Leadership and Power

1. What role have referent power and expert power played in leadership at Intel? Which Intel CEOs seen to have inclined toward job-countered leader behavior? Toward employee-centered leader behavior? Toward initiation-structure behavior? Toward consideration behavior? Referent power comes from being trusted and respected. It based on identification, imitation, loyalty, or charisma. (Griffin, 549) Expert power comes from one’s experiences, skills or knowledge. (Griffin, 549) Both powers played big role in Intel’s leadership. For me, Noyce had high reference power. As book mentioned “Noyce was loyal and charismatic risk taker”. People respected him for his personality and ability to know “when his people new what they were doing”.

Other leaders had higher expert power. They have been with the company for a long time before they become CEOs. They knew it from the inside. People would follow them, because they were experts in the company. For example, if Barrett “has something to say, it’s usually worth listening to”. (Griffin, 576) As Griffin mentioned in his book, “researches at a University of Michigan identified two basic form of leader behavior: job-countered and employee-centered”. (553) Job-countered leader behavior belongs to Andy Grove. Under this behavior leaders “pay close attention to subordinates’ work, explain work procedures and interesting in performance” (Griffin, 553) Grove were “man of actions” and liked to settle the issues. He was an activist with instantaneous reaction who knew what people around him must do, and how they must perform.

Bob Noyce had very different leader behavior. He was an employee-centered leader who “interested in developing a cohesive work group and ensured that employees are satisfied with their jobs” (Griffin, 553) He trusted his men at a 100% and let them do their job without pressing them too much. He created relaxed work environment where people had a freedom to do what they were hired to do. Another types of behavior where suggested by Ohio State researchers are initiation-structure behavior and consideration behavior. I thing that Gordon Moore was representative of consideration behavior. Consideration behavior “show concern for subordinates and attempt to establish a worm, friendly, and supportive climate.” (Griffin, 553) He had a hands-off management approach and trusted his employees even more than Noyce.

He minimized his intervention toward employee’s job, and let them do their job as long as they help to reach his goals and visions. Initiating-structural behavior belong to Grain Barrett. This type of leader “clearly defines the leader-subordinates role, establish formal lines of command, and determine how tasks will be performed.” (Griffin, 553) He is analytical person. He like to analyze a data and then make decisions based on the result. I don’t think that analytical person would let the company run on its own. He probably analyzed every aspect of the company and make a decision on how every department should work based on his analysis.

2. Apply the path-goal theory of leadership to Intel’s succession of CEOs. Which kind of leader behavior best applies to each CEO – directive, supportive, participative, achievement-oriented? According to Griffin, “the path-goal theory of leadership suggests that the primary function of a leader are to make valued or desired rewords in the workplace and to clarify for the subordinate the kinds of behavior that will lead to goal accomplishment and valued rewords.” (559) I think that all CEO had to change their style or behavior “to meet demand of a particular situation”. (Griffin, 559) If they would only use one style or behavior, company would not be so successful. However, each of the CEOs used one style more often than the other. For me, it looks like

3. Intel appears to rely heavily on mentoring and long-term leadership development from within. In you opinion, what are pros and cons of such an approach? Intel also seems to have thrived on a pattern of alternating leadership styles. What ate the pros and cons of this approach? All Intel’s CEOs were “homegrown” (except Noyec who was a founder on Intel). Another words, Intel rely heavily on mentoring its new CEO’s. I think it is very good approach and work perfectly for the Intel itself. There are many pros of “inside” approach of developing a leader. First at all, recruiting the CEO from the inside ensures their loyalty to the company. They know a lot about the company, and know what kind of strategy will work for the company and which one will not. It can help the leader to make the most suitable decisions for the company and make sure that company’s development will grow. Second, it can save a lot of time on building a trustworthy relationship between the leader and his subordinates.

It is important for new CEO to establish trustful relationship between both employees and managers. People within a company already know their new CEO because they all work with him for a long time. They know what kind of person he is and what to expect from him, so it will be much easier for them to build up trusting relationship with new CEO. Another pros of the inside approach, is fast and easy transfer of the responsibilities to the new CEO. The old CEO will have enough time to transfer their work to new CEOs, and help them get into the new roles. By encouraging overlapping duties and responsibilities, Intel managers can better support and complement one another. The “inside” policy help Intel remain stable in every period, even when it needs to transfer all duties to the new CEO.

I can only see one cons of this type of approach, it is has a limited external influence on the company. When new CEO comes to the company, he can bring great ideas that can help company to grow ever faster. Inside person has limited vision of what is going on around the company. They never worked in different company and do not really know what is going on with their competitors. External person have more experience working in different companies and can bring a lot of positive information about new technologies, strategies or future expectations. All Intel leaders had a very different leadership styles. They were basically going from one extreme to another. I think they change of leadership styles helped Intel to become one of the biggest company in the world.

All CEOs had their own way to lead accompany and they were doing it at a right time. Each of the leaders contributed something in the company’s growth. Each CEO has been working at the times where old way of leadership will probably brought the company down. For example, during the Barrett’s time company took a lead in manufacturing computer chips. I happened because Barrett were able to set a company’s strategy and determined how tasks will be performed. If Noyce would lead the company at that time, his consideration behavior approach would not work for the manufacturing purpose.

4. Of the five profiled Intel CEOs, whose leadership style most closely resembles your own? Which of the five profiled CEOs would you most likely to work for? Which would you least likely to work for? I close to Barrett’s leadership style, because I am very analytic person, and like when everything runs in a certain order. However, I think that a good leader must have a combination of leadership styles. He has to adapt different approaches to different situations. As Ohio State researchers mentioned, leader behavior is not one-dimensional; it is constantly changing behavior. (Griffin, 553)