Managerial leadership: concepts and practice

Managerial Leadership

Problem identification

In my opinion, finding a problem in such a case study is strictly related to whether you agree with the LMX theory or not. In this sense, stimulating a certain part of your personnel may be considered efficient or less efficient, in which case there may be a problem.

However, there several issues that should be discussing when referring to the way Jim is applying the LMX theory. First of all, the permanent and main reason for which he is using the in-group personnel is that he "doesn't have to do it himself" or because he is reticent about stepping up front. This doesn't seem to me to be a leader-like attitude. Using in-group people for certain jobs should be directed towards increasing the overall efficiency rather than covering up for yourself as leader.

The second thing that should be discussed is related to compensation and motivation for the job. All of the rewards the in-group people get are appraisals, general recognition, a close relationship with the boss. In general, we would expect this kind of compensations to be doubled by material ones, as well as by possible future promotions. In my opinion, the forms of reward that Jim has been using may have a limited period of effectiveness.

2. Management practices and behavior

It is quite clear that Jim Madison prefers to delegate most of his work, especially to a few trusted employees that he has formed a special relationship with. This may be seen as a positive practice, as we may consider that a manager's task is, first of all, to organize and coordinate rather than to actually do the work himself.

On the other hand, as I have already mentioned here above, Jim seems to be one of those managers that wants to be involved as little as possible in everything that gets done, because he may be afraid of the blame he might take lest something goes wrong. This may be, in my opinion, a certain personality trait that may take off some of the efficiency of the methods he is using

3. Problem Analysis

As I have mentioned before, this particular organization is not necessarily having a problem. I am asserting this because none of the indicators that may show there is a problem are present. Indeed, the company is functioning efficiently, the public and clients benefiting from the services provided are satisfied and, just as important, the employees are satisfied, both with their positions and the way they see themselves in the organization. It is clear that the people working with Jim Madison are satisfied with the way he is performing as a supervisor.

However, it may be the case that this is only momentary. It is difficult to believe that the people in the in-group will remain content with the rewards they are receiving for their extra services. There seems to be no sign that in the future this will change and it is difficult to keep people stimulated only by recognizing their merit and thanking them for their services. So, in my opinion, while maintaining a benefic and self sufficient system of in-groups and out-groups, Jim Madison may be ignoring possible future discontent in the workplace.

4. Recommendations for managerial actions

There are several actions that Jim should take in my opinion. First of all, why always use the same people in his system and for those specific jobs? What will happen if, one day, those people decide to leave and apply for better paid positions in other organizations or other fields? Jim should probably attempt to better train his staff so that anyone may, at a future time, assume a certain position within the company and become part of the in-group. A higher level of flexibility is perhaps desired in this case.

On the other hand, I kept mentioning motivation throughout my analysis of the case study. One can't always be motivated by praise and it is perhaps time that Jim should use different other motivational tools. I am referring here to bonuses for extra work and to possibilities that those people will get promotions in the future.

Additionally, Jim should probably change his vision over his own position within the company and should probably take, in his position as manager of the company, more responsibilities.

5. Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the theory

The case study is keen to underline and sustain several aspects that the LMX theory brings forth. First of all, it is obvious that, in an organization, there are people with whom the manager gets on better than with others and it is only natural that he would choose his closest collaborators among them. The LMX theory only points out theoretically something that practice has long shown. In this case study, this is most obvious: Jim has selected a few persons that are assigned more difficult taks and more responsibilities.

On the other hand, one of the weaknesses of the theory, exemplified here as well, is that it is not necessarily fair and may lead to a certain degree of discrimination within the organization. Indeed, in the case study, we may have the feeling that the people in the out-group are ignored and that they do not receive the same treatment with those who are in the in-group.

MBTI or the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is one of the numerous personality tests. However, the relevance of this test in an organization is increased by the fact that interpersonal relationships and decision making characteristics are emphasized in this case, which makes it relevant for the work place environment.

On the other hand, the MBTI is one of the practical tools that the transformational leadership theory uses in order to determine adequate qualities for a leader and how the connection that is formed between an employee and a leader evolves and operates with the organization. In this sense, it is perhaps best to first have a look at some of the basic notions from the transformational theory and then refer to the MBIT example provided.

According to the textbook, transformational leadership refers to "the process whereby an individual engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower." From this definition, I may understand and assert further on that a leader is a person that will need to have several qualities in order to make an impact on those around him. This impact refers first to the communication that is formed between the leader and the followers, then to the connection level and to the response the leader receives from his followers. An excellent leader will always be able to motivate his followers. Examples from history are numerous. The text book refers to Gandhi, however, in my opinion, military leaders are the best. Leaders such as Napoleon or Julius Cesar managed to mobilize the troops and ask them for superhuman efforts.

In an organization, things are very much the same. A true leader will first of all be able to set trends, have a vision, determine ways by which this vision and the strategic objectives can be reached, etc. Afterwards, a leader will be able to communicate his vision and his expectations to the employees and his followers. He will check that certain checkpoints are reached, correct the mistakes and motivate his "troops." Of course, feedback and control (one of the four functions of management) is also essential for an organizational leader.

Going back to the MBTI Personality Test, this was developed in order to analyze and determine our cognitive capacity in several situations. Every since early ages, we are always bound to ask ourselves whether we react upon knowledge and analysis of facts or simply upon instinct, whether we have a personality directed towards the outside, here including activities and persons, or towards our inner side, etc.

The result of the test is given as four basic characteristics of one's personality. One can be extroverted or introverted, sensing or intuitive, thoughtful or inclined towards feeling and judging or perceiving. I will briefly use some of the next lines in order to properly explain what each of these psychological characteristics represent for a person's character.

Extroverted vs. introverted. Extraversion refers to a preference for the outside world and for activities related to it. This means that an extroverted person is motivated by contact with the elements of the outside world and that it draws energy from such an interaction.

On the other hand, an introverted person is more motivated by the relationship with his inner self and is inclined to be less open to relationships with the others. This doesn't necessarily mean that he is a solitary person or a loner, however, he prefers conversation in smaller circle and needs to take occasional time offs from the rest of the world.

Sensing vs. Intuitive. A sensing person will obviously rely on senses when making a decision or an evaluation. The important detail is that a sensing person will be making decisions based on real, actual facts, facts that he has identified using his senses and perceptions.

On the other hand, an intuitive character will rely greatly on his imagination and his force of interpretation. An intuitive person does not necessarily need cold facts to make a decision. He is able to project, to find out the best ways from ambiguous facts and to improvise.

Thinking vs. Feeling. A person with thinking characteristics follows facts and logic when making a decision. Such a person will follow a straightforward path before reaching a decision: he will gather the facts concerning a certain situation, he will thoroughly analyze them and then take a decision.

Feeling characteristics mean that such a person relies more on interpersonal relations, on people and generally seeks peaceful compromising solutions instead of conflict ones.

Judging vs. Perceiving. Planning is the key word for a judging person. Such a person will never get to work without having a clear plan of future actions, will respect deadlines and will work best before these. We may assume and assert that this is a task-oriented person.

On the other hand, a perceiving person is comfortable to make the plan as he goes along rather than having it ready before hand. He is "tolerant of time pressure" and works well even if multiple tasks are assigned to him.

The test has a simple interpretation. Each two elements of each pair are considered according to the score scored for each case. The pairs are EI (extrovert vs. introvert), SN (sensing vs. intuition), TF (thinking vs. feeling) and JP (judging vs. perceiving). The score that is highest indicates a certain personality trait from the two in the pair.

You have scored for each group 14/7, 24/7, 15/9 and 9/21, which means that you are rather an extrovert personality, preferring sensing over intuition, thinking the facts and have a perceiving personality trait.

Following the explanations provided here above for each category, I may assert that you are, first of all, a person that prefers to be practical and to work with facts to find the best solutions. Rather than assume fuzz details, you prefer to find out what everything is about before reacting.

Your score shows that you are an extroverted person, motivated by the outside world and people. Further more, decisions based on logic and an objective analysis are some of your characteristics as revealed by the test.

Your characteristic as a perceiving person means that you are inclined towards multi-tasking and feel no pressure from time. An assignment in the last minute will not be a problem for you.

In my opinion, several weaknesses of the test are revealed in this practical example presented here above. The most important one refers to the fact that the test results don't seem to be consistent. I believe that this test should, in the end, reflect two great categories of persons. A category would be formed from those that like to clearly analyze facts, to sort them out before reaching a decision, to plan their actions and take things one task at a time.

Another category would be formed of those who rely more on their imagination than their senses, who rely less on logic and more on interpersonal relationships and who have no problem multitasking and working under stress.

However, according to the scores you have received, you are somewhere in between. On one hand you ponder facts before taking a decision, however, on the other, you can deal with multiple tasks and feel no need to organize them. In my opinion, these should probably go together, as analyzing facts also means that you do them in a certain order and following a certain train of thought.

On the other hand, we must acknowledge that the test is a comprehensive way to find out traits of personality. In a work place, this is essential for a leader. If an employee takes such a test, the leader will be able to assign him on the appropriate jobs and the tasks that suit his capacities best.

My own experience with this is related to team work. In my organization, these tests were given before pairing up certain persons to form teams and complete certain tasks. The ideal thing was to have a mixed team of personalities, because it was assumed that such a team would be more efficient, the team members being able to complete each other in the best possible way.

The LMX theory is one of the many theories that developed in order to discover what the leader-employee relationship is, what level of cooperation has developed between the leader and a certain group of employees, belonging to the in-group and how this benefits the overall efficiency of the company.