Running head: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS1

2THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

Theoretical Analysis: Case StudyTempris E. DanielsLoyola University Chicago

IntroductionAs a person interested in programming within the student affairs division, it was intriguing to review how professionals act with one another depending on their position and title. I paid particular attention to the interactions between Dr. Raymond Nguyen and Dr. Donna Marshall as they looked for guidance from the vice-president of student affairs during divisional modifications. The context of race, gender, culture, and involvement in campus activities were some of the things that stood out to me as a need for making Multicultural Student Affairs a stand-alone unit. Using the given case study I examined both leader-member exchange theory (Northouse, 2012) and trait approach theory (Northouse, 2012) to demonstrate how Dr. Nguyen, the director of Multicultural Student Affairs, portrayed or failed to validate the above leadership theories. In doing so, strengths and weakness along with implications of each theory are teased out. Finally, my solution will be given on how to solve the issue at hand. Overview of Case Study Northeasternish State University (NSU) is a research-focused institution with approximately 30,000 students. The institutions efforts were given towards re-structuring the schools reputation, where diversity enhancement became one of the major focuses. With this knowledge, the institution looked to their students to seek if standards were being met. After much criticism, the vice-president of student affairs decided to develop a Multicultural Student Affairs Office where she internally hired Dr. Raymond Nguyen to serve as the director.With goals in mind for the department, it became Dr. Nguyens responsibility to hire staff and make impactful changes for the community within the academic school year. Midway through the year, it became apparent that Raymonds vision for the department contradicted the original goals set. Dr. Donna Marshall, director of the Student Union, noticed the minimal changes for students of color as well as a behavior shift of her staff members. Donna showed that she valued keeping her staff protected by raising her concerns (Lipman & Blumen, 2005). At the end of the academic year, the vice-president of student affairs was disappointed with the results due to continued low satisfaction rates (case study). Overview of Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)Before LMX is connected to the case study, it is important to have a clear understanding of the theory. This theory focuses on creating a two-way (dyadic) relationship between a leader (supervisors) and their members (subordinates) (Northouse, 2012). This theory expects leaders to develop a relationship with their subordinates, where influence can determine the members decision-making process and performance (Northouse, 2012). Additionally, unethical behavior can be triggered by LMX due to in-group and out-groups (Northouse, 2012, p.163). Within the unit, members are apart of either an in-group or out-group based on their relationship with the leader and the responsibilities given. Out-group members are ones who come to work, get their work done, and then leave while in-group members create exchanges with the leader and involve themselves into other projects outside of their job description as well as create a relationship with the leader (Northouse, 2012). In return, the leader gives more praise and attention to in-group members and views them as dependable (Northouse, 2012, p. 164). Additionally, LMX not only defines the leader and subordinate relationship but also defines how the leader is perceived outside of their office. If a leader has a good rapport with the subordinates, they are more likely to reach their goals set for the department as well as are seen highly among others (Northouse, 2012). This theory is suggested to create a positive employment experience and focuses on supervisor- member exchanges. In return, leaders give support, more responsibilities and time to their members. Applying Leader-Member Exchange Theory to the Case StudyLeader-Member Exchange Theory is apparent in Dr. Raymond Nguyens behavior and may be evident in NSU as an institution. From this point Raymond is already part of the in-group at NSU and in return he is looking to fill vacancies for his new staff internally versus performing a national search. The reason LMX is shown in this instance is due to the concept of in-group versus out-group. Hiring an director from an in-group, allowed for the continual in-group practice, where Raymond already had knowledge of good and bad rapport of each professional he interviewed. Often subordinates become a part of the in-group or the out-group based on how well they work with the leader (Northouse, 2012, p.163). This continual internal hire limited access of professionals where new ideas may have enhanced the MSA Office. A trend was set to hire internally after the national search for Raymonds position ended with an internal hire. Raymond followed the same hiring process where there was a low guarantee that positions were not filled based solely on past knowledge of the professionals. Following Raymonds hire of new professionals, he established the trust of his staff members based on previous interactions with them where more or less responsibilities were given (case study). This is an additional example of how in-groups and out-groups are displayed. In-group members receive more confidence, time, and information than out-group members (Northouse, 2012). The fact that he limits responsibilities until he can determine ones abilities is an indicator that he finds some of his staff more or less dependable. Additionally, it appears that Raymond will treat his staff differently depending on their relationship where shared visions may or may not be present, limiting or pursing inspirations (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Gaining additional knowledge about his staff seems to be an important piece of Raymonds leadership style. In order to gain this perception, meetings are set-up with university staff members from different departments to provide insight about the MSA staff. LMXs main focus is structuring a relationship from the beginning but Raymonds relationship is being built based off of developing a rapport of his staff through someone elses knowledge. The dyadic relationship exchanges between Raymond and other university staff determines who is in Raymonds in-group and out-groups (Northouse, 2012). Based off of these meetings, Raymond builds upon the relationships of his choosing and these staff members are considered his in-group. None of the staff members in the meetings are Raymonds direct staff because at this time he is creating a space where his entire staff falls into the out-group. Even if various staff members are considered in-group members within the MSA Office, this relationship changes based on Raymonds environment. He seems to be employing his leadership style to manage his team in a non-effective way-creating multiple in and out-groups. Whether than using a dialogue to help build his groups, there is a monologue within the MSA Office, and a dialogue is shared with other university staff (Kouzes & Posner, 2007).The last development of LMX is depicted when Raymond does not inform the original assistant director of scheduled meetings. This is especially problematic because in these meetings, topics are discussed relating to the assistant directors responsibilities. In this instance, both Raymond and the original assistant director are perceived as leaders from their staffs viewpoint. However LMX theory is clearly displayed because although the assistant director is a leader to their staff, Raymond views her as a out-group member, giving her less responsibility, focus, and does not communicate (Northouse, 2012). In becomes clear that Raymond seems to be navigating a negative relationship with staff members who share different thoughts, opinions, and viewpoints.

Critique of Leader-Member Exchange TheoryDue to Raymonds interactions with his staff, there are weaknesses shown in relation to Leader-Member Exchange Theory. The first weakness shown is the dyadic relationship between a leader and his followers where interactions are solely based on the leaders willingness. In Raymonds case, his interactions included gaining knowledge about his followers from other staff members at the university. As part of the theory, there does not appear to be a section on how to nurture and maintain these dyadic relationships besides a continued positive performance from followers (Northouse, 2012). What happens when someone does not perform his or her best work? How does the dyadic relationship change? The in-group relationship must always perform in high quality and the leader is in full control giving them the upper hand. Kouzes and Posner (2007) explained every single personal-best leadership case we collected involved some kind of challenge (p. 9) yet Raymonds challenges seemed non-existent considering his interaction with his own staff is slight. Secondly, the theory alienates out-group members, where minimal growth can take place. What drives an out-group member if they are unable to become part of a leaders in-group? For this reason, the theory shows potential for resentment by out-group members. What is drawn from both weaknesses is that while LMX appears to be a relational theory, the growth primarily happens at the leaders expense and is situational for the follower. In Raymonds case, there is a large power dynamic shown as well as privilege. Leadership should be integrated between both the leader and follower but all of the privilege is given to the leader. Utility of Leader-Member Exchange TheoryThat being said, the dyadic relationships does have strengths associated with the relationship between a leader and follower due to the intention leaders should have in providing opportunities for positive interactions to help build a relationship with their followers. This theory is based on relationships between both parties and the hope is that development happens for all. The intention is to create an environment where followers construct an experience for themselves. The leader is responsible to ensure that he gives equal opportunity and creates relationships with his staff members. The intention of LMX is to describe leaders and prescribe followers (Northouse, 2012, p. 168). With these intentions it appears there are chances for relationships to develop and grow between both individuals. This becomes useful for the member because it increases their opportunities to develop and become better professionals while leaders are given the opportunity to mentor multiple professionals through their journey. The potential for a positive, interactive relationship between a leader and member is strong where trust and support can be the key to a successful path for both parties.Overview of Trait Approach TheoryTrait Approach Theory consists of multiple characteristics that foster an effective leader. Much of this theory is based off of research that differentiates non-leaders from leaders (Northouse, 2012). In 1974, Stogdill published a survey where he identified positive traits associated with leadership (Northouse, 2012). Among some of these characteristics, included: self-confidence and sense of personal identity, ability to influence other peoples behavior, and capacity to structure social interaction systems (Northouse, 2012, p. 21). From this point, other studies were done looking at leadership traits, where characteristics such as motivation, problem solving, and emotional stability were found on the list (Northouse, 2012). After 2004, a list was developed of five main leadership traits that should be shown in every leader. These traits were as followed: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability (Northouse, 2012). Although this theory is often reviewed and revised, the main focus is on the leader and not the subordinate. This theory demonstrates that in order for a leader to be effective, one must exhibit trait approach leadership qualities. Additionally, the leader should be able to highly influence their followers as well as receive overall satisfaction and effectiveness from them. The theory expresses that without the given characteristics, ones leadership skills are not effective. Applying Trait Approach Theory to the Case Study Trait Approach was exhibited in Raymonds case because he was willing to take a risk to help increase support for students of color on campus. One of his major decisions was to modify the organizational visibility of the office to ensure the office did not appeal as undervalued. Part of the research done on trait approach included ten characteristics that were positively connected with leaders. One of these traits included risk taking and originality to problem solving (Northouse, 2012, p. 21). This trait connects with Raymonds risk of moving the office structure around because he wanted students to find the space visually appealing. Being able to take this risk even when other professional staff did not see this move as effective shows the initiative and promise that Raymond was relying on with his past skills and experiences. Following Raymonds structural changes, he looks to develop a space where diversity initiatives with high funds and visibility rates are centralized to his department (case study). Trying to make a move like this will bolster the MSA Office, providing students with the opportunity to engage in a space working towards creating a diverse environment. Even with the backlash, Raymond appears to be very determined even when other professionals think it may be beneficial to cancel programs due to potential low turnouts. The relation is made to trait approach where one of the five major leadership traits is determination (Northouse, 2012). Raymond is showing determination towards potential events hosted by his office by inserting himself into the planning of these programs held on campus related to diversity advocacy. Although is seems that Raymond is not moving forward with the agenda set by the vice-president, he remains determined to build support for students of color in the way he visions most successful.Lastly, Trait Approach is exhibited through Raymonds ability to influence others. Although leadership is often characterized with positive influence, Raymond is influencing NSU staff members for better or worse. Marshall, director of the Student Union, worries that her staff will learn bad habits or be taken advantage of (case study) by Raymond. An additional trait shown from the 1974 published survey is the ability to influence other peoples behavior (Northouse, 2012, p. 21). This event is applicable because Raymonds leadership style is influencing those around him, creating an environment that better fulfills his needs.Critique of Trait Approach TheoryDue to Raymonds interactions with NSUs staff, this approach does not seem to allow inclusiveness for all types of leaders. As said in the text, leaders identify with the given traits and without these traits one is not considered a leader (Northouse, 2012). Additionally, Kouzes and Posner (2007) express that what people most look for in a leader has been constant over time (p.14) showing that the same traits have been perceived for years. Even without displaying the characteristics given, one can still be considered a leader making the theory very situational and concrete. Additionally, the approach does not look at followers characteristics at all, which is essential in order to become a leader. One cannot lead if no one is there to follow. This theory appears it would benefit from a dyadic relationship so that leaders are able to value characteristics that are often associated with followers. With these limitations, it seems that a leaders growing process may be lacking because they are unable to adjust their personal styles based on their experiences and the followers practices.Utility of Trait Approach TheoryTrait Approach exhibits strengths in the model due to the foundation and research that backs it up. As shown in the text, the model has been altered based off of research giving validity to the concept (Northouse, 2012, p. 23). In everyday use, Raymond stuck with his leadership traits even when other staff members disagreed with him. A strong piece of the approach is that one sticks to their values and traits in order to lead others. It would appear a larger portion of this approach is the ability to know yourself and not change your values in order to comply with other views. Though it is great to stick with your values, one has to be willing to make changes to their leadership style, because its not just about them but about guiding the people they are leading and seeing what works and does not. It should not be about completely changing ones leadership style but modifying it temporarily to assist in the accomplishment of a task then go back to your preferred style. When using this type of leadership, knowing yourself is a concept to hold on to but it is also about knowing your staff. My ResolutionIn order to move forward with the situation, it becomes the vice-president of student affairs responsibility to blend her knowledge of leadership to assist the Multicultural Student Affairs Office. In order to create a sense of community between the Student Union and MSA departments, the process of team management where employees understand being committed to their work would be a viable option to execute during the summer (Northouse, 2012, p. 81). Addressing the important issues so that they are fixed and not repeated in the future seems of first priority. Additionally, there is management that needs to happen within each department individually. Donna felt that her team was falling into bad habits and Raymond felt that his team members were not following the same execution plan as him. As the vice-presidents speaks with both Donna and Raymond, it would be important that these directors also work on team management skills with each other so that respect and trust is gained and hostility is not a factor when the next academic school year starts. Boggs (2012) articulates that often big victories have been prioritized over small collaborative actions that build communities (p.48) and as a vice-president it is important to step back and focus on the staff community as a whole and then create supportive services for students of color. Looking at the relationship between the vice-president and Raymond, it is important to recognize that Raymond failed to make progress towards the end goal set for the MSA Office. Due to Raymonds poor judgment by coming up with different goals for the office, the vice-president should have taken a directive role in this situation as seen in situational theory (Northouse, 2012). Although giving support to your staff is a must, having this initial conversation on how to move forward to accomplish the goals set for the office and directing Raymond towards the next steps seems most effective. This approach would focus on communicating with Raymond the steps that were not taken as well as the steps needed in order for the office to achieve their goals (Northouse, 2012, p. 101). Along with this leadership approach high supervision, as seen in path-goal theory, would be placed on Raymond to ensure goals are being achieved and the needed guidance is supplied. The last leadership technique used is based on not only transforming the leadership style of Raymond but also evaluating how Raymond was supervised. As a leader, was there motivation given to Raymond when he took on the task to revamp the MSA Office as well as enough guidance throughout the process. As a vice-president, motivation is given to not only help the MSA Office succeed but to accomplish the goals in the right way. This will lead to commitment and a shared vision (Northouse, 2012, p. 193), apiece that was lost during the first year. It was the vice-presidents job to make sure it was possible for Raymond to do great work (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). Expressing the need for a positive impact within the MSA Office will show the importance the office plays in the future of student affairs at the institution. Conclusion In all, the case study in relation to leadership styles showed both effective and non-effective ways to handle situations. More importantly, it exposed that one leadership theory is not going to fit ones leadership traits perfectly. As higher education professionals, we must not try to fit into a theory but pull pieces from different theories to tell our story much like the professionals in the study case displayed.

ReferencesBoggs, G., & Kurashige, S. (2011). The next american revolution: Sustainable activism for the twenty-first century (pp. 46-78). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. 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.