showed by how Barnevik decentralized responsibility so that accounting and profits of the company were not under the control of one central authority.

4. Taiwan

Y.C. Wang of Formosa Plastics Group was the only one discussed here since articles found were limited. Here, Taiwan’s low IND is showed in how Wang emphasize on family. In addition, Wang also devote himself to the jen philosophy which states that to describe a person, one must describe not only the personality but the intimate social and cultural environment that makes his or her existence meaningful.

5. Japan

Ichiro Isoda of Sumitomo Bank, Takashi Ishihara of Nissan, and Yoshihiro Inayama of Nippon Steel were used as primary examples. These CEOs reflect high MAS and high UNC in their behaviours. High MAS is reflected in their great interest in work and emphasis on excelling, the establishment of clear lines of authority and responsibility, decisions supported by a great deal of information, and the intrusion of the company into the personal lives of employees. High UNC can be seen in how they use groups in making strategic decisions, the discouraging of conflict and competition within companies, and through rites and rituals.

By looking at the above examples, we could see that every CEO has their own leadership style and every leadership style may also be affected by cultural values that apply in the country where the CEO is “ruling”. Cultural diversity perhaps can be related to how managing style diverge from one country to another. Thus, if a company wants to hold business activity (e.g. business negotiation) in a country with different value systems, it is important for the CEO to understand how cultural values are interpreted in that particular country in order to avoid strategic blunders or mistakes. Hence, by understanding other side’s culture, the chance of having successful business will increase.

By Antony Gumi, March 2008

Reference:

Jackofsky, Ellen F., Slocum, Jr. John W. and McQuaid, Sara J. (1988), "Cultural Values and the CEO: Alluring Companions?", The Academy of Management Executive II, 1, pp.39-49.

My Essay on Alex Ferguson

Alex Ferguson

Manager of Manchester United

1986-2008

Alexander Chapman Ferguson, who is well-known as Alex Ferguson, was an ordinary man who worked as an apprentice tool worker in his father shipyard. He was born in Govan, Glasgow, a popular state in Scotland for its famous football teams, Glasgow Ranger and Glasgow Celtic. During his work, he also played football as a part time player in an infamous Queens Park and St Johnston football team. Regarding his ability, Glasgow Ranger was interested in him and bought him. As a player, Alex Ferguson was not success. He was blamed for a lost in a match against the fierce rival of Ranger, Glasgow Celtic. Finally, he gave up football and started his career as a manager of an infamous football club, East Stirling. He successfully managed this team for 3 years but was eventually sacked. An average class Scottish football team, Aberdeen, interested in using his management skills and recruited him. Within limited resources, Alex successfully turned Aberdeen into a glorious team by breaking the domination of Glasgow Celtic and Glasgow Ranger. He also became a legend by leading his Aberdeen boys to be the only Scottish team who could win one of the most prestigious titles in European Football, Winners Cup. Regarding his success in Europe, many famous football teams in the like of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Arsenal, and Tottenham, became interested to recruit him. In spite of the lucrative contract offers of these giant teams, Alex chose to continue his management career at an “under-threat” football team which was struggling to move away from premiership league degradation zone, Manchester United (MU). Under his reign, Manchester United evolved from an average team into a top-class team that has won 9 Premiership League titles, 5 FA cups, 2 League cups, and 7 Community Shield cup in regular domestic competition. Moreover, in European competition, Alex has successfully lead MU to win UEFA Champions League, Winner’s Cup, Intercontinental Cup, and UEFA Super Cup.

Alex Ferguson is a great manager. He has successfully made Manchester United one of the richest football clubs in the world. He is famous for his bargaining ability and his judgement on players’ potential. If he found that a player shows a lot of potentials, he will undoubtedly spend huge cash or do his utmost to sign this player. Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney, Christiano Ronaldo, and Ruud Van Nistelrooy were only numbers of talented players that could show how good Alex Ferguson players’ potential judgement is. During his early time in East Stirling, Aberdeen, and Manchester United, Alex also managed to drive his team to success even with limited resources, within limited budget and under lots of pressures from fans and club upper management. Furthermore, he managed to make use invaluable Manchester United youngster and trained them. Players like David Beckham, Ryan Giggs, Neville brothers, and Paul Scholes are his top “products”. He managed to convert the value of these youngsters from zero to invaluable players who helped MU win numbers of titles.

Alex is also a great leader. He has shown his capabilities in directing his squad toward each successful season. He influences his player by implementing high level of squad discipline and giving equal treatment to every player. No player is treated exclusively, even a player in class of David Beckham and Jaap Stam were kicked out from the squad for their indiscipline acts and media outburst. Yes, Alex Ferguson is rarely talking to the media unless he thinks it is very necessary. He is of the opinion that talking to the media especially talking about internal team situation could lead into squad disharmony and can affect the form of his squad. Therefore, he often warns his players to be careful in giving their comments to the media. One of the “victim” of Alex’s disciplinary acts is the famous Manchester United captain, Roy Keane. Roy Keane commented on the media of the bad form of his team-mates and he also commented that Alex has mismanaged the team. Despite of Roy Keane’s 12 years contribution to the team, Alex end up his contract by mutual consent as soon as the comment was released to the public. In addition, Alex also infuses his team with his “hate-of-losing” and “desire-of-winning” personality. This makes his player to keep fighting even until the last minute of the game. Every football lover would still remember what happened in 1998-1999 Champions League final fixtures where Manchester United was 1-0 down in most of this game and they surprisingly managed to comeback and win the game in the very last minute by scoring 2 goals in the injury time. Everyone was surprised and wondering what Alex has told his player during the half time break so that his players could make a great comeback. Some of football commentators said it is because Alex’s famous hairdryer treatment (i.e. kind of treatment an angry Alex would give in team-talks by shouting at players close to their face), but they are all wrong. It was Alex’s word of motivation that changes the whole situation. He said, "At the end of this game, the European Cup will be only six feet away from you and you'll not even able to touch it if we lose (i.e. you’ll only be watching the enemy pick up the trophy and celebrate triumph that supposed to be yours). And for many of you, that will be the closest you will ever get (i.e. you cannot get closer to the trophy since losers don’t deserve that trophy). Don't you dare come back inhere (i.e. come back into the dressing room after the game finish) without giving your all (i.e. fight until the last minute of the game)". Regarding the final result of that game, Alex Ferguson perhaps is the greatest motivator and player psychiatrist in European football.

Alex Ferguson is also famous for his in-game strategy and mind-games. Not only to his players, has Alex also applied his psychological ability to “attack” his opponent. Sometimes he commented in the media to lower the mentality of his opposing team or replying to other managers’ mind-games commentary. However, most of the time, he prefers to answer his opponent by silent action. For example, his opponent, Alan Hansen, commented, “You’ll never win anything with kids”, when Alex decided to put the talented MU youngsters into MU senior team. Rather than replying a comment to Alan Hansen, Alex continued his plan to use his MU youngsters. Later on, when these talented youngsters had successfully matured into top quality players, Alex made Alan Hansen ate his own words. Another example is an arrogant comment of Arsene Wenger, manager of Arsenal, when Arsenal was on top of the premiership division table and MU was struggling in mid-table position. Wenger said that MU will not be able to take his team position in the league until the end of season and that MU glorious days had finished. Instead of replying to Wenger’s comment, he decided to focus on the team. He used Wenger’s comment to fire up his team. He told his players that all people were looking down at them and hated them. He used these military-like talks to wake up his squad spirit and tell the squad to prove that those people are wrong by giving up their best. At the end of season, MU dramatically won the season premiership title, making Wenger ate his own words.

Alex is strict to his players, but it doesn’t mean that he is a fierce manager. He really cares and protective to his players. Alex would be there to help if any players get into trouble. For example, Alex was there to protect and keep motivating these players:

• David Beckham, when he became public enemy of England and became the scapegoat of England lost in 1998 World Cup.
• Roy Keane, when he got problems with alcohols and his habit to go to night clubs and bars.
• Ruud Van Nistelrooy, when he got problem with long injuries.
• Christiano Ronaldo, when he became public enemy of England since he was blamed for the lost of England if 2006 World Cup for his “contribution” in sending off Wayne Rooney.
• Ryan Giggs, when he needs protection away from the media limelight.

Alex cared for these players, protect them from the media, and keep motivating them. In a result, these players replied with loyalty and good performance on the pitch.

In conclusion, Alex Ferguson is a great leader who has great managerial ability. Regarding result of his leadership, it’s a delayed outcome since it took him 4 years to convert title-less Manchester United into a glorious team with bunch of disciplined and well-trained players. However, several events also have shown that his team-talks have an immediate effect to the team’s performance in any games. In accordance to leadership causal chain, Alex Ferguson leadership can be illustrated as follows:

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/alex_ferguson

[2] http://www.manutdzone.com

[3] http://www.manutd.com