The two cases selected for discussion include the case about abuse of children in a state institution and the case on smoking at a state health department. The cases where selected because of the validity of the information they present. Unlike most of the cases, these two are straightforward and presents most of the problems that continue to be witnessed in different parts of the world. For example, just like in the first case, there has been increasing cases of children abuse in many parts of the world. The abuses include sexual, physical, and psychological and therefore this case pinpoints this issue for discussion and provides solution to this global challenge. In addition, the case helped managers to learn how to respond quickly to information or propaganda designed to mess with their organization’s public image. On the other hand, the case on smoking at the state health department helps to ensure high level of responsibility in the state offices. In addition, it is aimed at ensuring that officers learn to be good ambassadors and examples not only to their juniors but also to the entire public. The cases are important to the study because they help in demonstrating leadership traits among leaders.

Children Abuse in State Institution

In this case, one of the former employees, Jonathan Freeman exposes intimidation and mistreatment of children that has continued to take place in Hillmark Evaluation center. According to the story published in the Capital Observer, children with austere developmental as well as mental disabilities in the institution were subjected to many harsh conditions, which comprised of outright physical abuse by the direct care workers. In addition, Jonathan held that most of the children unable to care for themselves were often unattended. In addition, some of the children would sit and lie in their already soiled diapers for long periods. Jonathan exposed that the attendants feared to discipline the children because they could get into trouble. However, they resulted to relying on the other residents for punishing the problematic children. In addition, the caregivers also encouraged the older residents to tease the young residents. This is an understatement for physical abuse.
The leader in this case is Mr. Derick Sheffield, because he has to stand tall to reassure the public that everything is in order. In addition, he has to protect the public image of his organization by assuring the public that investigation has been launched and all the culprits will be brought to book. This is exactly what he does. Without wasting any chance, Derick holds a press conference to rubbish the statement from Mr. Nathan and assures the public that all was well in the organization. The main cause of the issue seems to be malice. Even though Derick acknowledges that, there have been issues of abuse, Nathan has exaggerated everything. The issue at hand is not major as Nathan holds.

Smoking at the state health department

In this case, Dr. Paul Billingsley is appointed to lead the department of health and human services. However, he finds that the officers do not behave based on the expectations of the public. Being a health department, the officers are expected to be good example to the public by avoiding use of substances that may affect their health. The main issue among the officers is continued smoking. He found that most of the department officers were smokers and they spend large part of their working hours on smoke breaks. The continued smoking of the patients is against the mission statement of the department. The mission of the department is promoting the general health and welfare of the state’s patients through provision of basic medical, fitness, as well as mental health programs and services. He feels disappointed by the increasing number of smokers in the department, which is doing disservice to the citizens. In addition, the number of smokers continues to tarnish the image of the department.
The contentious issue is the memorandum and policy update that he offers to the department. The memo abolishes smoking within the department with immediate effect. In addition, all the employs are given about 6 months to stop smoking failure to which their job tender will be terminated. The policy was snot taken lightly as most of the smoking workers protested against the policy. In addition, He threatens that the policy is not going to change and any further act of demonstration will be dealt with and considered as insubordination and may be used as ground for termination. This does not silent the employees as they write letters to legislators.
The common issue that the two leaders face in these cases is dealing with the public image of their organization. In the two cases, the image of the organizations is spoiled and there is need to rectify the mess. In the first case, Deric rectifies the mess caused by Nathan through calling a press meeting to clear the air about the issue of children abuse. In the second case, the leader, Dr. Paul Billingsley issues a memorandum to criticize all the officers smoking within the department environment. Furthermore, threatens termination of employees who test positive of nicotine after a grace period of six months. The resolution does not auger well with the department officers.
In the first case, it is clear that Derick will create a positive relationship with his organization. In finding solution to the grapevine, he forms a task force to look into the matter. The task force will dig deep on the issue and present a report on what needs to be done. In  so doing, the officer will build strong relationship in the organization because no group seems threatened. On the other hand, Dr. Paul Billingsley is not determined to building strong relationship within the organization. His policy is threatening the comfort of most of the departmental workers. In this case, Dr. Paul Billingsley acts as a transactional leader who seems not to care about the consequences of his actions. According to Zumitzavan & Michie (2015), transactional leaders mainly focus in supervision and performance. In addition, it aims at promoting compliance by the followers using both punishments and rewards (Lemay, 2009). Dr. Paul Billingsley is not likely to build and maintain strong relationship outside the organization with other community and leaders. In his argument, he goes against the rights of the employees by even interfering with their freedoms outside the workplace. Dr. Paul Billingsley should have warned smoking within the department but not outside the department because this is against the rights and freedoms of the employees. On the other hand, Derrick’s approach is cautious and aimed at ensuring good relationship not only within but also outside the organization. His call for formation of a task force is not discriminative of any group.
Derrick communication is effective. He tries ensuring efficiency in his communication. On the other hand, Dr. Paul Billingsley communication is too commanding and arrogant. In this case, even though he is determined to resolving the issue, the approach is not efficient. Since most of the workers do not buy the idea, he may fail in his bid because he is single-handedly implementing the policy. Instead, he should have implemented a partial policy that will have support of the majority of the workers. The current policy is not considerate of the social needs and wellbeing of the workers.
According to Choi et al (2016), leaders need to be compassionate by implementing the policies that cut across the needs of majority. Furthermore, the leaders should work with the subordinates to help them identify the need for change; create a vision, to ensure realization of the change through inspiration and execution of the change in tandem to the committed group members (Mozammel & Haan, 2016). Based on this provision, Derick managed his professional responsibilities as well as priorities in order to resolve the issue at hand. The formation of the task force will ensure the organization gets to the root of the problem and finds the most amicable solution. On the other hand, the policy by Dr. Paul Billingsley is too dictatorial and may not solve the root cause of the problem.  In implementing the policy, Dr. Paul Billingsley did not manage his professional responsibilities and priorities efficiently. He does not provide guidance to the employees but rather dictates what they should do.


The two leaders differ in their approach for solving the issues at hand. Derrick is high professional in protecting the image of the organization. Through his approach, he will command strong relationship with his core workers. On the other hand, the approach by Dr. Paul Billingsley is dictatorial and insensitive. In addition, he is not considerate on the social rights and freedoms of the workers. The result is increase protest among the workers. In addition, he will not succeed in creating strong relationship within the organization.


Choi, S. L., Goh, C. F., Adam, M. H., & Tan, O. K. (2016), Transformational leadership, empowerment, and job satisfaction: the mediating role of employee empowerment. Human Resources For Health
Lemay, L. (2009). The Practice of Collective and Strategic Leadership in the Public Sector. Innovation Journal, 14(1), 1-19.
Mozammel, S., & Haan, P. (2016). Transformational Leadership And Employee Engagement In The Banking Sector In Bangladesh. Journal Of Developing Areas, 5043-55.
Zumitzavan, V., & Michie, J. (2015). Personal Knowledge Management, Leadership Styles, and Organisational Performance : A Case Study of the Healthcare Industry in Thailand. Singapore: Springer.