He has not managed the company in a way to lead it to financial success. Indeed, if he were to continue on his planned course, he would lose what little loyalty and commitment remain in his employees. They would consider him a leader who handles change without consulting employees, and who does not communicate in an effective manner. He would lose not only their commitment to the company, but also their respect as followers. However, certain recommendations can help to remedy certain aspects of the situation.
The recommendations are two-fold. Firstly, it is recommended that John makes a thorough assessment of his leadership style and the way in which he intends to communicate change. Secondly, rather than summarily retrenching workers in order to mitigate the company's debt problems, he should also first consider ways in which to handle the existing problems within the company.
In terms of the first recommendation, John needs to work thoroughly on his personal power as well as his power of leadership. It is only by developing his self-respect (as explicated by McCollum) as a leader that John can begin to develop personal power (as explicated by Gins) in order to effectively handle the problems within his company. The study states that he is not sure how to handle the lack of unity within his company -- this means that there are substantial gaps in his leadership knowledge and that he needs to address this by field and literature investigation. His reliance on his wife for important decisions indicates a basic lack of self-confidence, without which he is not truly in a good position to handle the problems the company is facing.
In this regard, it is recommended that John thoroughly investigate and reform his leadership style. In order to do this, John needs to redefine his concept of communication. Communication is not simply a leader who speaks and a follower who listens. Baldoni quite thoroughly explicates this in his article on communication. Good leaders not only listen, they also actively ask for input from their followers.
Specifically, John can implement such action by means of a communication session with all the departments in his company. Rather than implementing his original plan, he can visit each depot and explain the problems the company is experiencing. Employees and their managers can then provide input on possible alternatives for the future.
While the crisis should be the first focus of communication, regular meetings should be a precedent to establish future goals and the mission of the company. John should also ensure that he maintains an open communication policy that involves more than only his wife and son. He should recognize and respect employees as a valuable resource not only of work but also of information and planning. This will create a precedent of mutual respect rather than the hostility that will doubtlessly be the result of John's original plan.
In terms of creating unity, it is recommended that John redistribute the workforce according to a statistical determination of effectiveness and efficiency, as explicated by Gresh et al. This should only occur after the communication paradigm has been implemented. It should also be discussed with employees to ensure they understand the reasoning behind it and the ways in which it will benefit both the company and themselves.
In conclusion, John has been leading the company from a distance. This is not an effective leadership paradigm for today's business world. With thorough attention to increasing his self-respect and respect for others, John will be able to improve his company's operations.