Take the information below and put it in a narrative paragraph form.

Each member of the team possesses unique powers that in every way is beneficial to the overall success of the group. Some individuals possess positional power while others possess personal power.

Harry Starker possesses coercive power. Harry Starker is described as just tolerated by his peers but not liked. This means he does not cease to punish others or use force to get things done.

Tanisha Downey possesses reward power. Downey presents a favorable position. This may be interpreted to mean that she a person who motivates others through promotions, salary raises or other awards.

Rachel Cohen on the other hand possesses informational power. Cohen has worked in all the U.S. facilities and she understands the organization and other industry players well.

Sammy Bossanova has referent power. Bossanova is very personable. He has also adopted the American way of life such that despite his accent, many people do not realize he is not an American. This has made him acceptable by the American employees as one of their own.

Jacqueline Chirac possesses expert power. Although she is described as arrogant, Chirac has expert power as she is said to have an unrivaled understanding of the markets as well as the organizations internal players. She is also well versed in European employment laws. In addition, she is an attorney by training.

Myself on the other hand possesses networking (connection) power. I have the ear of other powerful personalities in the organization. Ever since I started working for the company 7 years ago, I have become very connected which is in fact the reason I hold my current position as the VP of the HR enterprise. I always make a point of getting to know other individuals in the organization. I always employ this power to build important relationships.

The fact that each member hold different types of power makes this group very unique. As such, the team should be able to implement the HRIS system effectively.

The groups development level according to the Situational Leadership model

I would characterize this group development level as D3. According to Situational Leadership model, the D3 development level is one that is characterized by individuals who have a high level of competence but have a low or variable level of commitment (Baker, 2010). Although the members are capable of completing the task at hand, they lack the confidence as well as perceive the task to be a huge risk. The group however has the capability to move to the D4 development level. This is a level characterized by a high level of competence and commitment. Individuals in this level are highly motivated and complete tasks independently. If the group members overcome the roadblocks that prevent them from establishing a high level of consistent commitment, they will move to the D4 development level where they will be ready to take on the new challenge confident they will complete the task successfully (Thompson, 2008).

Appropriate leadership style for the team according to the Situational Leadership model

I think the most appropriate leadership style for this group is the S3-type (participating leadership). Every individual in this group have their own powers. As such, it would be of no benefit trying to impose ones power over others. By sharing and facilitating at an equal level with other group members, the group stands to gain a lot. A participating leader is one who actively listens to the input of others, facilitates, collaborates and is appreciative of other individuals input. This type of leadership focuses more on building relationships as opposed to giving others directions (Thompson, 2008). In this case, sharing and striving to establish a working relationship for the group will help the group members agree on how to implement the HRIS system. According to Baker (2010), this style of leadership promotes group empowerment, joint-decision making, power sharing and management by objective that results in increased effectiveness.

Sources/natures of these conflicts

I believe the source of this conflict is the existence of a deficiency in communication and collaboration. Northouse (2013) argues that these conflict arise when group members do not share important information with each other. As a result, other members may take actions or make decisions that the rest consider inappropriate. Unless resolved this can lead to blame and questions regarding motives which results in discord among the team. In this case, the two members from Europe did not communicate details about their situation. In essence, they were not good group collaborators. Had they expressed their concerns in time, they could have been assigned other roles, which perhaps would not interfere with their current workloads. Nonetheless, the members need to understand that despite having other assignments; implementation of the HRIS system will benefit the entire organization and as such should be accorded a more preference.

The approach (of the 5 approaches discussed in the week 4 lecture) I would take to resolve these conflicts

Compromising is the best approach to resolve these conflicts. Compromising is an approach where conflicting parties agree to disagree. They come into an agreement by giving up some of what they want. This calls for all parties to have a concern for self and for others. Conflicting parties must trade some of their needs to win concessions from the other party (Thompson, 2008). In this case, the European members must give up their concern for increased workload and invest more of their time towards ensuring the HRIS roll-out is successful. These European members should understand that even other members have their own workloads and then need to compromise. According to Lussier (2011), this style works when both parties are equally powerful but willing to cooperate just like in this case where it can be said that, the two European members represent Europe while the others represent America. In addition, all members almost have equal powers and as such, no one leader can purport to direct others.

Steps that I will take to ensure the team meets its deadline considering the teams Development level (Situational Leadership theory.

Considering the fact that the group is in the D3 development level characterized with high competence but low level of commitment, I think ensuring effective communication can help speed up the groups activities. As the leader, I will ensure members communicate effectively and the case of miscommunication that arose during the apportioning of roles is not repeated. I will also monitor every members progress based on a universally agreed timeline. I will also provide regular feedback as well as update the members about the general progress of the group.

The style I think would be better should I adjust my leadership style

I think it would be better to adjust my leadership style. Considering the fact that the members are not meeting deadlines, which puts the whole project into jeopardy, there is a need to be more assertive. As such, I would adopt an S1- directing leadership style. To meet the set deadlines, there is a need to adopt a behavior that is highly directive behavior and less supportive. This will involve providing the members with specific directions about what is expected of them and the objectives they are supposed to accomplish. I will also closely monitor their activities to ensure they are on track to meet the groups deadlines. Baker (2010) argues that the telling leadership system is effective in situations where a disaster may ensue unless intervention measures are taken just like in this case because failure to intervene and direct operations means the HRIS system will not be implemented within the set timelines.