The main problem discussed in the article is the widespread employee disengagement resulting from poor leadership. The great challenge for the leaders is bridging the gap between talent and energy of the workforce. The article gives a case of American executives to illustrate on this kind of problem. The case presented indicates that the workforce may be good, working up and down the ranks, but the absence of effective management ends up wasting this opportunity. In such cases, the managers do not understand the benefit they will get if the bring out and nurture the best from each employee. The article clearly explains that leadership should be viewed as a service that people can buy and that leaders should be more of servants than bosses to bring out the best from every one; this way, there would be increase productivity (Siegemund, 2008).
The hypothesis formulated
The hypothesis formulated is: poor leadership has caused low productivity due to increased gap between employees and managers. The major components of the hypothesis includes identifying if leadership is failing to bring out the best from employees and how it could be transformed while conserving leader’s most precious resource, time. The article discusses the difference existing among conventional leadership approaches. They explain more of leadership approaches which are different from the traditional approaches and check if it will lead to increase in productivity. Most of the research has been given insights on values, qualities and behavioral styles and these studies have a learning base for most of the executives. By testing this hypothesis, the executives will get information regarding management of their employees and customers to involve them hence leading to increase in productivity in their organization.
The need for the study
The main need for the study is to help in solving leadership problem in most of the organization in America. The study also applies in organizations across the world since it was realized that management of employees is a main problem in most of the organization. Most of the organization does not involve their employees in activities and this has led to increased gap between the employees and the managers. Most of the organization does not realize that if they involve customers and employees in most of the activities, this will lead to increased productivity. In which case, there will be established platform for most of the employees to exploit their talents and hence channel their energy to where their passion. Most of the companies should therefore allow employee to participate in decision-making process in order to boost their morale; this will in turn lead to increase in productivity.
The methodology employed in the study.
The methodology employed in this study is a qualitative approach. A qualitative approach is normally employed when there are phenomena to be measured and when there is a hypothesis to be tested. And all these are true for this study since there was indeed a hypothesis to be tested to check if poor leadership has led to increased disengagement of employees and customers leading to low productivity since most of the employees do not utilize their talents to the fullest.
Summary of the review of the articles problem
The main problem according to the article is weak leadership in most of the organization in America and most of the organization across the world. This problem has led to creating a bridge between employees and the leadership hence leading to low productivity. The article explains with good leadership in place which incorporates employees will result in increased productivity since the will most employees will use their talents and engage in working in areas they love. The article explains that organization in America and across the world should view leadership as a service and not masters, they should serve their employees rather than being bosses.
There are some four main steps that most organization should engage in to solve this problem. Senior managers should support the process, especially when conducting interviews. This will enable the employees coming on board to feel respected and part of the team since they are assured to be involved in most of the organizational decisions and this will bring significant changes hence leading to increasing in productivity. People also should participate in helping to define what leaders of the organization should do.
This will help build their confidence in many of the changes being made. Involving them will also assist in closing the gap between employees and leaders. People should also have a say in the final decisions being made even though the top leaders have the final word. With most people involve in the running of the organization, it makes it easier to evaluate if the expectations are met and this will lead to the increase in productivity and in monitoring the progress of the company.
Article assumptions, limitations, and potential for future research
The article has an assumption that the main cause for the employee disengagement is poor leadership. This might not be true in some case because there is no comparison that the article has sited or any other pertinent literature that the article has mentioned proving the same. This is a major limitation of the article since it should also review on other reasons for the employee disengagement. These reasons for employee disengagement could be related to leadership, and, therefore, they should be well outlined in the article.
This is a major limitation of the article since some of these factors could be related to poor leadership. Therefore, when the article does not talk much about them, it might not be effective since there is the relationship among the factors that affect employee disengagement (Kim & Mauborgne, 2015). The article could, therefore, be able to accommodate these another factor if at all there is the need for any further research.
Conclusion on the research finding
Blue ocean leadership is sufficient in ensuring that there is the small level of employee disengagement; this is because it aimed at focusing on the factors that enhance good leadership. Once the good leadership has been achieved, the level of employee disengagement will go down. This is because the blue ocean leadership empowers an individual with a visual and a concrete framework that can enable then to focus on the importance of quality leadership (Sanchez, 2011). The blue ocean leadership is valuable since it requires less time and effort to implement.
The major points forming basis for criticizing the article approach on leadership prospect can be categorized into two: the way it addresses Blue Ocean leadership’s focus on activities and description given regarding distribution of leadership through the management levels.
Focus on activities and acts
One of the major drawback of the article is that it does not focus Blue Ocean leadership on the behavioral styles, the qualities and other values of the leader. For one to be a good leader, the values of the person must be of high integrity, the leader must exhibit good behaviors. The good behaviors will be as good example and role model to the people; thereby, presenting the readers with succinctive information regarding leadership acts in the company. The article fails to deliver the most important aspects in the process of describing Blue Ocean leadership. This is not in order since, for a leader to effectively undertake his or her responsibilities, he or she must be able to improve on the qualities, the right values and some behavioral traits. The activities of the leaders that is emphasized the article is something that a leader can change on given that they receive the right guidance and feedback. The article ought to have focus first on the personal traits and the individual character; consequently, the Blue Ocean leadership needs to focus on the values, qualities and that behavioral activities of an individual before they improve on the activities.
Distribution of leadership through the management levels
Another point worth debating, as presented in the article, is the distribution of leadership across Blue Ocean management levels. The article implies that the success of any organization relies on the distribution of empowered leaders across all the levels of management. The reason given therein is that for effective performance of the staff, they need proper leaders who are close in contact to the market. This is where the article misses the point; describing leadership should take a direction that equates it to having enough control over the functionality of the business. In which case, leadership should be effective when it is concentrated at one management level to ensure that there is always one center of command unlike how the article describes the case of Blue Ocean. When leaders are distributed across all the sectors of the management level, they tend to be issuing directives to the staff from every direction.
As the result, the article presents a chance for triggering confusion regarding the view about effective leadership at Blue Ocean. This may result to some confusion to the people under command. If there is only one center of command then the staff will not experience the confusion, they will always be receiving commands from one source. This will ensure accuracy in the duties performed. The distribution of leadership in other departments may bring some competition among the leader, who may in turn not serve the best interest of the organization. When there are many different centers of command, there may be confusion in the entire organization which may then lead to inefficiency in the services offered by the staff. This is contrast to the Blue Ocean leadership to be distributed across all the levels of management. As the result, the article could have remained on track if the authors chose not to focus on distribution of the leadership responsibilities to all management levels. Instead, describing effective management at Blue Ocean leadership should be directed towards the way in which the center of command should be formed. In this way, the article would have presented a clear picture regarding channeling of information and commands down to the staff within the company.
Sanchez, J. L. (2011). Blue Ocean Strategy - Diplomarbeit: Vorstellung und vergleichende Bewertung der Blue Ocean Strategy. Norderstedt: Books on Demand.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2015). Blue ocean strategy: How to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant.
Siegemund, C. (2008). Blue ocean strategy for small and mid-sized companies in Germany: Development of a consulting approach. Hamburg: Diplomica-Verl.