leadership theoretical analysis

Running head: Theoretical Analysis Assignment 1

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

Jon Merrill

Loyola University Chicago

Theoretical Analysis Assignment 2

This case study focused on diversity and multicultural issues at Northeasternish State

University (NSU). The student population at NSU is relatively diverse compared to peer

institutions; however, there has been increased student criticism regarding support services for

Students of Color. To address this issue, the vice-president of NSU student affairs

organizationally restructured the division - establishing an office that would centrally address

students’ perceptions around advocacy and support. This analysis examines the leadership of

this unit's new director, Dr. Raymond Nguyen, using the leader-member exchange theory and

style approach.

Leader Membership Exchange

The leader-membership exchange (LMX) theory centers leadership within the connection

between leader and follower, focusing on the unique characteristics of each dyadic relationship.

Two types of relationships lead to the formation of an in-group and out-group. Members in the

in-group have a relationship with the leader that goes beyond designated job responsibilities and

are mutually beneficial for both parties. Out-group members’ relationships with leaders adhere

to clearly outlined job responsibilities. Using LMX as lens to analyze this case study provides an

opportunity to understand how leveraging of different relationships granted Raymond more

authority to pursue his goals. Through manipulating the in-group and out-group within his

office, Raymond was able to efficiently move towards his vision while minimizing potential

barriers.

Implications For In-Group

Membership to the in-group is largely dependent on how well the subordinates and leader

work with one another (Northouse, 2012). When restructuring his office, Raymond focused on

recruiting internal colleagues who he had prior work experience with and who shared his vision


for the office (case). The mutually beneficial nature of relationships is a key aspect of in-group

membership. As described by Northouse, "subordinates in the in-group receive more

information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leaders than do out-group subordinate

members" (p. 163). Raymond benefited from in-group members by being surrounded by

individuals who supported his actions and followed his authority. In return, in-group members

were privileged with increased upward mobility and influence. This is evident when Raymond

positioned his new, in-group, staff members as critical liaisons with other departments in the

division (case). This expanded responsibility provided selected in-group members with more

opportunities to professionally connect with other staff members in the university, thereby

making their voices more influential. Arguably, although these staff members’ voices were more

visible, it was ultimately Raymond's voice being heard. In addition to gaining institutional

influence, in-group members were privileged with increased access to knowledge. During staff

meetings, "Raymond and his new hire colleagues at some points appear to have shared language

and knowledge when they communicate in meetings" (case). Sharing knowledge in this context

allowed members to fully complete their responsibilities and foster their self-efficacy: By having

more information, Raymond’s staff may have greater trust in their ability to complete their job.

LMX provided an understanding of how Raymond formed relationships to create a group that

could be his mouthpiece in critical areas, while also empowering them to develop professionally.

Implications for Out-Group

In-group membership largely consisted of new staff that supported Raymond's vision.

Raymond “limited responsibilities of continuing staff members until he could ascertain their

abilities” (case), effectively establishing an out-group. This action had two impacts on out-group

members. First, it located them organizationally in a place where their voice has little impact.


Raymond realigned much of the assistant director's responsibilities so that he would be less

visible within the institution - effectively diminishing the assistant director's ability to advocate

for opinions that differed from Raymond's. Second, limiting their responsibilities and

opportunities to grown in their position may cause these staff members to become stagnated.

Although Raymond and out-group members had a collegial relationship, these employees may

"…just come to work, do their job, and go home" (Northouse, 2012, p. 164). This is in stark

contrast to the professional development opportunities of in-group members. There was no

mutually beneficial relationship between Raymond and members of the out-group. In fact,

members of the out-group were systematically disadvantaged. This was made evident in the

inequitable distribution of knowledge. At staff meetings, Raymond was quick to dismiss

questions regarding new pedagogical approaches that the office was undertaking (case). Out-

group members not privileged with this information would be unable to fulfill their

responsibilities or need to expend more energy to perform at the same standard as in-group

members. While knowledge was used to empower in-group members, Raymond intentionally

withheld information to keep out-group members in the dark and subsequently limit their voices.

In sum, LMX provided an understanding of how Raymond silenced dissenting voices that could

impede his direction. Through withholding knowledge and responsibilities, the easiest way to

gain additional professional development opportunities was to buy into Raymond's vision.

Conglomeration of Power and Influence

By establishing a clear in-group and out-group based on members’ affinity for his vision

and direction, Raymond solidified power to operate with little resistance. This is demonstrated

when Raymond renovated the office space with new furniture, paint, and accessories (case).

When the assistant director confronted him about the cost, Raymond was able to easily silence


this opinion because the assistant director had little institutional influence. In this example,

dissenting opinions from the out-group had been silenced. For in-group members, speaking out

against Raymond puts at risk the capital that they have gained. This is explicitly shown when a

newly hired staff members voiced the opinion that the office could not feasibly house both

general diversity education and student advocacy - opting to realign with the vice-president's

original vision (case). After providing this dissenting opinion, at a later staff meeting, this new

hire once again aligns herself with Raymond's vision and "...appears to yield less influence

during the next semester" (case). Through disagreeing with Raymond, this staff member lost all

benefits of in-group membership. In sum, using LMX as lens revealed how Raymond created a

system that rewarded buy-in to his vision and disadvantaged otherwise. Although empowered

to fully develop in their position, in-group members sacrificed the freedom to express opinions

that differed from Raymond’s.

Style Approach

The style approach views leadership as a function of relational and task oriented

behaviors. Relationship oriented behaviors are focused on the follower and their humanistic

needs. Task oriented behaviors are largely product or outcome focused - task oriented leaders

prioritize the completion of assignments and objectives. This theory postulates that leaders use

different combinations of these two behaviors to accomplish goals. Using the style approach

allows an examination of how Raymond's task and relational behavior were used to achieve his

personal goals. In other words, these two behaviors were used to opportunistically facilitate

Raymond’s personal advancement.


Relational Behavior

Raymond's overall style included a preoccupation with perception management – work

focused on the goal of establishing a positive perception of his office. As examined through

LMX theory, the relational piece is a strong factor in Raymond's leadership style. Relationships

with staff were used in a way that contributed favorably to the perception of his office. The style

approach envisioned relational behaviors as those that "… help subordinates feel comfortable

with themselves, with each other, and with the situation in which they find themselves"

(Northouse, 2012, p. 75). This was true for new staff members that bought into his vision; they

were privy to opportunities for growth and development within his office. Furthermore,

Raymond seemed to have a shared language with these staff members (case). This suggests the

existence of consideration behaviors: relationships that include "…building camaraderie, respect,

trust, and liking between leaders and followers" (Northouse, 2012, p. 76).

Perception management politics were more evident in his relationships with continuing

staff members. For example, using his previous relationships with staff from across the division,

Raymond worked to gain information regarding the perceptions of his continuing staff (case).

Staff members with a negative perception were made organizationally invisible so that it did not

impact the perception of the overall office. For example, Raymond attributed the past failures of

the office to the leadership of the assistant direction and subsequently reorganized his

responsibilities to make him less visible in the institution (case). Overall, Raymond valued and

nurtured relationships that added to the positive perception of his office. Conversely, he

withdrew and made invisible staff members who did not add to this positive perception.


Task Behavior

Task oriented behaviors were described by Northouse (2012) as those that "facilitate goal

accomplishment" (p.75). Ideally, the goal of this office was to increase advocacy opportunities

for Student of Color populations at the institution. Many of Raymond's actions as director of

MSA reflected his preoccupation with perception management and often ran contrary to this

goal. Raymond's first actions were an attempt to centralize all divisional diversity initiatives in

his unit (case). Specifically, he sought to incorporate highly visible and well-funded under his

area of influence. Clearly, this is a political move - these highly visible and successful programs

bolster the reputation of his office and vicariously reinforce his reputation as a leader. These

programs largely included majority diversity education programs which ran counter to the vice-

president’s intent for the MSA office.

In addition to attempting to consolidate all diversity programs, Raymond's office saw "an

enormous increase in programming and support services" in the departmental report (case).

Superficially, this report indicates that his office was highly productive and beneficial for

students. However, this is in dissonance with the result of the campus climate survey which

continued to report low Student of Color satisfaction. These two factors suggest that the

programming coming out of Raymond's office was not effective in addressing its original goal.

This disconnect is due to Raymond's preoccupation with the positive perception of his office. In

sum, analyzing Raymond's task oriented behaviors suggests that he prioritized opportunities that

would put his organization, which represented him and his leadership capabilities, in a positive

light. Ultimately, this perception was more important than actually supporting Students of Color.


Opportunistic Style

Northouse (2012) argued that opportunistic leaders used a dominate and backup style for

personal advancement. The dominate style is normally used, while the backup style surfaces

under stressful conditions. As examined previously, Raymond demonstrated a high concern for

people so far as they aligned with his views. However, this high concern for people is replaced

with high concern for results when they are related to the perception of his office:

A major issues arises when one of Donna's staff who is working on a collaborative

education program becomes concerned…. Based on the amount being expended and the

likely reduction in quality due to few participants, both staff recommend the program be

canceled. Raymond then showed-up and shared that cancellation was not an option. The

program was too high a priority, and too visible among other administrators to cancel.

(case)

This example illustrates how Raymond switched styles when his personal objectives were

threatened. When it became likely that failure was evident the purpose of communication was to

give instructions; the employees in this example became tools to put on this program (Northouse,

2012, p. 79). The style approach lays bare Raymond’s primary goal: his perception amongst

other professionals across the division. He pursued this personal goal, subsequently sacrificing

student learning and engagement.

Critique

When using LMX and style approach to analyze this case study, I found that they both

were unable to account for the followers’ capacity and agency to change their circumstances.

Since the in-group was constructed around his personal vision, Raymond strictly controlled the

boundary of in-group and out-group and limited change. On the other hand, the style approach


was entirely unidirectional: Followers were essentially objects to be acted upon by the leader.

Both theories focused on the singular relationship between leader and follower; the relationship

between followers was missing. With this depiction, followers were in isolation from one

another. Being in isolation and even perceiving oneself to be in isolation impacts on one's ability

to effect change. Incorporating more emphasis on the construction of the relationship between

followers can increase their capacity to effect change.

Interpersonal relationships are key to effecting change. Boggs (2012), described real

wealth as "… the recognition that our deepest need, as human beings, is to keep developing our

natural and acquired powers and to relate to other human beings" (p. 60). This idea manifests

itself differently in the two theories. For LMX theory, the question arises: "How can the series

of dyadic relationships between members be mutually beneficial?" Furthermore, it is necessary

to move beyond the concept of many singular dyadic relationships and re-conceptualize the

myriad of relationships amongst members as a network. Instead of solely subscribing to leaders

values, a network fosters the co-construction of values between leaders and followers. With the

style approach, this appears as examining how the leader fosters relationships between followers.

To address the issue of unidirectional influence, there needs to be a focus on how leaders change

or adapt to the need of the followers, with followers. This idea borrows from constructionism

where "…shared-making emerging from the rich interdependencies of organization and their

members" (Ospina & Su, 2008, p. 260) is the outcome of leadership.

Overall, embedding the individual leader-follower connections amongst the series of

horizontal connections follower-follower connections opens the path for the construction of a

shared experience between all members. Ideally, this follower-follower network can exist

independent of the leader-follower relationship and act as a support net to counteract toxic


leadership. For example, if individuals in Raymond's office with dissenting opinions joined in

solidarity they may be able to accrue enough influence to make change. Furthermore, the staff

member who spoke up could find solace in this solidarity and maintain her opinion instead of

having to concede to Raymond.

Self-efficacy underlies all aspects of this pursuit towards co-construction, especially with

a toxic leader. This resonates with Lipman-Blumen (2005): "but if the 'deviant' individual finds

a single ally….the holdout is psychologically rearmed, ready to fight on for what he or she

believes" (p. 44). In order to speak out, followers need to first possess the self-efficacy to

believe that they can effect change. Without a supportive network, it becomes more difficult and

risky to speak out. However, with the supportive network of colleagues there is more chance of

developing a self-efficacy that is not dependent on the leader, as seen in the case study, and can

reinforce the dissenting opinion.

Application

I viewed one of the main leadership issues in this case study as a lack of dialogue

between the institution, represented by the vice-president, and students. Students at NSU

identified their primary concerns as a "lack of representative diversity amongst the faculty and

staff, non-existent academic support programs, lack of sufficient diversity and cross-cultural

knowledge amongst faculty/ staff, and disproportionate funding of other student subpopulations"

(case). These concerns can be boiled down to support; however, there are two different types of

support that are being called for: physical support systems and a broader and pervasive

institutional support. The institutional response of elevating the MSA potentially addresses the

physical support piece. However, there is a disconnect between the students and institution on

addressing this more pervasive institutional support.


I believe that a line of communication between the institution and student needs to be

opened before any type of organizational restructuring takes place. Drawing from the social

change model, there needs to be more collaboration and the construction of a common purpose

between the institution and students (Clinete, 2009). Practically, I suggest that the vice-president

organize a town-hall or caucus with Student of Color populations. Logistically, this could look

like a separate one with each cultural student organization or, if time is a factor, provide a few

different opportunities for students of color to voice their concerns. Clinete described

collaboration as requiring "mutually beneficial goals, engaged participants, shared responsibility,

and self-aware individuals" (p. 59). Having a town hall meeting would require self-awareness

from both parties - students need to be able to identify what type of support services they need on

campus and institutional representatives would need to be able to determine the feasibility of

these suggestions based on institutional resources and convey this information. Additionally,

this conversation helps avoid the pitfalls of simply imposing one's view onto others - essentially

what happened in the case study. Wagner (2009) addressed the benefits of working

collaboratively: "working with others and not unto others ensures that those most affected by the

change have a say in what the change should be" (p. 13). Through having a voice in the process

of change, students are co-constructors of addressing the issue and subsequently share a

responsibility with the institution. As co-constructors, students and institutional representatives

can then proceed with a common purpose and vision.

Ultimately, hosting this town hall discussion is the beginning of addressing issue and not

the sole solution. Ideally, the result of this discussion between students and the institution would

provide the vice-president with a clearer understanding of how to organizationally restructure the

division so that student's needs from physical support systems are met. I conceptualize physical


support systems as those that directly and tangibly support students such as mentorship

programs. Incorporating these types of initiatives in the new MSA may increase the perception

that their voices are being herd. Physical support systems are apart institutional support.

However, there need to be more discussions amongst administration regarding hiring practices

and cultural training of faculty and staff. Hopefully, this town hall discussion can potentially

open up further opportunities for student input in these endeavors and initiatives.


References

Boggs, G. L., & Kurashige, S. (2012). The next American revolution: Sustainable activism for the twenty-first century (2nd ed). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Cilente, K. (2009). An overview of the social change model of leadership development. In S. R. Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 43- 78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians and how we can survive them. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ospina, S., & Su, C. (2008). Weaving color lines: Race, ethnicity, and the work of leadership in social change organizations. Leadership, 5, 131-170.

Wagner, W. (2009). What is social change? In S. R. Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 7- 42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

leadership theoretical analysis

Documents