Apply the concepts from the background materials (Holsinger & Carlton, 2018, Chapter 4; Thompson & Glasø, 2018) to your own experiences in the workplace. Think carefully about Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership model and the four leadership styles of Directing, Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating. Then consider the styles of one or more of the supervisors you have worked with, and reflect upon whether or not their style changed depending on the situation.
After doing some reflecting on your own experiences, and reviewing the background materials, write a 2 full-page paper (excluding title and references pages) addressing the following issues:
Which of these levels best describes the developmental level of your supervisor’s full team?
How would you describe the tasks required of your supervisor’s full team? Are they structured or unstructured?
Overall, how well does your supervisor’s leadership style match with the developmental level of their team and the characteristics of the team’s tasks? Consider the Situational Leadership model for developmental level and the Path-Goal model for task characteristics in your answer.
Conclude with recommendations for how your supervisor could change their leadership style?
My supervisor’s team displays these characteristics in that they have enough knowledge regarding the duties assigned them but require frequent check-ins with either themselves or their leader in order to stay motivated while also feeling secure knowing that progress is being monitored towards achieving established goals (Hersey & Blanchard 2018). This has allowed for better collaboration among team members since everyone knows what must be done and are regularly reminded about their responsibilities thanks largely due to regular coaching sessions led by supervisors who take advantage of opportunities present within each situation to ensure that all objectives are completed successfully. In addition, having this type of leadership structure works great when dealing with short term projects since there is no need for extensive training thus allowing work to get completed faster without compromising on quality output.
In 1999, a case is Michigan sentenced Jack Kevorkian, MD, of homicide. He was the essential consideration doctor for Thomas Youk. Youk was a patient of Jack Kevorkian in 1998. Michigan investigators contended that the doctor controlled a deadly portion of an obscure medication after the patient enthusiastically marked a report expressing that is what he believed the doctor should do. After the patient’s passing, Kevorkian was accused of doctor helped self destruction, and first degree murder. Kevorkian’s lawyers contended that the doctor was simply attempting to facilitate the aggravation of the patient. This made the appointed authority decide for the doctor. The doctor helped self destruction charge was dropped. In any case, the first-degree murder accusation remained something similar. The appointed authority condemned the doctor to ten to a quarter century in jail. On June 1, 2007, Jack Kevorkian was delivered released early serving eight years in jail. (Berghmans)
Up until the year 2008, Oregon was the main express that had sanctioned doctor helped self destruction. On November fourth, 2008, Washington state turned into the second state to pass a demise with pride act. The demonstration legitimized doctor helped self destruction.
In 2009, the province of Montana passed a regulation that legitimized doctor helped self destruction. The law made it legitimate for occupants of Montana to doctor helped self destruction. The law expresses that doctor helped self destruction isn’t against public approach. The law shields specialists from arraignment for assisting in critical condition patients with dieing. In any case, the court declined to settle on the off chance that the right is ensured under Montana’s Constitution. (ProCon.org)
On May 20, 2013, Vermont’s lead representative Peter Shumlin endorsed for the “Finish of Life Decisions” bill into regulation. This was significant in light of the fact that this was the first time in Quite a while history that doctor helped self destruction has been made legitimate utilizing the regulative cycle. (ProCon.org)
“On Blemish. 2, 2014, Belgium turned into the world’s most memorable country to lift all age limitations on willful extermination. Lord Philippe of Belgium marked regulation that permits youngsters with terminal and hopeless diseases to decide to be euthanized. The kid should be “close to death, in ‘steady and excruciating physical’ torment with no accessible treatment.” The youngster should likewise have “limit of wisdom and be cognizant right now of the solicitation.” The solicitation must be made recorded as a hard copy, affirmed and settled upon by the treating doctor, affirmed by a second assessment from an external specialist, and afterward the kid should go through mental testing to affirm that the kid comprehends the solicitation completely and that test must be ensured recorded as a hard copy by the therapist. The treating doctor is then expected to meet with the youngster’s folks or legitimate agent to acquire their assent recorded as a hard copy. The Netherlands has comparative regulation however denies killing for youngsters under 12 years old.” (ProCon.org) This is significant in light of the fact that it lifts the age prerequisites of doctor helped self destruction. On the off chance that anybody ought not be ready to end it all, I accept that it ought to be kids.