1.

The way the leadership changed (or otherwise) through

the case.
The style of leadership almost the same through out the case, except
in the end, when Dr. Mubbashir, the Vice Chancellor of the University of
Health Sciences Lahore, wasnt left with any alternatives. From the
very beginning the leadership style followed by the administration was
paternalistic in approach. They considered the employees on strike as
the part of their extended family and wanted to resolve the issue
internally without hurting the reputation and functioning of the
institution in any way.
No strong disciplinary action was taken when the protestors tried to
mar the reputation of the university during The National Seminar of the
Medical Research Society of Pakistan held at UHS on 31 st Oct 2009.
During this protest the administration timidly succumbed to the
demands of the protesters and from here the protestors were
encouraged to take on more violent steps. This was followed by
formation of All Pakistan Clerical Association (APCA) and more
threatening steps on the part of the employees demonstrating the
strike.
Even during this period the administration had a conciliatory approach
and kept asking for the clarification from the Secretary Health of the
GoP. It wasnt until the university received a letter from the Chief
Ministers secretariat stating that the regulations of the notice werent
applicable to the UHS and it was free to deal with its employees
according to its own corporate rules, that the outstanding salaries of
the protesting employees were dispatched and they were relieved of
their offices.
Thus it can be seen that throughout the case the leadership style has
been mostly paternalistic in nature, more of a placatory style; however
by the end of the case the Vice Chancellor had to show authoritarian
style.

2.

The key decisions made, and how these decisions were

grounded in the leaders style.
All the key decisions made by the administration and the Vice
Chancellor, were paternalistic in approach. They failed to take any
strict disciplinary actions against the protestors even when the
protestors were resorting to violent means. Mostly the administration
was resorting to the placatory means to solve the issue internally
without hurting the reputation of the institution.

There were not as many key decisions taken on behalf of the

administration as much as there were key events that were happening
and the administration was merely reacting to those events in their
paternalistic style of leadership. It wasnt until the very end when the
protestors were not responding to any of the conciliatory methods of
the administration, that the administration was forced to lay off the
employees.

6. Which theories help analyse the leadership case best.

The theories which may help analyse the leadership case
the best would be situational Theory by Hersey and
Blanchard which tells us that style of leadership
depends upon the situation and only a single leadership
style cannot be successfully applied in every situation. In
the case, parental style of leadership was followed in
which Dr Mubbashir treated every employee with a
parent like figure and was afraid to take any step against
them which also contributed in the crises when everyone
thought the authorities were incapable of taking any
action against them. So the leadership style should have
been changed with the changing situation.