Leadership in Organizations Case ACME Case Study

Excerpt from Case Study :

e. child care and health insurance). As, they can negotiate lower group rates for: the company and offer them as part of the total compensation package that everyone is receiving. (Northouse, 2010, pp. 89 -- 93)

Was Burton a charismatic leader in the company at this time? Explain your answer.

Yes, Burton was a charismatic leader. The reason why, is because he would utilize strategies that went above and beyond what traditional leaders were using to motivate employees. This is important, because his ability to use this technique helped him to be able to receive greater concessions out of employees in comparison with other carriers. At the same time, he was given greater amounts of flexibility in making adjustments to: the kinds tasks employees were able to do and their schedules. This gave Burton the ability to adapt to changes that were taking place inside the industry. As, this allowed him to create a new product that thrived in the era of: deregulation, strikes and rising fuel costs.


What made Astro Airlines so successful was: the leadership of Burton and the management style that he embraced. As, he was: giving employees greater benefits and was motivating them to go the extra mile for customers. This approach allowed the company to be able to maintain a lower cost structure. Over the course of time, this helped Burton to be able to identify changes that are occurring and quickly adjust to them. This made the company more competitive in comparison with the major carriers. During a time when there were: strikes, the cost of fuel was skyrocketing and consumer demand was shifting. This allowed the Astro Airlines to adapt to these changes. The results of the philosophy, was that company was able seize a significant amount of market share from competitors. One of the biggest reasons, why this strategy was so successful is because of: the vision and management style that Burton was using. This helped the airline to adapt to these shifts and create a new business model that worked effectively in the era of deregulation.

Case: Southwest Engineering Services Chapter 11

Describe the leadership behaviors Ron used and their influence on the attitudes and behavior of the team members.

There are two types of leadership styles that Ron is using to influence team members to include: autocratic and delegative behaviors. Autocratic leadership is when the manager will be able to have total control over the activities of employees. In general, there are strict guidelines that are established for everyone to follow. If someone breaks these rules, there are generally severe consequences for these actions. The way that Ron is using this leadership style is based on: him having the final authority for all decisions and the ability to enforce strict guidelines for the project. This is important, because this aspect of his leadership style helped to enforce discipline. As a result, the standards for: quality and the completion of the project were accomplished early (because of the guidelines that were in place). (Harris, 2002, pg. 428) (Yukl, 2005, pp. 318 -- 347)

Delegative leadership is when the supervisor is giving employees greater amounts of flexibility in: determining how they will complete various tasks. This is designed to improve collaboration and the quality of the product that is being delivered. However, the manager ultimately has the final decision on any kind of actions that have been taken. The way that Ron was utilizing this approach, is by allowing employees to have greater amounts of flexibility in: deciding the way to accomplish their tasks. This helped to improve innovation and communication among the various team members. As a result, the combination of the two different approaches helped Ron to be able to impose strict guidelines. While at the same time, giving staff members the creativity to do their very best. In many ways, one could argue that this approach is what made the project so successful. (Harris, 2002, pg. 428) (Yukl, 2005, pp. 318 -- 347)

Compare this cross-functional project team to a self-managed operations team by identifying similarities and differences in the leadership roles.

The cross function project can work in different areas, on a wide variety of tasks. This is when you are bringing together different individuals from: various areas of expertise to work on an assignment. While, the self-managed operation, is one where each individual is responsible for completing the different tasks independently. The similarities between the two different approaches are similar in that, they are giving the individual greater amounts of flexibility in determine how the project will be accomplished. The differences are: that one philosophy is seeking to take talented individuals from different backgrounds and have them work together to accomplish the goals of the organization. While the other approach, is focused on achieving similar kinds of goals only with: an emphasis on giving the individual greater amounts freedom to accomplish the various tasks independently. (Harris, 2002, pg. 428) (Yukl, 2005, pp. 318 -- 347)


Clearly, what made Ron so successful is: the leadership styles that he embraced. As, he incorporated: autocratic and delegative behaviors into his approach. At the same time, he utilized strong individual talents (through: the cross functional philosophy) to effectively create an innovative product. These different elements are important, because they are showing how Ron would take a number of leadership styles and combine them into one strategy. This is how he was able to motivate everyone, while ensuring that the team followed the strict guidelines for the project.


Butler, D. (2000). Business Planning. Oxford: Butterworth.

Harris, J. (2002). Organizational Behavior. Binghamton, NY: West Publishing Company


Cite This Case Study:

"Leadership In Organizations Case ACME" (2011, June 08) Retrieved August 22, 2017, from

"Leadership In Organizations Case ACME" 08 June 2011. Web.22 August. 2017. <

"Leadership In Organizations Case ACME", 08 June 2011, Accessed.22 August. 2017,