BUSI 503 Week 4 Leadership Profile 3 Example

Leadership Profile 3: Path-Goal Styles, Exchange Quality and an Action Plan

Results

What the Results Mean

In path-goal theory, leaders motivate by removing obstacles between followers and their goals, and they do it by choosing a style that fits the followers and the task (House, 1996; Northouse, 2019). My high directive and achievement-oriented scores fit my team's new members, who need clear instructions and challenging targets. But my low participative score means I rarely ask experienced members for input, even on tasks they know better than I do.

The theory also explains why the same habit helps one person and frustrates another. House (1996) argued that directive behavior adds the most when a task is ambiguous and followers are inexperienced, and adds little, or even irritates, when the work is routine and followers already know how to do it. Two of my five team members have more than eight years on our accounts. When I hand them a detailed checklist, I am supplying structure they do not need, and withholding the involvement in decisions that path-goal theory predicts would motivate them. My moderate supportive score suggests I am approachable, but approachability is not the same as asking.

The LMX 7 results are more troubling. My exchange with one team member scored 31, very high, while my exchange with another scored 19, low. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) describe leadership as developing in partnerships, and their leadership-making model urges a leader to extend an offer of partnership to each person on the team instead of letting a favored circle form. Gerstner and Day (1997) pooled dozens of studies and found that members who rated their exchange highly also tended to be rated as stronger performers, were more satisfied with their supervisors and were more committed to the organization, while turnover intentions ran lower. If my second team member is in my out-group, the problem may be my leadership, not his effort.

Strengths and Weaknesses

My strengths are clarity and high standards: my team rarely wonders what is expected. My weakness is that I rely on a few trusted people and give others fewer chances to contribute, which narrows the team's ideas and may leave some members disengaged. Last quarter, the team member with the lower exchange score proposed a change to our intake form in a meeting; I said I would look at it and never did, while I adopted a similar idea from my most trusted colleague a week later. He has not suggested anything since.

Action Plan

• By the end of this month, hold a one-on-one with the team member whose exchange scored 19, asking what he needs from me and what he would like to take on.
• Starting next week, ask experienced members for their approach before I assign any task they have done before.
• In three months, ask both team members to complete the LMX 7 about me and compare results.

James 2:1 warns against showing partiality (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016). A leader who favors an in-group, however unintentionally, falls short of that standard.

References

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.