Critical Analysis of Leadership Styles: Acquiring vs. Target Company

This case study delves into the critical analysis of leadership styles within the context of a company merger, examining the contrasting approaches of the acquiring and target companies. The acquiring company employed an autocratic leadership style, characterized by centralized decision-making and top-down authority, which fostered compliance and accountability but potentially demoralized employees. In contrast, the target company utilized a participatory leadership style, involving stakeholders in the decision-making process, promoting employee recognition and motivation. The paper explores the benefits and drawbacks of each style, referencing Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to highlight the importance of addressing employee needs. The conclusion emphasizes the significance of leadership in organizational success and the need to harmonize leadership styles post-merger to ensure a cohesive and effective organizational culture.

1
Understanding Organizational Behavior
Name
Professor
Course
Date

2
Understanding Organizational Behavior
Case Study: Critical Analysis of the Leadership Styles in the Acquiring and Target Companies
Introduction
One of the major determining factors of organizational success is leadership. The type of
leadership style adopted by an organization can play a significant role in influencing its
prosperity by determining whether it succeeds or not. An organization that has a good leadership
definitely succeeds more than the one that does not. However, one thing that should be known
that leadership is diverse. Meaning, every leader has a right to choose and apply the leadership
style that appeals to them most. In this case study, there is a cultural clash in the merger caused
by the leadership differences employed by the acquiring and the target companies. The paper
presents a critical analysis of the leadership styles in the acquiring and target companies.
The Leadership Style in the Acquiring Company
The leadership style adopted in the acquiring company was autocratic. This is a type of
leadership style in which the decision-making process is centralized and dominated by the
topmost authority. To be autocratic means dictatorial. So, in this situation, the management was
purely dictatorial when it came to the decision-making process (Arnold, Connelly, Walsh &
Martin Ginis 2015). The management had assumed the decision-making role; hence, whenever
there was any decision to be made, it would unilaterally make it. Meaning, no any other
stakeholders would be consulted and requested to give opinion before a decision was made. It
was the sole right of the management to do so.

3
The autocratic leadership style applied in this company had been accepted as an
organizational culture by everyone. That is why none of the employees complained because they
had become accustomed to it. Since it had become an acceptable standard culture, no one had to
complain or query the decision made by the top management no matter how it would impact on
them. It had become a norm that the he responsibility of the management was to make decisions
whereas the workers was limited to complying whatever the management had decided since all
decisions were made in the interest of the organization (Antonakis & Day 2017). The benefit of
this leadership style is that it enhanced the culture of compliance, harmony, dedication, and
accountability. However, its demerits are that the style might have demoralized some workers.
Failing to recognize the employees made them think that they had been neglected. It demoralized
many employees because of the feeling that their needs had not been addressed (Yahaya &
Ebrahim 2016). This means that the management had failed to effectively apply the ideas
expressed by Abraham Maslow in his Hierarchy of Needs theory which states that the employees
should be motivated by addressing their needs. It is because of this reason why, after the merger,
some workers thought of quitting the organization. If they were motivated, none of the
employees would think of leaving the organization.
The Leadership Style in the Target Company
The leadership style applied in the target company was participatory. This is a type of
leadership style in which the decision-making process is done by involving the participation of
different stakeholders. In this situation, when a decision is supposed to be made, the management
cannot do so on its own (Klev & Levin 2016). What it does, instead, is to seek for the
contribution of all the involved parties which can be directly or indirectly affected by the
changes made as a result of such decisions.

4
Participatory leadership had been accepted as a standard organizational culture in this
company. All the employees felt happy and motivated because of the feeling of recognition,
acknowledgement, and involvement. Whenever there was any major decision to be made, all the
employees could not be left out (Iqbal, Anwar & Haider 2015). The management did this in line
with the Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy theory which advocates for the identification and
satisfaction of the diverse needs of the individual employees within an organization. Hence, to
satisfy the needs of its employees, the management had no choice, but to seek for the
contribution of the employees. That is why after the merger, there was a section of the workforce
that felt demoralized due to the changes in leadership style and decision-making procedures.
Conclusion
Leadership is a key component of any organization. The leaders should always be ready
to serve the organization well and ensure that all the human and non-human resources are put
into proper us and optimally exploited. A good leadership style is healthy for an organization
because it not only motivates the employees, but boosts performance and guarantees success.
The autocratic and participatory leadership styles applied in the two organizations served them
well however, after the merger, the cultural clash that erupted had to be addressed by
harmonizing the leadership styles to ensure that everyone fits in regardless of the changes.

5
References
Antonakis, J. & Day, D.V. eds., 2017. The nature of leadership. New York: Sage publications.
Arnold, K.A., Connelly, C.E., Walsh, M.M. & Martin Ginis, K.A., 2015. Leadership styles,
emotion regulation, and burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(4), p.481.
Iqbal, N., Anwar, S. & Haider, N., 2015. Effect of leadership style on employee performance.
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(5), pp.1-6.
Klev, R. & Levin, M., 2016. Leading Participatory Change. In Participative Transformation (pp.
133-146). New York: Routledge.
Marx, T.G., 2015. The impact of business strategy on leadership. Journal of Strategy and
Management, 8(2), pp.110-126.
Yahaya, R. & Ebrahim, F., 2016. Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature
review. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), pp.190-216.