This paper will discuss Martha Stewart, a woman confronted with a challenging problem/situation and, using the concepts and theories from the text, will write an analysis of the interaction that occurred between the leader (Stewart), her followers, and the situation. It will discuss the fit of the leader’s style to the situation and what she did or did not do to align her beliefs and concerns with those of her followers. In addition, it will discuss why Martha Stewart may be seen as an effectual or ineffectual leader.
Many leaders find themselves in challenging situations, or find themselves dealing with challenging problems during their time as a leader; however it is how they handle those situations and issues that works to determine whether or not the individual will remain a leader or will be forever viewed with disdain. Martha Stewart was one such individual. She was a well-respected business woman with her own line of home based products following her successes on television, an image that collapsed completely following the events which started in 2001 and did not conclude until 2004 (Associated Press, 2004).
Martha Stewart originally gained a following based on the sound advice that she offered through her television shows, clearly demonstrating a competency and knowledge of her chosen market and her chosen demographic. As a result of these characteristics, her followers were highly satisfied, motivated by her performance to continue to support her in her career, and serving as a springboard to boost the success of her own product line (Hughes, Ginnsett, & Curphy, 2012). Motivation, satisfaction, and performance are three aspects associated with the leader and follower dynamic that are “clearly related” (Hughes, Ginnsett & Curphy, p. 332, 2012). Leaders must motivate followers and potential followers to not only see the world through their eyes, but must motivate them to accept the viewpoints of the leader; if the leader’s performance is poor, they will be unable to motivate their followers and potential followers, and if the followers are not satisfied with the performance of the leader, the leader will be unable to motivate them (Hughes, Ginnsett, & Curphy, 2012).
Martha Stewart appeared to have everything under control. She had her own show, her own product lines associated that closely related to the advice she gave and the topics that she discussed on the show, and she was well-respected by a large group of followers. This all changed as a result of a situation that she placed herself in. It was a situation of her own making, and it worked to tarnish her image in the eyes of her followers, and as a result of how she handled the situation. It is true that “what one person perceives to be the key situational factor affecting his or her own behavior may be relatively unimportant to another person” (Hughes, Ginnsett, & Curphy, p. 473, 2012), and this is what happened in the case of Martha Stewart.
She believed that she was acting with the best intentions, not seeing any harm in what she was doing, and going off of the information she had been provided. While everyone perceived her as breaking the law, it is possible that she herself did not see it that way at first, as evidenced by her lies to the SEC and to investigating officers (Associated Press, 2004). It could be said that the pattern of poorly concealed lies, lies that were easily unearthed as lies, were done in much the same pattern of a child who is concerned only that they may have done something bad and as such will attempt to come up with any seemingly plausible story in hopes of getting out of what they believe will be a punishment most severe due to the unknown.
Not only did Martha Stewart exhibit bad leadership traits and tendencies in her handling of the situation, but she made a pitiful attempt at a cover up, showing that she lacked the moral character and the strong leadership skills necessary in order to truly maintain the position that she held; as such, her followers lost their support of her, plummeting her from the stance of a leader to that of a woman in disgrace (Hughes, Ginnsett, & Curphy, 2012). The question becomes one of whether or not this was a case of bad leadership on her part or if it was simply a case of poor judgment. While there are many definitions of what constitutes bad leadership and it must be stated that the question of a good leader or a bad leader may be one of personal preference, seen through the eye of the beholder based on their own personal moral compass and belief structure, the definition of bad leadership utilized for the purposes of this discussion is that “bad leadership is associated with individuals who are effective at building teams and getting results…but who obtain results that are morally or ethically challenged” (Hughes, Ginnsett, & Curphy, p. 609, 2012).
The situation Martha Stewart found herself faced with was a case of insider trading regarding her own personal stock investments; it was not associated with any business decision or any of her corporate holdings under her own brand (Associated Press, 2004). As a result of the fact that she was indicted, and found guilty, of these acts as associated with her own personal investments and not as a result of business dealings she made or decisions that took place within her company, it must be stated that Martha Stewart was not a bad leader under this definition; on the other hand, the decision was a morally or ethically wrong one, based on the laws of our society.
In this manner, it could be argued that she was a bad leader, for a leader is supposed to set an example for her followers, and in making these decisions and taking these actions in this situation, she showed that she was not a good leader, as the decision was an unethical one based on a desire not to lose money.
Martha Stewart was a highly successful businesswoman and a leader in her industry. Though she placed herself in a situation that could have been avoided, and she was unable to retain a moral or ethical high ground as a result of the choices that she made, it must be stated that her leadership capabilities up until this point were strong, and that she was a good leader for her target market audience. As a result of her actions, however, she will never retain the status that she once did, as not only an advice guru, but a trusted expert in the field of interior and home design and decoration.
