The two retail companies picked are Walmart and Costco whose 2017 Financial statement links are provided below: WALMART https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ wmt/financials?query=income- statement COSTCO https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ cost/financials?query=income- statement Both organizations are well known brands and position themselves well with their customer base. Walmart’s value proposition is “We save people money so they can live better”. On the other hand, Costco’s value proposition is “All-in-one convenience and everyday affordability”. Both retailers focus on cost saving for their customers. Looking at their financial statements and by analyzing them a few key areas are evident when comparing the two organization. Looking at the current ratio and quick ratio we can determine the short-term solvency of each organization. The current ratio can be determined by dividing the assets by the liabilities. Walmart’s current ratio sits at 0.86 while Costco’s sits at 0.99. The quick ratio is c
Introduction It was during the 1970’s when Drs. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed the initial paradigm of situational leadership, with the fundamental idea that some situations require a leader to direct others, whereas alternative situations provide an environment where support and wider delegation is better (Beheshti, 2018). This basic idea of situational leadership, effectively how situations impact leadership, has blossomed into a network of theories (Vroom & Jago, 2007). One such theory is known as the ‘Path-Goal’ theory which emerged shortly after Hersey and Blanchard’s initial work, which was built upon by the psychologists Evans (1970), House (1971), Dessler (House & Dessler, 1974), and Mitchel (House & Mitchel, 1974). As more theories emerged, situational leadership got demarcated into situational and contingency-situational theory types, with the Path-Goal theory falling into the latter (Vroom & Jago, 2007). Specifically, contingency-situational theory dictates that “a leader’s effectiveness is contingent upon with how his or her leadership style matches to the situation” (Love, n.d.), which differs slightly to traditional situational leadership since the latter is focused on adaptation of leadership style based on who is to be influenced rather than additional situations (i.e. non-subordinate environmental factors) (Anthony, 2019). Interestingly, the origins of contingency theory predate situational leadership, but was promoted as differential after the work of Hersey and Blanchard (Love, n.d.; Beheshti, 2018; Vroom & Jago, 2007). Let us now look at the Path-Goal theory in more depth. The Path-Goal theory advocates that leaders must develop and manage the paths of others toward both individual and common group goals, manage expectations, and to “supplement the environment when sufficient rewards from the environment are lacking” (Vroom & Jago, 2007). This latter point is important with respect to this theory being a contingency-leadership theory, since a leader must alter their behaviour based on the non-subordinate environment (Vroom & Jago, 2007). When said behaviour is adequately matched to the situation, subordinate job satisfaction is developed, acceptance of the leader (or leaders) can occur, “effort to performance and performance to reward expectations are elevated” (Vroom & Jago, 2007), and this enhanced effort on the part of subordinates positively feeds back into the organizational system (often to the benefit of the leader in question) (House & Mitchell, 1974). Further, the theory states that more leader-based direction of subordinates is required for more ambiguous tasks (which would otherwise yield both frustration and a lack of efficiency), but less directorship over those tasks which are straight-forwards lest one falls into the trap of micromanagement (Vroom & Jago, 2007). Finally, a note regarding the Path-Goal theory of leadership. One piece of criticism levelled at this theory is that it is still incipient, with further testing and development required in order for leadership experts and academics to consider it truly descriptive of the observed facts (Evans, 1996; Schriesheim & Neider, 1996). An Example of the Path-Goal Theory An example of the Path-Goal theory can be found in the company I founded, Haggarty-Weir Consulting, a company involved in providing solutions to life science and tech start-ups and technical consulting services to investors in biotech start-ups. Recently I licensed out a piece of the firm’s intellectual property, namely the ‘Core Business Skills for Biologists’ training program, to the Royal Society of Biology (RSB). The RSB incorporated this program into their new Industry Skills Certificate (which can also be used as CPD points to become a Registered Scientist, or an RSci), and my staff were tasked with targeted marketing to promote this. Overall, the task was simple: scope out who the key personnel are at universities and their associated institutes that have a biological focus, and email these individuals with information about the program. Now, I had already arranged with my staff that they get a cut of the profits from each new customer who signs up to the RSB program, thus incentivizing their performance by supplementing the existing environment. However, it was actually my experience that made the initial task appear to not require oversight; several of my team were unsure of how to locate key personnel (especially with university websites that did not easily provide this information) to market to, and the exact types of university and institute staff to acquire details of (one would prefer to have a senior academic, but not so senior that they are an administrator). In my haste to avoid micromanaging (and frustrating) my team, I had neglected to realize that what appeared simple to me was not for others who had not carried out such a task before, thus causing a level of frustration. This was resolved when I communicated to the team as a whole my methodologies. Therefore, without laying down the full task path, goals were unable to be achieved effectively. This is now a lesson I have taken onboard. A final interesting note that resonates with the criticism of Path-Goal theory laid down by Evans (1996), Schriesheim and Neider (1996), is that after the aforementioned task methodology resolution, some staff still appeared not as incentivized by the prospect of the uncapped sales percentage bonus. I believe this is where having an understanding of what the innate desires and needs of your staff are, based on where they currently sit on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Tanner, 2019). In brief, I came to find out that some staff were having issues in their personal lives which required resolution before they would be fully financially incentivized. Conclusions Leadership theories, include the Path-Goal theory, are constantly being developed and challenged. To date, no evidence has been presented to show a fully inclusive theory of leadership. However, by being exposed to, and subsequently analysing, various theories, leaders can take an active role in their professional and personal development. This actually forms the core of ‘agile leadership’, where self-reflection, feedback, and study are utilized to develop better leadership abilities (Beheshti, 2018), something we should all strive for. References Anthony, L. (2019). Define Situational Leadership. Chron. Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron. Beheshti, N. (2018). An Agile Leader Is A Self-Aware Leader. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ Evans, M.G. (1996). R. J. House’s “A path–goal theory of leadereffectiveness”. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, pp. 305 – 309. Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path–goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 55, pp. 277 – 298. House, R.J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path–goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a priori tests. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership (pp. 29 – 55). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. House, R.J., & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path–goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, pp. 81 – 97. House, R.J. (1971). A path–goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, pp. 321 – 338. Love, L.M. (n.d.). Contingency Theory of Leadership. Organization & Administration in Recreation, Sport, & Leisure Management. Retrieved from https://oer.missouriwestern. Schriesheim, C.A., & Neider, L.L. (1996). Path–goal leadership theory: The long and winding road. The Leadership Quarterly, 7, pp. 317 – 321. Tanner, R. (2019). Motivation – Applying Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory. Management is a Journey. Retrieved from https://managementisajourney. Vroom, V.H., & Jago, A.G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 17. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/ |
Comments