PSY FPX 6720 Assessment 5 Critical Analysis of Leadership Theories

Student Name

Capella University

PSY FPX 6720 Psychology of Leadership

Prof. Name:

Date

Abstract

This paper presents a case study in leadership, evaluating the subject’s performance. The discussion includes a comparison of leadership theories and their relevance to the case study. Additionally, the paper analyzes potential strategies for the leader to enhance effectiveness within the framework of the discussed leadership theories.

Critical Leadership Analysis

Analyzing a Case Study

In 2012, my company appointed a new Vice President of Operations to streamline the organization. The COO sought someone experienced in lean six sigma processes and metrics-based approaches to drive critical improvements. Although the VP was personable, it became evident that his extensive improvement agenda and order-driven leadership style might not be well-received. As the plans began to take shape, many managers doubted their effectiveness. One significant concern was the VP’s decision to bring in external lean practitioners, who were embedded in every team without involving the employees who performed these tasks daily.

Six months after the VP’s arrival, a meeting was held to discuss upcoming changes, and a clear theme emerged: the directives were not to be questioned, and only complete success was acceptable. As the company embarked on this transformation, many employees grew uneasy with the aggressive, uncompromising approach. Some employees left the organization, feeling their value had been reduced to that of mere instruments. The remaining employees grew increasingly unhappy as the new VP canceled staff improvement sessions.

While recognizing the need for organizational improvement, the VP’s approach failed to foster cooperation or collaboration among the teams. I believe that a servant leadership style would have encouraged more collaboration with the external consultants or perhaps even led to their exclusion from the VP’s plans. The VP’s front-facing leadership style, likely influenced by his military background, was not well-received by the rank-and-file employees.

A Compare and Contrast of Two Leadership Theories

This paper compares and contrasts two leadership theories and connects them to the case study described above. The first theory is servant leadership, which I practice regularly. The second theory is Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). Both theories will be examined in relation to the leader in the case study to demonstrate how they could be more effective.

First Leadership Theory: Servant Leadership

The first leadership theory in this analysis is “servant leadership.” According to my research, while there are several definitive forms of servant leadership, they all share a common thread. Servant leadership is defined as “the servant-leader is servant first; it begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first, then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead” (van Dierendonck, 2011, p. 1230). A servant leader is attuned to the needs of their team, freely addresses concerns on their behalf, and “puts followers first, empowers them, and helps them develop their full personal capacities” (Northouse, 2022, p. 253). In the case study, the VP did not exhibit servant leadership, likely due to his military background, which often emphasizes a “leading from the front” approach.

Second Leadership Theory: Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

The second leadership theory in this analysis is Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), described by Newman et al. (2017, p. 51) as “a mechanism that explains the process by which servant leaders influence their followers to go above and beyond their job role and engage in behavior that benefits the organization and other organizational members.” Similarities between the two theories include the idea that “servant leaders influence followers’ extra-role behavior such as OCB through the development of high-quality social exchange relationships characterized by the reciprocated exchange of care and concern” (Newman et al., 2017, p. 51).

Contrasts between Servant Leadership and LMX

Servant leadership and LMX share similarities but also have distinct contrasts. For example, LMX involves “in-groups and out-groups,” where individuals in the in-groups “are willing to do more than is required in their job description and look for innovative ways to advance the group’s goals. In response to their extra effort and devotion, leaders give them more responsibilities and opportunities; leaders also give in-group members more of their time and support” (Northouse, 2022, p. 157). In contrast, Mohammad and Malik (2017, p. 565) describe the out-group subset as having a relationship “based only on the monetary exchange between leader and employee — a transaction takes place in exchange for time and money, where employees are considered as hired hands.”

Servant leaders, however, “work best when they are altruistic and have a strong motivation and deep-seated interest in helping others. For successful servant leadership to occur, followers must be open and receptive to serving leaders who want to empower them and help them grow” (Northouse, 2022, p. 266). Servant leadership encompasses all individuals within the leader’s sphere of influence through an altruistic approach and a “strong motivating and deep-seated interest in helping others” (Northouse, 2022, p. 266). In contrast, LMX theory, particularly in its initial formulation (VDL theory), has been criticized for running counter to the basic human value of fairness. LMX theory divides the work unit into two groups, and one group receives special attention, giving the appearance of discrimination against the out-group.

Evaluating How Leadership Theories Can Be Implemented

Returning to the case study, since the VP is not using either a servant leadership approach or an LMX strategy, it stands to reason that either method would improve the growing personnel issues. The VP, his subordinate managers, and the consultants leading the improvement projects could use the LMX method to build buy-in and form an impressive team of “in-group” employees backed by leadership. However, as noted above, this could come at the expense of others who only engage in a transactional agreement without building intrinsic rewards.

By adopting a servant leadership approach, the VP could realign the organization beneath him by being a beacon of improvement. This approach could lead to widespread buy-in from all involved groups. Considering the VP’s military background, he may not naturally subscribe to the principles of servant leadership. However, van Dierendonck (2011, p. 1231) notes, “working from a need to serve does not imply an attitude of servility in the sense that the power lies in the hands of the followers or that leaders would have low esteem.” The VP, likely a prideful individual used to being in command, could benefit from researching servant leadership principles to realize that he can adopt this approach without diminishing his leadership presence.

Synthesizing a Plan for Effective Leadership

Based on the above analysis, a new leadership approach may be necessary for the success of the VP’s organizational improvement initiatives. The VP, a military man accustomed to giving orders and having direct reports follow a chain of command, may achieve short-term success with his current methods, but these will likely damage team morale. Considering the methods of LMX, the leader could be more effective by utilizing the “in-group” method, achieving some of the task-performance goals he seeks. However, this would require the leader to be more active with the teams, becoming more visible, interactive, and encouraging to bring out the best in the teams (including subordinate management). Social exchange theory, described as “the expectation that trust in the leaders of potential mediator between LMX and performance” (Martin et al., 2016, p. 73), should also be considered.

While LMX theory offers valuable insights, I believe servant leadership principles would serve the VP best in the long term. One issue not mentioned initially was the VP’s lack of faith in the teams that have been performing these roles for years. Management knew that some answers were already within the teams, but previous executive leadership, as well as the new VP, did not absorb these initiatives. Yang et al. (2022, p. 2) emphasize the importance of leveraging experienced employees by stating, “to inspire employees to contribute their insights and ideas, people-oriented leadership styles are needed to facilitate employees’ knowledge and abilities.”

The VP should follow specific guidelines to capture the best from his team of subordinates as he pushes forward with his organizational improvement plans:

The VP should schedule meetings where he is physically on-site to provide updates on the project’s progress in every aspect, listen to team members’ thoughts and ideas, offer reassuring messages, and maintain strong buy-in.
The VP should regularly meet with just the management team to gain their perspectives on their teams, offer encouragement, and provide support.
The VP should demonstrate his investment and engagement in the project by working alongside front-line teams, listening to their thoughts, collecting feedback, and being prepared to discuss them in a forum (as described in step 1).

PSY FPX 6720 Assessment 5 Critical Analysis of Leadership Theories

Another consideration in creating guidelines is the inclusion of virtual teams. The organization has several divisions outside the United States, integral to the VP’s improvement plans. While there may be a dynamic between virtual and face-to-face teams, the VP should work to unify these teams under a single vision. Although virtual teams may feel excluded, the VP should account for this as he implements the guidelines. He should also consider potential differences in team format, cultural variations, time zones, and dynamics. The VP should work closely with virtual managers to ensure they are involved in the guidelines, and as an alternative, use technology to record meetings and share them with teams if time differences prevent live participation.

Despite these challenges, there is potential for success. Nurmi and Hinds (2016, p. 633) discuss how team design characteristics, such as structural diversity, the use of rich media, and structures supporting coordination, promote team productivity across geographic and cultural distances. The VP should maintain a unifying focus on both virtual and in-person teams to ensure the project’s success, given its large scope. If the team were entirely virtual, the guidelines might require adjustments, but the principles of servant leadership would still apply, as virtual teams are composed of people, regardless of the technology.

Conclusion

The VP would benefit from implementing a servant leadership approach with some elements of LMX theory. By doing so, he could gain trust, buy-in, and cooperation from his teams, helping to achieve the desired improvements. Servant leadership principles would help the VP transition from a command-and-control style to one that fosters collaboration and supports the long-term success of the organization.

References

Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67-121.

Mohammad, J., & Malik, M. I. (2017). The role of servant leadership in achieving employee and organizational outcomes: A two-phase study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(5), 630-648.

Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017). How servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 49-62.

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Nurmi, N., & Hinds, P. (2016). Job complexity and learning opportunities: A silver lining in the design of global virtual work. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(6), 631-654.