preview

Summary: Analyzing Leadership Decisions

Decent Essays

ANALYZING LEADERSHIP DECISIONS McGregor (2011) of the Washington Post has identified that one the worst leadership moments of 2011 was when the Penn State officials kept quiet about an alleged child molester. According to Roebuck and Craig (2012) of the Philadelphia Inquirer notes revealed in the Freeh report stated the Penn State sex-abuse scandal demonstrated a quick decision was made to avoid scrutiny. “The crisis at Pennsylvania State University was preventable, as was made clear by former FBI director Louis Freeh in his 267 page report” (O’Brien, 2012, p.1). This 267-page report was compiled after 430 interviews and the review of 3.5 million emails and other documents. The purpose of this paper is to perform a thoughtful …show more content…

This was followed three years later by another “whistle blower” and the university leadership decided not to notify outside authorities. This incident was then documented to note that various leaders once they were informed did not pursue to follow-up. This unfortunate case is a complete breakdown ethical and morale behaviors starting with the molester (Sandusky) and the decisions made by leadership at Penn State University. This included maintaining a closed culture, where loyalty was placed in front of morale and legal obligations. It is clear that the attempt to protect the university’s reputation outweighed everything else. Additionally, the financial loss that would have occurred from that loss of reputation spurred leadership to make the inappropriate choices that they made.
ASSESSMENT OF THE PROCESS The decision-making process at PSU was clearly flawed and influenced in several areas.
Once the leadership at the university was notified of an alleged molesting case the …show more content…

The Penn State case involved an application of a variety of leadership styles. Situational leadership is one leadership style out of several that a leader or team can employ. Other styles include participative, directive, autocratic and laissez-faire according to Johnson (2015). By definition, situational leadership involves utilizing different strategies depending on the circumstances and or the individuals you are dealing with. The process flows from a directive approach (S1) to coaching (S2) to supporting (S3) or delegating (S4). Additionally, the competency level assessments range from low (D1) to high competency (D4). It was documented through varying stages of the investigation that laissez-fair or “hands-off” involvement was demonstrated by the leadership because on many occasions they chose not to do anything. Secondly, participative leadership was witnessed because the leadership was in collusion with each other and decided jointly on their actions. Furthermore, an autocratic leadership style was displayed because no one challenged the decisions. It was a very much
Top-Down process that was not open to

Get Access