Chapter 4 - Leadership
Introduction
Leadership can be broken down and assessed into many styles, qualities and characteristics. In this chapter I will identify and expand on a few of these in an effort to improve my leadership capabilities. As such, I will improve my marketability within my career.
Through my self- assessments performed in chapter two, I can infer my leadership styles.
- Theory X, Manager vs. Theory Y Manager
- Diplomat
Introduction
Leadership can be broken down and assessed into many styles, qualities and characteristics. In this chapter I will identify and expand on a few of these in an effort to improve my leadership capabilities. As such, I will improve my marketability within my career.
Through my self- assessments performed in chapter two, I can infer my leadership styles.
- Theory X, Manager vs. Theory Y Manager
- Diplomat
Article 1 – The Relationship Between Theory X/Y
Travis Russ researched to determine what caused certain managers to be Theory X or Theory Y (a theory developed by Douglas McGregor) and whether or not a particular style was influenced by a manager’s communication apprehension (CA) – “their degree of comfort when interacting with others.” (Russ, 2011). He administered over 200 surveys to managers in all different types of industries and what he found was, among other things, Theory X managers exhibited CA in interpersonal contexts, meaning they were not as comfortable in interactive conversations, and Theory Y managers did not exhibit CA in interpersonal contexts, groups, or meetings.
A Theory X Manager “assume[s] that employees have unfavorable impressions about work, must be forced to work, refrain from sharing their opinions…and need narrow direction from authority” (Russ, 2011). A Theory Y Manager assumes employees are motivated, possess self-control, and are capable of directing their own work (Russ, 2011).
Travis Russ researched to determine what caused certain managers to be Theory X or Theory Y (a theory developed by Douglas McGregor) and whether or not a particular style was influenced by a manager’s communication apprehension (CA) – “their degree of comfort when interacting with others.” (Russ, 2011). He administered over 200 surveys to managers in all different types of industries and what he found was, among other things, Theory X managers exhibited CA in interpersonal contexts, meaning they were not as comfortable in interactive conversations, and Theory Y managers did not exhibit CA in interpersonal contexts, groups, or meetings.
A Theory X Manager “assume[s] that employees have unfavorable impressions about work, must be forced to work, refrain from sharing their opinions…and need narrow direction from authority” (Russ, 2011). A Theory Y Manager assumes employees are motivated, possess self-control, and are capable of directing their own work (Russ, 2011).
According to some of my strengths, and my thoughts about how my office should function, I truly feel I am a blend of theory X and Y. This is a good thing, considering, I believe, that everyone needs to be managed differently. The same management style for employee A does not necessarily work on employee B. Although, sometimes I feel that I lean too much toward Theory Y in situations that may call for a Theory X – especially in my current role as branch manager. The exercise below was performed to provide feedback and a plan going forward to exhibit more Theory X traits when necessary.
Exercise – Task Delegation vs. Employee Buy-in
Over a period of three to four weeks, I documented results when assigning tasks to two employees compared to soliciting employee buy-in to a new branding initiative. I made several attempts at both Theory X and Theory Y management styles for each. As the results show, Theory X was more appropriate for Task Delegation, and Theory Y worked better for Employee Buy-in. The results are attached at the bottom of this page.
Over a period of three to four weeks, I documented results when assigning tasks to two employees compared to soliciting employee buy-in to a new branding initiative. I made several attempts at both Theory X and Theory Y management styles for each. As the results show, Theory X was more appropriate for Task Delegation, and Theory Y worked better for Employee Buy-in. The results are attached at the bottom of this page.
Article 2 – Seven Transformations of Leadership
Rooke and Tolbert present an intriguing breakdown of different leadership styles, each of which are have their own strengths and weaknesses. The authors make the claim that many organizational leaders neglect their action logic, which is “how they interpret their own and others’ behavior and how they maintain power or protect against threats.” (Rooke and Tolbert, 2005). The article suggests that organizations should be aware of which styles of leaders they have working for them, understanding that each individual can, and most likely does, possess more than one of the listed action logics. Also, they provide helpful information on how each leadership style best interacts with others to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses.
Rooke and Tolbert present an intriguing breakdown of different leadership styles, each of which are have their own strengths and weaknesses. The authors make the claim that many organizational leaders neglect their action logic, which is “how they interpret their own and others’ behavior and how they maintain power or protect against threats.” (Rooke and Tolbert, 2005). The article suggests that organizations should be aware of which styles of leaders they have working for them, understanding that each individual can, and most likely does, possess more than one of the listed action logics. Also, they provide helpful information on how each leadership style best interacts with others to maximize strengths and minimize weaknesses.
Drawing from this article, I closely align with the traits of a Diplomatic and Expert action logics, meaning I avoid conflict, want to belong, obey norms and ‘don’t rock the boat’, and rule by logic and experience (Rooke and Tolbert, 2005). Before reading this article, I did not have a terminology to pinpoint these traits, but I think I always knew I possessed them. Also, I did not realize the potential negative consequences of being a diplomatic leader. This has opened my eyes to see that it is not always about pleasing the crowd – sometimes, but not always. Sometimes, to get things done, I am going to have to ruffle a few feathers. I am well received when presenting data, and I am counted on to make rational decisions, thus, the Expert action logic is a positive characteristic of mine.
References
Rooke, David and Torbert William R. "The Seven Transformations of Leadership." Harvard Business Review. p. 05 April 2005. Internet. Accessed 05 November 2013.
Russ, Travis S. "The relationship between Theory X/Y: assumptions and communication apprehension", Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 34 Iss: 3, pg. 238-249. Emerald Leadership & Organizational Development Journal. p. 19 December 2011. Internet. Accessed 05 November 2013.
the_relationship_between_theory_xy.pdf | |
File Size: | 117 kb |
File Type: |
seven_transformations_of_leadership.pdf | |
File Size: | 276 kb |
File Type: |
leadership.pptx | |
File Size: | 618 kb |
File Type: | pptx |
theory_x_and_y_exercise.xlsx | |
File Size: | 44 kb |
File Type: | xlsx |