Twelve OClock High Movie free essay sample

Henry King, was filmed in 1949, is an unentertaining movie, especially for girls. However, it is full of engaging in leadership tools and revealing insights into different approaches to leadership for behavior change implementation in an organization. It based on a true story of an American bomber group 918th, a â€Å"daylight precision bombing† group, that was suffering from heavy casualties, ineffective performance, and low morale during the early days of World War II. This paper is going to identify and contrast the different leadership styles of two characters, the group’s relieved leader, Colonel Davenport, and the group new leader General Savage. This paper will also find the assessments, why General Savage was successful in leading the group in achieving missions that requires a high level of performance but Mr. Davenport was not. In the beginning of the movie, the group 918th is commanded by general Davenport. It is clearly that this leader’s main concern was the well-being of the group’s members. We will write a custom essay sample on Twelve OClock High Movie or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The air exec, Ben Gately, once told General Savage that â€Å"Dave is one of the best men I ever know†. Davenport obviously had developed close interpersonal relationships with his men. Hence, they were completely devoted towards him, followed and trusted any decision that he would make. He used trust, open communication, collaboration and participation as his leadership tools to build member commitment to him and so that to the group’s missions. Although this leadership style builds loyalty among members to the leader, they suffer significant losses on missions. This affection comes to interfere with his ability to lead the group. They had become pessimistic about their abilities to win the bombing combats, assumed that their mission is impossible. Soldiers became lack of morale. Davenport’s leading interventions targeted just one aspect of the group, the well-being of group members. According to the Two Key Points of Organization Development (Spector, Chapter. – Change Implementation), this leading style will likely fail to deliver a good performance. One instance that clearly demonstrates Davenport’s incapability to uphold his responsibilities as a leader is when he jeopardizes the well-being of the entire squadron by ignoring protocol and flying out of formation in the attempt to save one plane. His emotional feelings had become an obstacle to his effectively leading the group. He was replaced by Gene ral Frank Savage. In the continuing senses of the movie, General Frank Savage took over the group. He decided to change the group member’s behaviors to meet his objectives of wining the tough bombing combats. In his first speech to soldiers, he said: â€Å"We’ve got to fight and some of us have got to die. I’m not telling you not to be afraid. Fear is normal. But stop worrying about it, and about yourselves. Stop making plans. Forget about going home. Consider yourselves dead. Once you accept that idea, it won’t be so tough. He effected on the individual’s psychology to change the soldier’s thought of the mission from impossible to possible, so that they would be more confident in combating than before. On the other hand, he changed the group’s daily habits from the flexibility to the strict military rules, strictly timing and upholding indomitable in struggle. He wanted to change the environment context of the group, â€Å"unfreezing existing social habits† of the group’s members. He used the leadership style that only himself could decide what behaviors need to target and how to implement them in the group. According to Spector’s Theories of Effective Change Implementation, this approach is often causing â€Å"resistance change† from group members because they â€Å"may view change as a threat, fearing it will adversely affect them in some significant way. † Hence, the change did not go down well with the bombing group’s members. Nevertheless, he used â€Å"Task Alignment† to approach the leading. He analyzed and identified key performance indicators and behavioral implications required for the soldiers’ outstanding performance. He attached his requirements for new behavior to new strategic objectives of the group’s mission. This style proved more effective than Davenport’s style and improved the group’s combating performance. General Savage eventually was successful with his leading strategy and won back the loyalty of the bombing group. I think this movie showed a conflict between the preferred leadership styles and demands of a task performance context, the demands for winning a daylight bombing combat. Davenport’s response to this conflict was to adhere to participative style, encouraged by the widely held belief in the group’s well-being that made him a good leader. However, his style proved ineffective in performance. It shows that maintaining of rigid beliefs in what makes a leader look good to group members could result in a poor leadership performance. In opposition, Savage’s response was hardly hand-on the group behaviors’ change implementation toward outstanding performance objectives. Although he was successful, he was a nervous breakdown at the end of the movie because he did not pay attention to his own needs and preferences. Leaders could also be stressed if they suppress their own preferences for the sake of a superior performance. No one is a perfect leader here. No one has infinite flexibility to apply each different leadership style that is necessary in each specific situation. A good leader needs to find a good match between his/her own preferences and the demand of the performance context. A good leader also needs to balance between allowing a degree of compromise in paying enough attention to group member’s preferences and working toward goals for outstanding performances. In conclusion, Davenport’s leadership style targeted just on one aspect of the group’s well-being and forgot about what made the group performance objectives. General Savage’s leadership style was built toward aims for an outstanding performance but forgot about the individual’s preferences. Both of them are not perfect good leaders. Nevertheless, in the war context, achieving an outstanding performance, winning a difficult combat, is most important because it will result in the group’s well-being. Therefore, General Savage’s leadership style is more referable than Davenport’s style in this case.