Analyzing Ron Powell’s career and Performance

0/5 No votes

Report this app


The management style plays a significant aspect in modern-day business. There are many theories about the management of employees and motivation strategies. However, they could be a failure if intended, when they are implemented. Additionally, a method which has proven to be beneficial once might not be the right choice for another situation or place. This article will analyze the career path taken by Ron Powell at Jones & Jones and analyze his motivational strategy.

In the beginning, Ron became one of the youngest partners in the company’s Chicago office, and the executive committee was quick to recognize his leadership capabilities. Based on Ameer as well as Khan (2020), “Various studies have revealed that companies with managers who are younger have better performance because of their tendency to explore risky strategies and to initiate modifications” (p.4). So, Powell’s appointment was a risky decision made by the committee, but however was based on a reasonable basis. Powell’s remarkable qualities may stem from his experience as he been employed in a huge accounting firm. Perhaps, the company’s skilled and knowledgeable colleagues pushed Powell and forced him to work to the maximum extent and brought the attention of the executive committee and highlighted Ron’s talent.

Then, Powell was appointed to be the head of a new office located within New Jersey, where his managerial style proved efficient. As a goal-oriented leader, with clear goals, Powell was yet seen as a democratized leader. The combination of firm objectives for work and less tight relationships at the personal level quickly brought about positive outcomes. In the words of Abyad (2018) that identifying the requirements of employees is essential to “developing effective incentive programs that are efficient and maximising efficiency” (p. 21). Powell was able find an agreement with his team which resulted in a more positive working environment that helped to make the goals achievable.

It is commonly believed that motivation is the underlying factor of a team that is successful. The theories of motivation have been extensively studied throughout the beginning of the 20th century. Abyad (2018) states that Maslow’s hierarchy of need is an excellent model of these theories that could be connected to studies on motivation that have come later like Herzberg’s two-factor model. In this model, humans need to meet their needs from the lower levels to the highest, i.e., starting with nutrition and safety up to the self-esteem, self-actualization and confidence. Abyad (2018) observes the Herzberg’s “hygiene factors” are in line with Maslow’s lower levels. the highest level is what are known as the “motivators” (p.21). The Two-factor theory suggests this first category is connected with discontent with work, and the second group is related to the productivity of the team.

In the same way, Abyad (2018) notes that “the elements that contribute to satisfaction at work are distinct and distinct from the factors which cause dissatisfaction with work.” (p. 21). Thus, a manager is required to follow an approach that involves two steps to motivate employees. In the first place, they must eradicate unsatisfaction. Secondly, an effective leader should provide favorable conditions for increasing employee satisfaction. Powell has fulfilled the second condition by permitting his team members to voice their opinions and to be heard.

After Powell’s huge triumph with the firm in New York, he was appointed managing partner in company’s Dallas office. Ron utilized the same method that he had employed in his prior workplace, but got nothing. The office started losing long-term clients and staff reductions followed that. The motivation theories aren’t universally utilized. Thus, a method that is successful in one location could end up being useless elsewhere. The city of Dallas differs than New York in many ways. Every region is home to diverse people who have their own beliefs and attitudes, so the leader has to be flexible. Neisig (2020) declares, “when the environment of companies is one of uncertainty, volatility , and insanity it is essential to be agile” (p.152). Following the layoffs, the employees lost their sense of security and, naturally, began to question their leader, as their primary “bottom-of-the-pyramid” needs were not fulfilled. At the end of the day, Powell was not able to operate in an unfamiliar environment, and was soon transferred in New Jersey.

Concerning Jones & Jones’ Dallas office is concerned, it could be beneficial to choose an managing partner who knows the specifics of the area. The ideal candidate will be capable of understanding what staff members and customers want. As per Abyad (2018), “there is no single theory that is true or the only theory that can be effective in a particular project scenario” (p. 21). Thus, Powell was not using the right method for this particular job. The ideal candidate to fill the position could be among the company’s currently Dallas employees or outside the company with relevant experience and expertise in the market.

In the end Ron Powell’s accomplishments is a good event for him as well as the company. After achieving favorable results while at New York, he later was unsuccessful in Dallas however he was able to carry on his successful work with the firm in New Jersey. Powell was a competent director in the proper context. However, he was not flexible when he moved into his new position in the Dallas Office, and this hampered his career trajectory overall. In all reality, Ron Powell deserves a 7 out of 10 rating for his work as a manager at Jones & Jones across two years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *