Ldrs 801 - Final Case Study Narrative and Teaching Notes - Group D

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership
Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman
A Spiral Down
Case Study and Teaching Notes
Mike Bates
Amy Gade
Todd Jackson
James Myers
Robert Neuman
Fort Hays State University
Dr. Jeni McRay
December 7, 2014
A Spiral Down
Sergeant Smith sits in Mels Diner staring into a cup of coffee. He had been a sergeant in
this small community in the Midwest for about 15 years now. Clearly something is weighing on
his mind as the server needs to ask him three times if she can freshen him up. Smith is
contemplating news that he received this morning about an officer under his command. Bacon
and eggs lay cold on his plate as his stomach twists in a knot. Smith looks at his phone again to
confirm the text that presented the news which he had been dreading for some time: Eric was
arrested for DUI. Smith didnt know what it would be, but he expected something Now all
he thought about was if there was something more that he should have done.
By all accounts Eric was a top cadet at the academy, joining the force after several tours
in the U.S. military. A smart, young, decorated veteran, the department and community were
lucky to have him. He was charismatic, dedicated and respected by his peers and supervisors.
The community loved him and the citys DARE program excelled under his guidance. Smith
was Erics first supervisor. It was he who recommended Eric for the new DARE initiative as he
knew that Eric would do an excellent job. It was very important to the City to have a competent
officer at the helm of this important program.
Eric was definitely someone on whom Smith could rely. He learned the job quickly and
seemed to have the experience of a 20-year veteran. Eric soon became a leader in patrol and was
made acting sergeant on days that Smith was absent. He was someone any officer could look up
to as an example.
Eric made friends easily and he had many, but his closest on the force was Jake. It was
very uncommon to see one without the other. Jake was a solid officer as well and they both
shared a passion for helping the neighborhood kids stay on a straight path.
A little over a year ago, tragedy struck the department when Jake was hit by a vehicle as
he was directing traffic. He was rushed to the hospital, but succumbed to the injuries sustained in
the crash. Every officer in the department took the loss very hard, but none as hard as Eric.
Knowing how close they were, Smith recommended to the administration to give Eric an extra
leave of absence as it was clear that he was not taking the loss of his friend very well.
Upon returning to work, Eric seemed to be doing well. Smith had a talk with him and
Eric displayed no indications that would have been a concern to the department. Eric advised
that he was ready to get back to work and assured Smith that there was no reason to be
concerned.
For a few weeks, it looked like business as usual for Eric. Then Smith started noticing
small changes in him. Eric was usually the sharpest looking officer on his shift. He was now
starting to come in with a wrinkled uniform and a sloppy rig. Several times, Eric looked as if he
had not slept or shaven for days. Smith would give Eric a pass on inspections because he figured
he had recently been through a lot and he was still one of the best performing officers on the
shift. Another supervisor thought it was a mistake not to address these minor issues, but Smith
thought it wasnt that big of a deal and would soon pass. But, the other supervisor may have
been right as Erics work also started slipping. Reports werent being turned in in the appropriate
amount of time and many were incomplete definitely not up to the standard that Eric had
historically set for himself.
Smith decided to have an informal meeting with Eric. He called Eric into the office and
articulated his concerns. Again, Eric ensured that everything was fine. He was just going
through a slump at the moment. Smith felt like he didnt want to get into Erics personal
business too much. Eric thanked Smith for his concerns. Before he excused Eric, Sgt Smith
reminded him of the importance of proper reports and other official documents. He advised Eric
that his paperwork would receive extra review for the next three months. He advised that they
would have another meeting to review his improvement. He blamed the extra attention on the
Lieutenant and told Eric he was sure everything would be fine. He knew Eric was still that same
exceptional officer he met on his first day and told Eric that he was still his right-hand man. In
reality, the Lieutenant was unaware of the issues with Eric as he was not made aware by Smith.
Smith was hoping everything would just work itself out with enough time.
Knowing that he was under a bit of a microscope, Erics work performance improved
somewhat. But, the improvement was short lived. Smith was advised that Eric was becoming
very irritable during shift. He was getting into petty arguments with fellow officers. His
appearance also began to change as he started to look even more un-kept than before and was
gaining weight. He received several minor complaints from citizens about how he handled
some calls for service. Several times he just left the calls causing other officers to have to
respond to handle the call for him. Many times Eric would not even show up for a call which he
was assigned. Several weeks later, Smith received an email from the training division that Eric
missed mandatory yearly training. Eric was always excited about training opportunities and this
was very atypical behavior. Smith was also notified by a school principal that Eric failed to
show for the DARE Fair. Missing training that could be easily made up was one thing, but to
ignore a community event and the inappropriate handling of calls was unacceptable. Smith was
now forced to speak to his Chain of Command about Erics issues and planned to have a formal
meeting with Eric.
Upon arriving at shift, Smith was advised by another supervisor that Eric had an
altercation with a fellow officer. In a moment of frustration, an officer finally spoke up about
having to cover Erics slack during shift. Many officers on Erics shift had been feeling that way
for some time. When Eric began to argue with the officer, the fellow supervisor overheard
someone in the briefing room tell Eric, Isnt there a bar you would rather be at?! Thats when
the argument nearly became physical.
Eric was waiting in Smiths office. Smith asked Eric what the altercation was about.
Although Smith heard about the bar comment, he didnt mention it during the meeting. And
Eric was a lot less forthcoming than he had always been in the past as he just stared down at the
floor. Smith advised Eric that he was seeing a steady spiral downward ever since he returned to
work. He told Eric that he was one of the best officers that the department had ever had. Smith
said that he was open for any suggestion that may make work and life a little easier and more
positive for him a way to get back to his old self. For the rest of the conversation, Eric just
shut down. Smith advised Eric that he was going to give him a break from the DARE program
for a while. Eric was visibly upset about being removed from the program. Smith explained to
Eric that the principal requested a new officer in light of Erics recent neglect of the program.
Smith advised that he concurred with the principal and that it was important to the community
and department that the officer in that program could be trusted to fulfill their obligations. Smith
rescheduled Erics training and gave him contact numbers for the Employee Assistance Office.
He advised Eric that he should call and speak with someone. Eric abruptly snatched the phone
numbers from Smiths hand and stormed out of the office.
Smith was starting to become frustrated with the situation as nothing he did seemed to
help Eric make any improvement. He began to feel that this issue was taking all of his time and
now it was really affecting officers who still did their jobs and worked hard to be dedicated
members of the department. Although Eric was resistant to Sgt Smiths efforts he did notice over
the next few weeks that Smiths attempts at interaction with him had greatly decreased, almost to
the point of ignoring Eric.
A few weeks later, Smith was ordered by the Lieutenant to contact the EAO. Smith was
advised that Eric never called them. He started hearing rumors from the other officers that Eric
was no longer socializing with anyone. He had become somewhat of a shut in during his off
time. Erics performance at work continued to be unsatisfactory. He was constantly late and
calling in sick a lot. And when he did show for briefing he appeared lethargic and hollow and sat
in the back of the room wearing sunglasses to hide his eyes.
Smiths Chain of Command was now fully involved. Smiths Lieutenant reminded him
of his responsibilities in this matter. Smith called Eric to another meeting. Smith felt he knew
the cause of Erics change and, again, attempted to get Eric to talk about it. He told Eric that he
and the department was there to support him through whatever he is going through and that he is
an integral member of the force and community. He told Eric of all the concerns from his friends
and coworkers. He wanted Eric to discuss his problems with him. Eric advised that the only
problem that he had was that everyone was on his back at the department.
Smith advised Eric that he was open to helping him with his personal issues, but that he
still had a job to do as a supervisor and that Eric had to fulfill his role for the department and the
community. Eric was given a counseling slip for all of the days that he came in late for work and
his over-all poor performance. Smith also gave him a list of performance standards that must be
met over the course of the next three months. Lastly, by order of the Chief of Police, Smith
scheduled a mandatory evaluation with a mental health professional to ascertain if Eric was still
able to safely fulfill his duties. Eric became angry and told Smith that he just effectively ruined
his career. Eric was advised that he was on leave until he had the evaluation. As Eric walked out
of the room, Smith thought back to the exceptional officer that he used to be. Eric was arrested
for DUI later that night.
Discussion Questions:
1. Identify the 3 stages (Role Taking, Role Making, and Routinization) of Leader-Member
Exchange theory in the narrative. How did Eric get into Sgt. Smiths in-group? Did Eric ever
slip into the out-group? If so, how and when did this occur? Did Sgt. Smith try to reestablish the
relationship?
2. How does the Hierarchal Taxonomy of Leader Behavior apply to this story? Which did Sgt
Smith use? Did he use them appropriately and in a timely mannertoo little too late?
3. Using the Situational Leadership Theory, where did Eric fall on the follower developmental
levels of commitment and competency at the start and end of his career on the department? What
lead to the changes? What leadership approach/es did Sgt. Smith use with Eric throughout the
case study? Is there another leadership approach that may have worked better for Erics level of
commitment and competency at various stages of his career? Please explain.
4. Using the Vroom-Yetton/Vroom-Jago models of Contingent Decision Making, how should Sgt
Smith have gone about making the various decisions regarding Eric's self-destruction? Why?
What, if anything, should he have done differently?
Teaching Notes
1. Objectives of Case
Type of Case
This case is a descriptive case, which uses a real-life situation to highlight several
prominent leadership theories. Students should be able to apply various aspects of this case
to a number of different leadership theories.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
1. Develop competencies in applying leadership theory to real-life situations.
2. Develop a better understanding of the practical implications of LeaderMember Exchange Theory.
3. Understand how the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership applies to realistic
situations.
4. Recognize the various leadership approaches suggested by the Situational
Leadership Theory and with what types of follower situations each works
best.
5. Be able to apply the Contingent Decision Making process to real-life
scenarios.
Case Description
A police sergeant reflects on past events leading up to the arrest of one of his
subordinates and considers what leadership methods were used, as well as what both
individuals could have done differently in this scenario.
Author Objective
The objective of this case study is to provide students with an understanding that there
are multiple ways to look at a single leadership situation. As most experienced leaders know,
there usually isnt one right answer to a leadership problem but instead several paths to
success. Multiple theories can be applied to a given situation but each theory may provide a
very different look on whats going on and how best to proceed. That is why this particular
scenario is to be explored through the scope of four different theories (Leader-Member
Exchange, Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership, Situational Leadership, and Contingent
Decision Making). As current or future leaders, its important that individuals are able to
look at situations through the lenses of various leadership theories in order to choose the one
(or more than one in some cases) that will best enable them to resolve the issue at hand.
2. Course Information
Intended Course
This case study should be used in a general leadership studies class that focuses on major
leadership theories.
Course Level
Since this case deals with several major leadership theories, it would be most appropriate
in an introductory leadership course which reviews various leadership theories.
Position in Course
This case study should be presented shortly after covering the four included theories.
This would allow students to apply what they learned, further solidifying their understanding
of the key concepts of each theory.
Prerequisite
There are no pre-requisites for this case study since it belongs in an introductory
leadership course.
Timeframe
This case study should be presented and discussed over a class period of 85 minutes.
Minutes 0-5: Case introduction
Minutes 5-15: Read through case study
Minutes 15-30: First discussion question
Minutes 30-45: Second discussion question
Minutes 45-60: Third discussion question
Minutes 60-75: Fourth discussion question
Minutes 75-85: Concluding thoughts
3. Case Summary
Eric is an up-and-coming new officer in a small, Midwestern police department. He is a
U.S. Military veteran who graduated at the top of his class in the police academy. Eric is a
smart, reliable, enthusiastic officer who is well liked by his peers and chain of command. He
has taken the citys fledgling DARE program and turned it into a successful, exciting
initiative for the children in his community. Sergeant Smith has been Erics mentor and
biggest supporter since he joined the department.
Just over a year ago, Eric lost a co-worker and best friend, Jake. Since then, Eric has
exhibited a steady downward spiral in his professional and personal life. Sgt Smith has been
10
struggling with the best way to handle the issues that Eric has been having. The steps that he
is taking may or may not be appropriate. What is for sure, Erics self-destructive and
unprofessional behavior is getting worse as the months go by since Jakes death. Not only is
this affecting him, but his co-workers as well.
With seemingly no other options, the DARE program was taken away from Eric. He was
reprimanded for his work performance and violations of departmental policy and procedure.
He was also ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation. Eric was then placed on leave
until the evaluation was completed and he was cleared for duty. Later the same night, Eric
was arrested for DUI.
4. Key Issues
The relationships between leaders and team members
Transitioning from the in-group to the out-group
Using the correct Leadership Behaviors
Choosing the appropriate Leadership Style
The leader deciding on the most appropriate course of action
5. Key Theories
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
Hierarchal Taxonomy
Situational Leadership Theory
Contingent Decision Making
11
6. Theoretical Links
Issue 1: Eric entered the agency as a young, decorated veteran, who fell in good graces with his
supervisor. Eric was reliable, a quick learner, and had the knowledge and skill set of a 20-year
veteran. As a popular member of Sgt. Smiths team, Eric excelled and landed a position as an
acting sergeant where he led by example. The on duty death of Erics co-worker and closest
friend had a negative impact on him. Erics demeanor and performance slipped which affected
team members as well as the community in which he served. He became confrontational with
fellow employees, received citizen complaints for poor performance, and his team members had
to pick up the slack. To cap it all off, Eric was removed from his coveted position in DARE.
Erics poor performance soon landed this once exemplary member of the agency on the outside
looking in.
Leader-Member Exchange Theory
o The Leader-Member Exchange Theory first emerged in 1975. This theory, also
known as LMX or the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL) Theory, explores how leaders
develop relationships with team members.
It focuses on the dyadic relationship that develops between leaders and

members of their teams.
It explains how those relationships can either contribute to growth or hold

members back.
o The theory states that all relationships between leaders and members go through three
stages: Role-Taking, Role-Making, and Routinization.
Role-Taking
Role-taking occurs when team members first join the group. Leaders
use this time to assess new members' skills and abilities.
Role-Making
Members work on projects and tasks as part of the team. In this stage,
leader expectations are that team members will work hard, be loyal
and prove trustworthy as they get used to their new role.
During this stage, leaders intuitively categorize new team members
into one of two groups (In-Group or Out-Group).
In-Group
Consists of a few trusted members; also known as
followers.
12
Team members who prove themselves loyal,

trustworthy and skilled, are put into the In-Group.
Leaders give members of the In-Group most of their
attention. Special higher quality exchange relationship
exists. This relationship provides members with
challenging and interesting work as they are generally
more dependable, involved and invested. Members are
also offered opportunities for additional training and
advancement and get more one-on-one time with the
leader. Often members in this group have a similar
personality and work-ethic to their leader.
Out-Group
Formal relationship exists
Members are unmotivated or incompetent
Members work is often restricted and unchallenging.
Do not go above and beyond. Do only the job function
they were hired for.
Members tend to have less access to the leader, and
often don't receive opportunities for growth or
advancement. Because of this they have little chance to
change the leaders opinion.
Routinization
During this last phase, routines between team members and their
leaders are established.
In-Group team members work hard to stay in the good graces of their
leaders through trust, respect, empathy, patience, and persistence.
Out-Group members may start to dislike or distrust their leaders. It is
difficult to move out of the Out-Group once a perception has been
established.
Once members have been classified as In-Group or Out-Group, that
classification affects how their leaders relate to them. Those in the InGroup are often seen as rising stars and the leader trusts them to work
and perform at a high level. This is also the group that the leader talks
to most, offering support and advice, and they're given the best
opportunities to test their skills and grow, therefore they're more likely
to develop in their roles. The leader spends little, if any, time trying to
Back to the case: Assupport
a youngand
officer
Ericthe
was
beyond hisBecause
years (Role-Taking).
HeOutdevelop
Out-Group.
members of the
was regarded as having
the are
experience
of a 20
year
veteran
workthe
ethic,
Group
never tested,
they
have
little based
chanceontohis
change
leader's
opinion.which quickly landed him in Sgt. Smiths in-group. Eric
dedication, and productivity
was handed the keys to the citys coveted DARE program and his ability to lead by
example coupled with other leadership attributes landed him a position as an acting
sergeant (Role-Making). After tragedy struck and Eric lost his closest friend as a result
of an on duty accident, this once decorated veteran and well respected member of Sgt.
Smiths in-group soon saw himself on the outside looking in. His work ethic,
demeanor, productivity, and reliability changed which caused fall out amongst he and
his peers as well as those who supervised him. This severe change, despite Sgt. Smiths
support, landed Eric in the out-group (Routinization).
13
Issue 2: Sgt. Smith is a veteran supervisor with 15 years of law enforcement

command experience. Sgt. Smith was Erics first supervisor and arguably
Erics strongest supporter during the early part of Erics career. Sgt. Smith
recommended Eric for assignment as a DARE officer and as an acting
Sergeant in Sgt. Smiths absence. Once Erics performance and appearance
started to slide in the wake of the death of his close friend and fellow officer
Jake, Sgt. Smith gave Eric extra latitude in light of Jakes death. Given that
Sgt. Smith recognized Erics changing behaviors, should he have acted
sooner to address Eric deteriorating performance? How did Sgt. Smiths lack
of action during the early stages of Erics demise affect the outcome of this
situation?
Hierarchal Taxonomy of Leadership Behavior

o Prior to the development of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of
Leadership, literature on the topic of leadership rested on a twodimensional model which included task-oriented and relationoriented behaviors.
o Developed by Gary Yukl (2002) the Hierarchical Taxonomy of
Leadership is a three-dimensional model which incorporates
change among the conventional behaviors. Thus making it
compatible with the relevant literature, despite notable
differences.
o Yukl was influenced by the theories of charismatic leadership and
transformational leadership to add change-oriented behavior to
the existing two-dimensional model.
o In order for a behavior to be considered for a meta-category in
Yukls model, it must meet certain criteria;
The behavior must be directly observable.
The behavior must be applicable to all types of leaders.
14
The behavior must have primary relevance for one metacategory.

The behavior must be grounded in prior theory and
scholarly research on effective leadership.
o Using the Hierarchical Taxonomy, Yukls categories are defined by
the primary objective behind the type of behavior and the
specific behaviors they exhibit; these include the following:
Task-Oriented Behaviors display high efficiency in the use
of personnel and task. They have a high reliability of
services, operations and products. Examples of task
oriented behaviors can include monitoring operations,
short term planning and clarifying responsibilities.
Short term planning is hard to observe however it
has a positive influence on leader/manager
effectiveness.
The reason for clarifying responsibilities is to
coordinate and guide work related activities by
establishing acceptable goals.
Monitoring operations and organizational
performances results in more effective leadership.
Relation-Oriented Behaviors display a strong responsibility
to the mission and the group. They have a high level of
collective trust and cooperation among group members.
Examples of relation-oriented behaviors include
empowering, supporting, consulting, developing and
recognition.
Supporting is the behavior of displaying acceptance,
consideration and concern for followers feelings and
needs in an attempt to help maintain interpersonal
relationships.
Developing is a behavior that involves coaching and
where leaders take on the responsibility of helping to
develop followers skills and confidence.
Recognition is simply the behavior of showing
appreciation and giving praise for positive
performance.
Consulting involves participative leadership which in
turn leads to better organizational decisions and
greater acceptance of those decisions by
subordinates.
15
Empowering gives subordinates the power to make

decisions at their individual discretion. This results in
an increased commitment to implement the
decisions made effectively.
Change-Oriented Behaviors include new and cutting-edge
improvements and have the ability to adapt to external
change. Examples of change-oriented behaviors include
taking personal risks in order to implement change, being
able to envision change, encouraging creative thinking and
monitoring external change.
External monitoring requires the ability to identify
external threats and opportunities. This is particularly
important when the organization is highly dependent
on outsiders to complete the required work.
Envisioning change involved proposes a new idea or
strategy. This is most effective when related to the
values of the followers and when communicated with
confidence and enthusiasm.
Encouraging creative thinking is self-explanatory
however research has shown that this behavior leads
to greater organizational performance.
Taking personal risks is also self-explanatory.
Research has shown this behavior is particularly
relevant for effective combat leadership, however is
does not directly involve the initiation of change.
Back to the Case: According to Yukls guidelines, Sgt. Smith displays all
three meta-categories at various points throughout Erics story, albeit some
behaviors are stronger than other. Like most law enforcement supervisors,
Sgt. Smith is always concerned about the task at hand and grew to rely on
Eric as one of his most trusted subordinates. Sgt. Smiths task oriented
behaviors led to monitoring Erics performance and fulfilling an agency goal
of filling the DARE assignment by naming Eric to the position. Sgt. Smiths
strongest meta-category is undoubtedly relation-oriented behaviors. Early on
in Erics career, Sgt. Smith helped to develop Eric into an above average
officer through consulting and coaching him, which led to empowering Eric to
act in Sgt. Smiths absence. In an attempt to maintain his inter-personal
relationship with Eric, Sgt. Smith displayed acceptance and consideration for
Erics behavior based upon the assumption that Eric was still grieving over
16
the loss of his friend. The weakest meta-category for Sgt. Smith is changeoriented behavior. While it can be surmised that Sgt. Smith took a personal
risk by allowing a subordinate (Eric) to miss assignments, report to work late
and neglect his appearance, there is little evidence to suggest that Sgt.
Smith engaged in any other change-oriented behaviors. Sgt. Smiths
response to Erics problems were certainly did not involve monitoring Erics
external activities and the actions he did take would be considered anything
but innovative or creative. Yukl would likely define Sgt. Smiths leadership
model as two-dimensional.
Issue 3: As the situation encompassing Eric and his career on the department altered, it is clear
his level of commitment and competence changed. When he first joined, Eric was a highly
motivated member, who took on additional responsibilities to show both his competence for the
job and his commitment to the department. After the death of his colleague/friend, Eric returned
to work seemingly unchanged. Shortly thereafter, it became apparent that Eric had simply lost
his zest for his career. His commitment to the organization most definitely changed and, by some
accounts, his competence for what was required of him in his role also altered. Had Sgt. Smith
taken his own steps to adapt his leadership style to match Erics changing state of competency
and commitment, might the outcome for both officers been different?
Situational Leadership
o Hersey and Blanchard (1977)
Otherwise known as SLT, the Situational Leadership Theory first appeared

in the Training and Development Journal as the Life Cycle of Leadership
(Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). The purpose of this original theory is to
predict an optimal style of supervision (defined by leader relationshipfocus and leader task-focus) that can be prescribed for given levels of
subordinate maturity (defined by a combination of subordinate
commitment and competence).
Four combinations of subordinate maturity and leader style were

defined as:
Telling-ideal for the subordinate of a very low maturity

Selling-beneficial for the subordinate of moderately low
maturity
Participating-ideal for the subordinate of moderately high
maturity
17
Delegating-beneficial for the subordinate of very high

maturity
SLT forecasts that follower readiness for self-direction is critical in

determining an optimal leadership style.
Since its inception in 1969, the model has undergone a number of changes
meant to improve it. These major revisions of the model are offered in
Situational Leadership II or SLII (Blanchard, 1985). In the newer version,
the interaction between leader behavior and follower developmental level
has been modified.
The four leadership styles labeled by SLII are as follows:
Directing-the enthusiastic beginner, characterized by low

competence but high commitment benefits from this style
of leadership, defined as low supportive behavior in
conjunction with high directive behavior.
Coaching- the disillusioned learner, characterized by low to

some competence in combination with low commitment
benefits from this style of leadership, defined as high
supportive behavior in conjunction with high directive
behavior.
Supporting- the capable but cautious performer, who is
moderate to high on competence but has variable
commitment benefits from this style, defined as high
supportive behavior in conjunction with low directive
behavior.
Delegating-the self-reliant achiever, who is high on both
competence and commitment benefits from this style of
leadership, defined as low supportive behavior in
conjunction with low directive behavior.
Situational Leadership suggests that a leader match his/her style to the

competence and commitment of the follower, in that the most effective
leaders recognize what their followers need to be most successful and
then adapt their own style to meet those needs.
18
Back to the case: When Eric first joined the force, he displayed high levels of
competency having been a top cadet at the academy and veteran with experience from
several tours abroad. He learned the job very quickly and carried himself with the
experience of a 20-year veteran officer. Sgt. Smith also noted commitment to the
department through his charismatic, dedicated, and respected behavior. He quickly
became a leader in patrol and serve as an acting sergeant on days Smith was absent.
Many officers looked up to Eric as an example of a great officer. Sgt. Smith,
recognizing both his commitment and competency, took the approach of delegating
with Eric, recommending him for the new DARE initiative, an extremely important
program for the city.
After the death of Erics colleague/friend, Sgt. Smith noticed some small
changes in his behavior from un-kept uniforms to late and incomplete reports. Because
of Erics previous commitment and competence for the job and what was the
seemingly added stress of this new life event, Sgt. Smith changed his approach
slightly, moving to an informal, yet supporting leadership style with Eric, vocalizing
his concerns while reminding Eric of his stellar place in the Sergeants mind. While
this new approach sparked a change in Eric, it was short-lived. Instead Eric spiraled
further down, displaying irritability, blowing off the DARE program entirely, and even
getting into an altercation with a fellow officer.
Sgt. Smith couldnt help but reflect on Erics potential, so remained supportive
in terms
his leadership
Eric.ofWhile
he took and
the possible
required competence,
steps of any he
Had
Sgt. of
Smith
recognizedtowards
Erics loss
commitment
supervisor
get Eric
to a healthy
in his
career,approach
Sgt. Smith
was
quitehave
slow
might
have to
altered
his back
leadership
style toplace
a more
coaching
that
could
helped Eric back to a healthy place in his professional life, which could have also
promoted some positive changes in his personal life. This change in approach may
have saved Eric the DUI charge, his career, and Sgt. Smiths feelings of failure.
Issue 4: Throughout the course of the case study, there are multiple decision points that Sgt.
Smith comes to, including giving Eric a pass on failed inspections, ignoring continued poor
performance and ultimately removing Eric from his beloved DARE program. Each point
revolved around a different scenario or set of circumstances making it a challenge for him to
determine what the best course of action to take would be. We see the results of many of Sgt.
Smiths decisions as the case progresses; however, had he used the Contingent Decision Making
process, it is possible the outcome may have changed.
Contingent Decision Making

o Vroom and Jago (1995)
The Vroom and Jago decision making model falls under the category of
contingency leadership in the sense that it depends greatly on the situation at hand
for its recommended course of action. Its used to determine which
decision/leadership style, of which there are five Vroom and Jago mention.
Those Vroom and Jagos five decision/leadership styles are as
follows:
19
AI - You reach a decision alone, employing whatever facts

you have at hand.
AI1 - You reach a decision alone, but first seek some
specific data from those who report to you. You are not
obliged to tell them about the nature of the situation you
face. You seek only relevant facts from them - not their
advice or counsel.
CI - You consult one on one with those who report to you,
describing the problem to each and asking for the persons
advice and recommendations. However, the final decision
is yours alone.
CII - You consult with those who report to you in a meeting
(or portion thereof) devoted to the situation. You receive
their advice and recommendations in this meeting, but the
task of resolving any differences of opinions and of
choosing one or more options is yours alone.
GII - You devote a meeting (or portion thereof) to a
discussion of the situation and identification and
consideration of possible decisions. Your goal is to help the
group concur on a decision. You coordinate the meeting,
facilitate the dialogue, protect minority viewpoints, and
make sure all important factors are considered. Above all,
you take care to ensure that your ideas are not given any
greater weight than those of others simply because of your
position.
According to Vroom and Jagos process, the appropriate leadership
style is determined based off 11 decision heuristics.
The decision heuristics help a leader break down the
situation and then pointing at which leadership style will be
most effective for the given situation.
For reference, the table containing the 11 decision
heuristics can be found in section 9 Teaching Materials
and Tips in this lesson plan.
Back to the case: Throughout Sgt. Smiths story, he is found continually making
decisions on his own, which according to Vroom and Jago would be classified as AI
leadership. There are many leadership scenarios when this style would work with
maximum success. However, as can be seen through the course of the scenario, Sgt.
Smiths solo decision-making may have contributed to Erics downfall. Had he
considered seeking outside help, such as from his supervisors, peers or even his
subordinates (to a limited extent), the rest of the story may have played out differently.
For example, bringing in a group of experienced supervisors may have dissuaded Sgt.
Smith from removing Eric from the DARE program, which was one of the few things
he had left that he cared about.
20
7. Discussion Questions
1) Identify the 3 stages (Role Taking, Role Making, and Routinization) of LeaderMember Exchange Theory in the narrative. How did Eric get into Sgt. Smiths ingroup? Did Eric ever slip into the out-group? If so, how and when did this occur?
Did Sgt. Smith try to reestablish the relationship?
2) How does the Hierarchal Taxonomy of Leader Behavior apply to this story? Which
did Sgt Smith use? Did he use them appropriately and in a timely mannertoo little
too late?
3) Using the Situational Leadership Theory, where did Eric fall on the follower
developmental levels of commitment and competency at the start and end of his
career on the department? What lead to the changes? What leadership approach/es did
Sgt. Smith use with Eric throughout the case study? Is there another leadership
approach that may have worked better for Erics level of commitment and
competency at various stages of his career? Please explain.
4) Using the Vroom-Yetton/Vroom-Jago models of Contingent Decision Making, how
should Sgt Smith have gone about making the various decisions regarding Eric's selfdestruction? Why? What, if anything, should he have done differently?
8. Response to Questions
Question #1: Identify the 3 stages (Role Taking, Role Making, and Routinization) of
Leader-Member Exchange Theory in the narrative. How did Eric get into Sgt. Smiths
in-group? Did Eric ever slip into the out-group? If so, how and when did this occur?
Did Sgt. Smith try to reestablish the relationship?
Relevant Theories: Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Leadership Making Theory
Note to Instructor: Students must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the 3 stages
(Role Taking, Role Making, and Routinization) of Leader-Member Exchange Theory by
identifying examples in the narrative. Students will also justify Erics existence in Sgt.
21
Smiths in-group as well as determining whether he became a member of the out-group.

The point of the question is for the student to articulate, based on LMX Theory where
Eric stood throughout the narrative and was there an attempt on behalf of the leader to
reestablish their relationship.
Possible Answers:
Role taking is when a member joins the team and the leader assesses their abilities
and talents. Based on this, the leader may offer them opportunities to demonstrate
their capabilities. In this case, Eric received the DARE. Role making is the second
phase when the leader and member take part in an unstructured and informal
negotiation whereby a role is created for the member and the often-tacit promise
of benefit and power in return for dedication and loyalty takes place. Trustbuilding is very important in this stage, and any felt betrayal, especially by the
leader, can result in the member being relegated to the out-group. This negotiation
includes relationship factors as well as pure work-related ones, and a member
who is similar to the leader in various ways is more likely to succeed. Eric was
made an acting sergeant due to his leadership attributes. Routinization is the final
phase wherein a pattern of ongoing social exchange between the leader and the
member becomes established. There was an established level of trust between Sgt.
Smith and Eric. Eric was Sgt. Smiths right hand man.
The basic concept behind the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory is that
leaders form two groups, an in-group and an out-group, of followers. In-group
members are given greater responsibilities, more rewards, and more attention. The
leader allows these members some latitude in their roles. They work within the
leaders inner circle of communication. Sgt. Smith could rely upon Eric as he was
a quick learner and was perceived as having the same experience of a 20 year
veteran. Sgt. Smith recommended Eric for the DARE position. Eric lead by
example and was admired by his peers. In contrast, out-group members are
outside the leaders inner circle, receive less attention and fewer rewards, and are
managed by formal rules and policies. After losing his good friend, Eric changed
and soon found himself slipping out of the in-group and into the out-group. Sgt.
Smith gave Eric a pass as he viewed him, despite the major changes in
behavior, reliability and productivity, as a member of his in-group. Sgt. Smith
referred to Eric as his right hand man during a counseling session. Sgt. Smith
blamed any added attention on his supervisor in order to reel Eric back into his
sphere of influence. After repeated attempts to get Eric back to his old form failed,
Eric deplorably slipped into the out-group.
22
Question #2: How does the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leader Behavior apply to this
story? Which did Sgt. Smith use? Did he use them appropriately and in a timely
mannertoo little too late?
Relevant Theories: Yukls Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership
Note to Instructor: Students need to recognize that this theory and question in particular
are both tailored towards the actions of Sgt. Smith as opposed to Erics actions. The focus
is on Sgt. Smith behaviors towards a subordinate who performance is on the decline and
how these behaviors potentially impact the outcome of this case. All student responses
should describe Sgt. Smiths use or lack thereof, each meta-category in his response to
Erics performance and offer suggestions as to what Sgt. Smith could have done
differently.
Possible Answers:
Yukls Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership is applicable to this story as there is

some evidence of all three meta-categories (task, relation & change oriented
behaviors) as displayed by Sgt. Smiths actions.
Sgt. Smith actions from the beginning of Erics career to his demise are indicative
of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership as he utilizes all three behaviors.
Evidence of task-oriented behavior can be seen in the beginning of the story as he
is seen as monitoring Erics performance while working towards agency goals of
filling assignments. Evidence of relation-oriented behaviors can be seen
throughout the story as Sgt. Smith coaches, empowers and attempts to develop
Eric in the beginning. Even in Erics decline, Sgt. Smith attempts to maintain his
inter-personal relationship with him by giving him extra latitude in spite of Erics
deteriorating performance. There is little evidence to show Sgt. Smith engaged in
change-oriented behaviors, although an argument could be made that he took
some personal risks by allowing Erics poor performance to continue hoping Eric
would be able to self-correct.
While Sgt. Smith likely thought he was doing the right thing for Eric at the time,
his application of the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership would likely be
considered as a failure. It was definitely as case of too little-too late. Albeit that
Sgt. Smith displays both task-oriented and change-oriented behaviors, his
application of even the two-dimensional model of leadership can be brought into
question. Sgt. Smith does not display enough task-oriented behavior; he displays
too much relation-oriented behavior and little to no change-oriented behavior.
23
Question 3: Using the Situational Leadership Theory, where did Eric fall on the
follower developmental levels of commitment and competency at the start and end of
his career on the department? What lead to the changes? What leadership approach/es
did Sgt. Smith use with Eric throughout the case study? Is there another leadership
approach that may have worked better for Erics level of commitment and competency
at various stages of his career? Please explain.
Relevant Theories: Hersey and Blanchards Situational Leadership Theory/Blanchards
Situational Leadership Theory II
Note to Instructor: This question may take some time for students to answer, as it requires
dissection of Erics various levels of commitment and competence, as well as Sgt.
Smiths various approaches to leading Eric. The best manner in which to tackle this
discussion is to review one leadership style at a time, giving students the opportunity to
reflect on if/ how Eric may fit the follower developmental level and examples on if/how
Sgt. Smith may have used the respective leadership style in his supervision of Eric. The
suggested answers below describe instances when the various follower developmental
levels were displayed by Eric, what lead to his change in levels, which leadership styles
were used by Sgt. Smith throughout the case, and which approaches may have worked
best for Erics various levels of commitment and competency throughout the case. Some
difference in opinion or perspective and the ability to voice reasons might alter the
responses.
Possible Answers:
Directing
Eric seemingly displayed a high level of commitment when he first

joined the force, displaying charisma, dedication, and the desire to
build relationships with his peers and supervisors. While it is not
certain he was low in competence, it can be assumed that anyone new
to a position is to some degree. While Eric may have had some
applicable experience as a military veteran, he was fresh out of the
academy looking to learn the job quickly.
Sgt. Smith likely used the directing approach when first helping Eric
learn the ropes of his new position.
24
Coaching
Eric, after being given the slide for too long, lost all competency and
commitment for his role. Displaying signs of irritability on shift, he
got into arguments with fellow officers, left calls, handled them
improperly, or failed to show up for them entirely. Eric failed to show
for schedule DARE events and even got into an altercation with a
fellow officer.
Sgt. Smith failed to recognize Erics major change in commitment and

competency. Afraid to take the necessary actions to help Eric back to a
healthy personal and professional place, Sgt. Smith remained
supportive, giving Eric all too much slack. While support can be
helpful to a degree, Eric may have benefited more from tough love that
could have coached him back to a healthier place.
Supporting
Eric, after experiencing the loss of his colleague and friend, lost most
of his commitment to his role. What was once the sharpest looking
officer on shift, Eric now looked a mess. While he showed little signs
of change in competency, minor mistakes he was making on reports
and deadlines show how lack of commitment can alter ones
competency quite quickly.
Sgt. Smith failed to recognize Erics major change in commitment and

slight change in competency, always defaulting back on his star
performance level, giving Eric the slide too many times. As Eric
continued down a slippery slope, Sgt. Smith remained supportive of
life event he had experienced not recognizing the drastic changes Eric
was making in his personal and professional life.
Delegating
Eric moved quickly into the place of the self-reliant achiever. After
quickly proving himself on the force, he became the star performer.
Many felt he carried the experience of a 20-year veteran and even
quickly became acting sergeant on days Smith was absent. He was
someone any officer could look up to as an example.
25
Sgt. Smith recognized Erics competence and commitment to his role

and recommended he run the new DARE initiative, a very important
and new initiative for the city. Sgt. Smith sat back as Eric developed
this program from the ground up.
Question 4: Using the Vroom-Yetton/Vroom-Jago models of Contingent Decision

Making, how should Sgt. Smith have gone about making the various decisions
regarding Eric's self-destruction? Why? What, if anything should he have done
differently?
Relevant Theories: Vroom-Yetton/Vroom-Jago models of Contingent Decision Making
Note to Instructor: This question is designed for students to pick out specific decision
points Sgt. Smith comes to and then apply the Contingent Decision Making model to see
if he used the appropriate leadership/decision style. After applying the model and
determining which style to use, the student must then explain how they made that
determination and then provide a possible course of action for Sgt. Smith to take utilizing
that style.
Possible Answers: Since there are many decision points within the scenario there could
be many answers to this question. Below are a few examples but should give a pretty
strong indication how any other answer given should be presented.
Decision Point: Sgt. Smith must determine what to do about Eric constantly
showing up to work looking unprofessional in his uniform, failing inspections,
and generally not performing to standards. In the story Sgt. Smith makes the
decision alone and chooses to ignore the problems by giving Eric a pass on
inspections.
Potential Answer Using the Model: Based off of the chart containing
the 11 decision heuristics, this may be a situation that is focused on
subordinate development and since it revolves around a quality
issue, Sgt. Smith may want to employ GII. GII involves getting a
group together to come up with a solution to the problem. Since Erics
poor performance is affecting the entire department, getting multiple
experienced supervisors in the room to help Sgt. Smith determine the
most appropriate course of action to take with Eric would be the best
solution.
Decision Point: After Erics continued poor performance despite informal and
formal meetings, Sgt. Smith must decide what further action to take. In the
26
story he decides to remove Eric from the DARE program, which happens to
be one of the only things Eric still cares about.
Potential Answer Using the Model: Based off of the chart containing
the 11 decision heuristics, this may be a situation that is focused on
subordinate development but there may be some differences in
opinion within the department on how to handle Erics unique
situation. Therefore moving to either CII or GII would enable multiple
points of view to enter the discussion and potentially provide more
options for Sgt. Smith. It can be assumed that by removing Eric from
the DARE program was the straw that broke the camels back and let
to his arrest later that day. If this idea was presented to a group of
seasoned supervisors, someone may have pointed that out and avoided
the story ending the way it did.
9. Teaching Materials and Tips

o Leader-Member Exchange Theory
o For more information, see Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995) and Schriesheim,
C.A., Castro, S.L., & Cogliser, C.C. (1999)
o Yukls Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership
For more information see, (Yukl et al., 2002)
o Vroom-Yetton/Vroom-Jago models of Contingent Decision Making
For more information, see (Vroom & Jago, 1995)
o Situational Leadership Theory
For more information, see (Graeff, 1997) and (Thompson & Vecchio,
2009)
LMX Theory
LMX Questionnaire
27
Yukls Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership
28
29
Hersey and Blanchards SLT: Multiple Versions of Follower Attributes
Reprinted from Graeff, C.L. (1997) Evolution of Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical
Review, Leadership Quarterly 8 (2), p. 160.
30
31
Vroom and Jagos 11 Decision Heuristics
10.
Ep
ilo
gue
32
The day after Eric was arrested for DUI, Sgt. Smith went to see him at his home. The
meeting was a somber one. Eric said to Sgt. Smith, Im sorry I let you down. Smith said,
Im the one who should be sorry, Eric.
Several months since the DUI, Eric was in counseling for his alcohol abuse and the
circumstances surrounding it. Eric quit his career with the police department, but was happy
and doing well at his new job. It seemed that he was finally letting go of the things he
couldnt before.
Sgt. Smith had also done some soul-searching in the last several months, specifically in
how he handled the issues with Eric. He has committed himself to changing the way he
would handle a similar situation, such as not ignoring when an officer is dealing with a crisis.
Because of this incident, Sgt. Smith is more in tune with his officers needs.
11. Annotated Bibliography
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical Review.

Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170.
This article discusses the evolution of Situational Leadership Theory. It discusses the
origins of SLT, its strengths, and its criticisms, as well as the second generation introduction
of Situational Leadership II. The article includes a figure helpful in seeing the progression of
the theory in its various versions. It concludes with the discussion of published empirical
studies related to Situational Leadership Theory.
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. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
This theoretical article details the development of the relationship-based approach to
leadership theory.
Schriesheim, C.A., Castro, S.L., & Cogliser, C.C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX)
research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices.
Leadership Quarterly, 9, 63-113.
This theoretical article features prior research conducted on the relationship-based
approach to leadership and details the evolution from vertical dyad linkage to LMX theory of
leadership.
33
Thompson, G. and Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three

versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 837-848.
This article aims to discuss various versions of the leadership dynamics derived from
Hersey and Blanchards Situational Leadership Theory, including the original theory (SLT),
its second version (SLII), and an alternative statement of its essential thesis. The article
concludes with a discussion on the results of a study of Norwegian financial institutions
analyzed for predicted interactions based on the theory. The study concluded that the most
recent version of the Situational Leadership Theory (SLII) was a poorer predictor of
performance and attitudes than its original version. The third version discussed offers
promise for further exploration of the theory.
Vroom, V.H., & Jago, A.G. (1995). Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of
leader participation. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 169-181.
This article provides details on how the Vroom and Jago Contingency Decision Making
model works. It discusses five possible leadership/decision styles to use based off eleven
decision heuristics. The article then dives into providing research data that backs up its
claims on contingency leadership and why leadership styles should be based on the situation
at hand.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-32.
This article provides meta-categories of leader behavior along with the sub-categories
comprised within each meta-category. Yukl expands upon the traditional two-dimensional
leadership model of task & relation oriented behaviors by creating a three-dimensional
leadership model which includes change-oriented behaviors. The article is supported by
integrating previous scholarly research with referent evidence to support adding the third
dimension of change.

Ldrs 801 - Final Case Study Narrative and Teaching Notes - Group D

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ldrs 801 - Final Case Study Narrative and Teaching Notes - Group D

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

Transitioning from the in-group to the out-group

Using the correct Leadership Behaviors

Choosing the appropriate Leadership Style

The leader deciding on the most appropriate course of action

Situational Leadership Theory

Contingent Decision Making

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

It focuses on the dyadic relationship that develops between leaders and

It explains how those relationships can either contribute to growth or hold

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

Team members who prove themselves loyal,

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

Issue 2: Sgt. Smith is a veteran supervisor with 15 years of law enforcement

Hierarchal Taxonomy of Leadership Behavior

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

The behavior must have primary relevance for one metacategory.

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

Empowering gives subordinates the power to make

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

Otherwise known as SLT, the Situational Leadership Theory first appeared

Four combinations of subordinate maturity and leader style were

Telling-ideal for the subordinate of a very low maturity

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

Delegating-beneficial for the subordinate of very high

SLT forecasts that follower readiness for self-direction is critical in

The four leadership styles labeled by SLII are as follows:

Directing-the enthusiastic beginner, characterized by low

Coaching- the disillusioned learner, characterized by low to

Situational Leadership suggests that a leader match his/her style to the

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

Contingent Decision Making

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Bates, Gade, Jackson, Myers, Neuman

AI - You reach a decision alone, employing whatever facts