Leader’s Theory X and Theory Y Leadership

Leadership: Leader’s Theory X and Theory Y

Theory X and Theory Y are theories that managers use for employee motivation and offer two different aspects. Theory X assumes that employees are lazy initially and have to be motivated with rewards and appreciation (Tourma, 2021). Alternatively, theory Y assumes that employees are internally motivated. Still, to keep their motivational levels high, leaders have to give them growth opportunities and provide constant acknowledgments for better performance in the future. This paper investigates two leaders, Mary Barra and John Stumpf, under the lens of Theories X and Y and their ethics in leadership.

Mary Barra, GM CEO

Based on Leader’s Theory X and Theory Y, Mary Barra seems to follow Theory Y more as she deems the employees as one of her organization’s most treasured elements. She started fair practices after being appointed General Motors’s CEO, which portrayed the fact that she did not want discrimination.

In the ‘switch gate’ crisis, the employees were demotivated due to the damaging reputation of the company. She set priorities straight by launching safety programs and reassurance that the company would rise again (Ann, 2019). She encouraged and lifted them intrinsically, which was highly needed during the crisis. She cited that fear of punishment should not exist in their minds and should come forward when they find or feel a problem.

Her replacement of bureaucratic leadership with her approach of accountability and respect toward the employees triggered an organizational culture of inclusiveness (Snyder, n.d.). The employees felt reassured, along with the power of taking responsibility. The same accountability applied to the leader, as she knew she had to exhibit herself the way she expected from her employees. The well-intended honesty became a reflection of Theory Y so that better trust relationships are cultivated.

The Theory Y-driven leaders allow their employees to become part of discussions to foster creativity. The innovative designs and production publishing become the core of their success plan, which Mary Barra highlighted the most. Her leadership style encouraged employees to give opinions and facilitated communication from both top-down and bottom-up ways (Ann, 2019). Meetings were called to discuss the issues for avoiding delays and preventing future incidents like ‘switch gate.’ The coordination fosters collaboration and timely delivery of projects with effective management of workload.

Ethical Leadership

Mary Barra was found as a humble and confident leader, both at the same time (Snyder, n.d.). She brings collaboration to her employees as she believes this element empowers them. It even involves crediting quiet performers and acknowledging the entire team means they should be verbally rewarded for their efforts (Jain, 2014). This saves the quiet performers from under-recognition, which is a source of empowerment. Also, it adds to the fairness of an ethical leader so that favoritism does not occur in the workplace.

When the biggest recall happened in the name of the ‘switch gate’ crisis, where millions of cars were recalled to the production units after the news of several drovers’ deaths, she dealt with the crisis with proactivity. She did not avoid the problem; she handled it with clear communication and transparency of facts. She assured the customers that nothing similar would happen again, for which she also took some preventive measures. Since the problem had existed for years and had not been amended seriously, she fired some employees and introduced safety programs.

An apology is considered one of the finest features of an ethical leader, which Mary did not shy away from. Ethical leaders must act with morals that are displayed in their actions and behaviors, both with integrity and honesty (Johnson & Shelton, 2014). The switch gate crisis landed the company in hot waters, and the product lines were in a damaging position. The results were devastating not only for the firm’s profitability but also for the stakeholders, especially employees. She testified in Congress and kept transparency a priority there as well.

John Stumpf, Wells Fargo former CEO

John Stumpf’s leadership could be attributed more to Theory X’s side as he used a hard leadership style for stressing the employees to make sales. A toxic work culture was maintained and forced employees to make fake accounts of customers without asking them first (Arnold, 2016). It posed stress upon the employees as they had to be engaged in unethical practices imposed on the employees. Arrogant styles of management and disallowing employees to have their say are some of the conspicuous factors related to Theory X (Tourma, 2021).

The employees at Wells Fargo stated that the leader did not complement them for their work and set almost unachievable daily targets. Cross-selling products, with eight and even 20 products per day, was impossible and stressful for them. When the company landed in a big disaster due to the fake accounts dilemma, the leaders blamed the employees (Arnold, 2016). The leaders abstained from taking responsibility, which further gave rise to toxicity. Trust relationships never existed as the leader tried to control them strictly, taking them as lazy workers who should be pushed to unimagined boundaries with assigned duties that were highly demanding to achieve.

Although, theory X assumes that with a well-managed leadership style, the leaders do not intend to take opinions from the employees. The leader has a confident image and rewards or punishes the employees accordingly. However, this assumption stands partially true for John. His leadership style was not well-managed, as he created a toxic work culture, and employees were not satisfied working with him. His narrow-minded approach showed that he did not care for human emotions and issues arising from the toxic culture, as the employees were not willing to make fake accounts but had to comply with his orders. John did not take their opinions in this regard and kept his leadership maintained with eyes on the productivity and results that seemed unattainable.