Case Study Description
I have limited experience in the field of business leadership, so to illustrate the application of various theories, I will describe the organizational experience I received in school. Among my peers, I have never been popular and have not communicated with a large number of people. However, in our school, there was a practice of organizing various festivals and events by teams of students. The two leaders were chosen at random from among the students by a lot. Thus, two people had to organize the effective work of 30-40 people and communicate with each other. Thus, for the first time, as well as my partner, I got the leadership position for organizing the festival.
From the beginning, I faced a number of challenges which determined my activity. First of all, it was difficult for me to establish contact with my partner and coordinate actions since he had a much more significant influence on peers. Thus, I have often failed to distribute responsibilities according to the abilities of the students effectively. Moreover, my instructions were often overlooked, although I was extremely thorough in my planning. As a result, the organizational process remained largely in the hands of my partner and peers.
Charismatic Leadership
In relation to the described case study, the most relevant theory appears to be the theory of charismatic leadership. The leader spends most of the time communicating with other people. 75% of the time is spent not only on listening and speaking but also on “providing information, directing, coordinating, instructing, and giving feedback” (Sacavem et al., 2017, p. 21). The theory of charismatic leadership explains how a leader uses personal qualities and communication skills to influence the performance of followers.
First of all, to study this theory, it is necessary to define the concept of charisma. The most difficult question is whether charisma is a quality of a person or a skill which can be developed (Meslec et al., 2020). While initially Bayer and Weber, the founders of the charismatic approach, defined charisma as personal magnetism and appeal, the neochaismatic approach takes a different viewpoint (Bligh & Robinson, 2010). For example, when examining the influence of Gandhi on his followers, it is noted that he did not have extraordinary physiological qualities and a remarkable appearance. However, his “charismatic appeal lay primarily in his vision and methods of implementation” (Bligh & Robinson, 2010, p. 845). Thus, charismatic leadership is the ability of a leader to communicate to the followers the shared vision in a certain situation of necessity. Thus, visionary rhetoric plays a major role in charismatic leadership.
According to this theory, a leader needs to pay attention to the content and delivery of the speech. Both components constitute an effective influence on followers, while personal characteristics may not be enough. First of all, researchers note that “appeal to values is a key ingredient for the charismatic effect to occur” (Meslec et al., 2020, p. 10). In the situation when the values of the leader and followers do not correspond, then the influence can be reduced. The main difference between charismatic leaders is that they articulate certain values and goals, as well as formulate their significance for the collective (Bligh & Robinson, 2010). In accordance with this statement, the researchers have identified several necessary aspects in the content of the speech of a charismatic leader.
First of all, it is crucial to identify collective values within which the personal interests of the group are inferior to a common goal. Thus, the main abilities of a charismatic leader are “being encouraging, positive, building follower’s confidence, and motivating followers” (Bligh & Robinson, 2010, p. 847). Practical application in relation to the described case may be expressed in the need to pay more attention to communication with peers than planning. I had first to identify common goals and values and then consider the means necessary to achieve them. A charismatic leader should also outline similarities between himself and his followers. My partner had a much higher level of trust from peers, as he shared values and views with them. Due to my lack of communication with students, I was unable to identify aspects which would be important for all of us, which reduced my influence.
Charismatic leaders also appeal to morality as a means of increasing followers’ engagement. It is noted that their speech “incorporates more references to values and moral justifications than non-charismatic speech” (Bligh & Robinson, 2010, p. 847). In relation to the described case, this aspect can be interpreted as the need to articulate the personal value of participating in preparation for the festival of each student. In particular, the need to organize it for the school community needed to be identified. Charismatic leaders also emphasize the connection between past and future events in relation to the goal that has been set. In the case of the described case, it was probably necessary to study information about previous events and describe the experience of past organization experience and describe their success.
Moreover, the charismatic leader describes the common goal as lofty and spiritually valuable, which inspires followers. Although this statement is difficult to implement in relation to a school festival, as a leader, I should have articulated various emotional positive outcomes of the organization’s completion and increased the self-esteem of my peers. This aspect is related to another ability of a charismatic leader of “communicating a sense of optimism and confidence” (Bligh & Robinson, 2010, p. 848). Mobilizing the actions of my peers was my priority, and my partner did it to a greater extent. Finally, for effective leadership, the theory is to articulate the need to change the current situation. In my experience of the organization, this aspect can be applied in describing the need to perform the best in order to show better results than the rest of the teams. Thus, after examining the key factors in the formation of charismatic rhetoric, it can be concluded that as a leader, I was unable to articulate my vision to the peers. It’s crucial for a leader not only to have an effective plan but to convince followers of its importance, as well as to identify their personal interest in executing it.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory focuses on the two-way relationship between followers and a leader. Additionally, the approach emphasizes that “leaders do not develop the same type of relationship with each follower” (Dulebohn et al., 2012, p. 1716). LMX emerged as an alternative to other leadership styles, a theory which asserts that not only the leader but also the followers influence the organizational process. This view contrasts with earlier approaches, according to which the skills and characteristics of a leader shape the motivation and behavior of followers. LMX emphasizes that participants are in constant mutual dependence on each other, which affects the level and quality of performance. Thus, interaction is based on the assessment of the leader’s activities by the follower and the evaluation of the activities of the followers by the leader.
According to the theory, many contextual aspects affect team performance. The quality of LMX relationships is influenced by factors such as the characteristics of the leader, the characteristics of the followers, and the nature of the interaction (Dulebohn et al., 2012). Moreover, Liden et al. (2015) note that followers are “influenced more by the way their relationship quality with the immediate leader compares to the perceived relationship quality that peers have with the leader” (p. 19). With regard to the factors influencing LMX, this assumption is expressed in the initial perception which the leader and followers have about their future interaction.
At the initial stages of the relationship, the perception of the dyadic partner on the part of the leader is mainly based on external appeal characteristics. Later, the focus of attention shifts to the behavioral aspects demonstrated by followers. LMX emphasizes that for a leader in followers, it is their competence and skills, as well as the ability and willingness to take responsibility, which is important (Dulebohn et al., 2012). Moreover, the leader assesses the skills of each follower and compares them with the assigned tasks in order to determine the most suitable executor. The attitude to the assigned task and the quality of its execution to a greater extent affects the formation of the leader’s attitude to a specific follower. In turn, a weaker relationship formed between leader and follower results in lower levels of productivity. For the case described, this theory explains how my partner was able to build appropriate peer relationships. He communicated with them and understood their abilities, which allowed him to choose tasks for them. I had to identify the characteristics of classmates and measure their performance in order to build interaction.
Leaders have more control over the quality of the LMX due to the greater amount of power and influence. A leader’s behavior has a bigger impact on how followers perceive him or her and what kind of relationship is built. Dulebohn et al. (2012) note that transformational leadership and reward are most important. LMX implies that the leader’s reward of followers, in the form of feedback or recognition of achievement, positively influences relationships and motivation. In relation to transformational leadership, the greatest value is a social exchange which is “built on trust, respect, and mutual obligation” (Dulebohn et al., 2012, p. 1721). However, without a reward system, followers would not be able to define the leader’s expectations for their performance, which also limits the creation of high-quality interactions. Thus, in this case, as a leader, I needed not only to declare the responsibilities of peers and their role in the organization but also to identify my responsibilities to them. Moreover, I should have explained what results are expected from completing tasks and comment on the activities of classmates.
LMX is also influenced by factors outside of the characteristics and behavior of followers and leaders. Such aspects include various stimuli which form the relationship between the leader and subordinates or between subordinates. The most significant variable, in this case, is the similarity between people, which acts as the basis for building relationships (Dulebohn et al., 2012). People tend to experience more positive emotions and a comfortable position when interacting with someone who shares their views and values. Shared views of organizational tasks and informal communication have a positive impact on LMX. Thus, this theory focuses more on the level of personal interaction between followers and the leader, which is a condition for productive activity. Thus, in the case under consideration, I, as a leader, would need to develop my communication with peers initially. Limited interaction with classmates lowered their level of trust in me, as they could not identify common values which we could share. Combined with my inability to articulate the values and interests of the followers in achieving the task, my leadership did not have a sufficient basis for increasing productivity.
Outcomes and Implications
Although the charismatic theory and the LMX approach are different, they have a number of similar points. Primarily, charismatic leadership focuses on building a picture and image of the leader in order to form the correct perception among the followers. LMX theory, in contrast, indicates that the behavior of a leader also forms the basis for building relationships with followers. Thus, not only he manages the process, but also his subordinates. However, in my opinion, the charismatic theory applied to the case under consideration might not have sufficient effect. First, because building influence among the collective requires a certain amount of time, which may not be enough in a short-term organization. Secondly, this position could put me in a disadvantageous situation since I would have to compete for attention with my partner, while it would be more rational to cooperate. Thus, both approaches seem to be more appropriate for building long-term leadership among a constant group of people. For the case under consideration, theories aimed directly at the management of the activities and tasks of followers may be more suitable.
References
Bligh, M. C., & Robinson, J. L. (2010). Was Gandhi “charismatic”? Exploring the rhetorical leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 844-855. Web.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A Meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715-1759. Web.
Liden, R. C., Wu, J., Cao, X., & Wayne, S. J. (2015). In T. N. Bauer & B. Erdogan (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of leader-member exchange. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Web.
Meslec, N., Curseu, P. L., Fodor, O. C., & Kenda, R. (2020). Effects of charismatic leadership and rewards on individual performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(6), 1-12. Web.
Sacavem, A., Martinez, L. F., Da Cunha, J. V., Abreu, A. M., & Johnson, S. K. (2017). Charismatic leadership: A study on delivery styles, mood, and performance. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11(3), 21-38. Web.