Leadership: Leaders 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 Leaders Theory X and Theory Y, Mary Barra seems to follow Theory Y more as she deems the employees as one of her organizations most treasured elements. She started fair practices after being appointed General Motorss 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,...…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.

Ethical Leadership

Ethical leadership entails prominent features that show a leaders truthfulness and role-modeling attitude. Some features include honesty, integrity, apology, tolerance, human orientation, credibility, fairness, and justice (Shahab et al., 2021). Creating a sense of achievement among employees and setting realistic goals, so they are intrinsically motivated to achieve are elements of an ethical leader.

John certainly seemed deprived of these notable characteristics as he lacked honesty. He was the one who asked his employees, who were unwilling themselves to make fake accounts. The business practices were not reflective of his ethics and were selfish for having higher profitability. He pushed his employees, without their consent and a human-centric mindset, to achieve goals that were not morally right.

He did not take accountability for his actions and blamed the employees, which was unfair and an open injustice. When several employees were fired after the controversy, he blamed the front-line workers that, in his opinion, were rightly punished. The employees afterward opened up about his unethical critique (Arnold, 2016). He seemed indifferent, and his intentions were devoid of the innovation or offering growth opportunities that employees were looking for. Job commitment was low, and the prevalence…