Running head: Theoretical Analysis Assignment

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

Jon Merrill
Loyola University Chicago

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

This case study focused on diversity and multicultural issues at Northeasternish State
University (NSU). The student population at NSU is relatively diverse compared to peer
institutions; however, there has been increased student criticism regarding support services for
Students of Color. To address this issue, the vice-president of NSU student affairs
organizationally restructured the division - establishing an office that would centrally address
students perceptions around advocacy and support. This analysis examines the leadership of
this unit's new director, Dr. Raymond Nguyen, using the leader-member exchange theory and
style approach.
Leader Membership Exchange
The leader-membership exchange (LMX) theory centers leadership within the connection
between leader and follower, focusing on the unique characteristics of each dyadic relationship.
Two types of relationships lead to the formation of an in-group and out-group. Members in the

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

in-group have a relationship with the leader that goes beyond designated job responsibilities and
are mutually beneficial for both parties. Out-group members relationships with leaders adhere
to clearly outlined job responsibilities. Using LMX as lens to analyze this case study provides an
opportunity to understand how leveraging of different relationships granted Raymond more
authority to pursue his goals. Through manipulating the in-group and out-group within his
office, Raymond was able to efficiently move towards his vision while minimizing potential
barriers.
Implications For In-Group
Membership to the in-group is largely dependent on how well the subordinates and leader
work with one another (Northouse, 2012). When restructuring his office, Raymond focused on
recruiting internal colleagues who he had prior work experience with and who shared his vision
for the office (case). The mutually beneficial nature of relationships is a key aspect of in-group
membership. As described by Northouse, "subordinates in the in-group receive more
information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leaders than do out-group subordinate
members" (p. 163). Raymond benefited from in-group members by being surrounded by
individuals who supported his actions and followed his authority. In return, in-group members
were privileged with increased upward mobility and influence. This is evident when Raymond
positioned his new, in-group, staff members as critical liaisons with other departments in the
division (case). This expanded responsibility provided selected in-group members with more
opportunities to professionally connect with other staff members in the university, thereby
making their voices more influential. Arguably, although these staff members voices were more
visible, it was ultimately Raymond's voice being heard. In addition to gaining institutional

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

influence, in-group members were privileged with increased access to knowledge. During staff
meetings, "Raymond and his new hire colleagues at some points appear to have shared language
and knowledge when they communicate in meetings" (case). Sharing knowledge in this context
allowed members to fully complete their responsibilities and foster their self-efficacy: By having
more information, Raymonds staff may have greater trust in their ability to complete their job.
LMX provided an understanding of how Raymond formed relationships to create a group that
could be his mouthpiece in critical areas, while also empowering them to develop professionally.
Implications for Out-Group
In-group membership largely consisted of new staff that supported Raymond's vision.
Raymond limited responsibilities of continuing staff members until he could ascertain their
abilities (case), effectively establishing an out-group. This action had two impacts on out-group
members. First, it located them organizationally in a place where their voice has little impact.
Raymond realigned much of the assistant director's responsibilities so that he would be less
visible within the institution - effectively diminishing the assistant director's ability to advocate
for opinions that differed from Raymond's. Second, limiting their responsibilities and
opportunities to grown in their position may cause these staff members to become stagnated.
Although Raymond and out-group members had a collegial relationship, these employees may
"just come to work, do their job, and go home" (Northouse, 2012, p. 164). This is in stark
contrast to the professional development opportunities of in-group members. There was no
mutually beneficial relationship between Raymond and members of the out-group. In fact,
members of the out-group were systematically disadvantaged. This was made evident in the
inequitable distribution of knowledge. At staff meetings, Raymond was quick to dismiss

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

questions regarding new pedagogical approaches that the office was undertaking (case). Outgroup members not privileged with this information would be unable to fulfill their
responsibilities or need to expend more energy to perform at the same standard as in-group
members. While knowledge was used to empower in-group members, Raymond intentionally
withheld information to keep out-group members in the dark and subsequently limit their voices.
In sum, LMX provided an understanding of how Raymond silenced dissenting voices that could
impede his direction. Through withholding knowledge and responsibilities, the easiest way to
gain additional professional development opportunities was to buy into Raymond's vision.
Conglomeration of Power and Influence
By establishing a clear in-group and out-group based on members affinity for his vision
and direction, Raymond solidified power to operate with little resistance. This is demonstrated
when Raymond renovated the office space with new furniture, paint, and accessories (case).
When the assistant director confronted him about the cost, Raymond was able to easily silence
this opinion because the assistant director had little institutional influence. In this example,
dissenting opinions from the out-group had been silenced. For in-group members, speaking out
against Raymond puts at risk the capital that they have gained. This is explicitly shown when a
newly hired staff members voiced the opinion that the office could not feasibly house both
general diversity education and student advocacy - opting to realign with the vice-president's
original vision (case). After providing this dissenting opinion, at a later staff meeting, this new
hire once again aligns herself with Raymond's vision and "...appears to yield less influence
during the next semester" (case). Through disagreeing with Raymond, this staff member lost all
benefits of in-group membership. In sum, using LMX as lens revealed how Raymond created a

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

system that rewarded buy-in to his vision and disadvantaged otherwise. Although empowered to
fully develop in their position, in-group members sacrificed the freedom to express opinions that
differed from Raymonds.
Style Approach
The style approach views leadership as a function of relational and task oriented
behaviors. Relationship oriented behaviors are focused on the follower and their humanistic
needs. Task oriented behaviors are largely product or outcome focused - task oriented leaders
prioritize the completion of assignments and objectives. This theory postulates that leaders use
different combinations of these two behaviors to accomplish goals. Using the style approach
allows an examination of how Raymond's task and relational behavior were used to achieve his
personal goals. In other words, these two behaviors were used to opportunistically facilitate
Raymonds personal advancement.

Relational Behavior
Raymond's overall style included a preoccupation with perception management work
focused on the goal of establishing a positive perception of his office. As examined through
LMX theory, the relational piece is a strong factor in Raymond's leadership style. Relationships
with staff were used in a way that contributed favorably to the perception of his office. The style
approach envisioned relational behaviors as those that " help subordinates feel comfortable

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

with themselves, with each other, and with the situation in which they find themselves"
(Northouse, 2012, p. 75). This was true for new staff members that bought into his vision; they
were privy to opportunities for growth and development within his office. Furthermore,
Raymond seemed to have a shared language with these staff members (case). This suggests the
existence of consideration behaviors: relationships that include "building camaraderie, respect,
trust, and liking between leaders and followers" (Northouse, 2012, p. 76).
Perception management politics were more evident in his relationships with continuing
staff members. For example, using his previous relationships with staff from across the division,
Raymond worked to gain information regarding the perceptions of his continuing staff (case).
Staff members with a negative perception were made organizationally invisible so that it did not
impact the perception of the overall office. For example, Raymond attributed the past failures of
the office to the leadership of the assistant direction and subsequently reorganized his
responsibilities to make him less visible in the institution (case). Overall, Raymond valued and
nurtured relationships that added to the positive perception of his office. Conversely, he
withdrew and made invisible staff members who did not add to this positive perception.

Task Behavior
Task oriented behaviors were described by Northouse (2012) as those that "facilitate goal
accomplishment" (p.75). Ideally, the goal of this office was to increase advocacy opportunities
for Student of Color populations at the institution. Many of Raymond's actions as director of

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

MSA reflected his preoccupation with perception management and often ran contrary to this
goal. Raymond's first actions were an attempt to centralize all divisional diversity initiatives in
his unit (case). Specifically, he sought to incorporate highly visible and well-funded under his
area of influence. Clearly, this is a political move - these highly visible and successful programs
bolster the reputation of his office and vicariously reinforce his reputation as a leader. These
programs largely included majority diversity education programs which ran counter to the vicepresidents intent for the MSA office.
In addition to attempting to consolidate all diversity programs, Raymond's office saw "an
enormous increase in programming and support services" in the departmental report (case).
Superficially, this report indicates that his office was highly productive and beneficial for
students. However, this is in dissonance with the result of the campus climate survey which
continued to report low Student of Color satisfaction. These two factors suggest that the
programming coming out of Raymond's office was not effective in addressing its original goal.
This disconnect is due to Raymond's preoccupation with the positive perception of his office. In
sum, analyzing Raymond's task oriented behaviors suggests that he prioritized opportunities that
would put his organization, which represented him and his leadership capabilities, in a positive
light. Ultimately, this perception was more important than actually supporting Students of Color.

Opportunistic Style

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

Northouse (2012) argued that opportunistic leaders used a dominate and backup style for
personal advancement. The dominate style is normally used, while the backup style surfaces
under stressful conditions. As examined previously, Raymond demonstrated a high concern for
people so far as they aligned with his views. However, this high concern for people is replaced
with high concern for results when they are related to the perception of his office:
A major issues arises when one of Donna's staff who is working on a collaborative
education program becomes concerned. Based on the amount being expended and the
likely reduction in quality due to few participants, both staff recommend the program be
canceled. Raymond then showed-up and shared that cancellation was not an option. The
program was too high a priority, and too visible among other administrators to cancel.
(case)
This example illustrates how Raymond switched styles when his personal objectives were
threatened. When it became likely that failure was evident the purpose of communication was to
give instructions; the employees in this example became tools to put on this program (Northouse,
2012, p. 79). The style approach lays bare Raymonds primary goal: his perception amongst
other professionals across the division. He pursued this personal goal, subsequently sacrificing
student learning and engagement.
Critique
When using LMX and style approach to analyze this case study, I found that they both
were unable to account for the followers capacity and agency to change their circumstances.

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

10

Since the in-group was constructed around his personal vision, Raymond strictly controlled the
boundary of in-group and out-group and limited change. On the other hand, the style approach
was entirely unidirectional: Followers were essentially objects to be acted upon by the leader.
Both theories focused on the singular relationship between leader and follower; the relationship
between followers was missing. With this depiction, followers were in isolation from one
another. Being in isolation and even perceiving oneself to be in isolation impacts on one's ability
to effect change. Incorporating more emphasis on the construction of the relationship between
followers can increase their capacity to effect change.
Interpersonal relationships are key to effecting change. Boggs (2012), described real
wealth as " the recognition that our deepest need, as human beings, is to keep developing our
natural and acquired powers and to relate to other human beings" (p. 60). This idea manifests
itself differently in the two theories. For LMX theory, the question arises: "How can the series of
dyadic relationships between members be mutually beneficial?" Furthermore, it is necessary to
move beyond the concept of many singular dyadic relationships and re-conceptualize the myriad
of relationships amongst members as a network. Instead of solely subscribing to leaders values,
a network fosters the co-construction of values between leaders and followers. With the style
approach, this appears as examining how the leader fosters relationships between followers. To
address the issue of unidirectional influence, there needs to be a focus on how leaders change or
adapt to the need of the followers, with followers. This idea borrows from constructionism
where "shared-making emerging from the rich interdependencies of organization and their
members" (Ospina & Su, 2008, p. 260) is the outcome of leadership.

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

11

Overall, embedding the individual leader-follower connections amongst the series of

horizontal connections follower-follower connections opens the path for the construction of a
shared experience between all members. Ideally, this follower-follower network can exist
independent of the leader-follower relationship and act as a support net to counteract toxic
leadership. For example, if individuals in Raymond's office with dissenting opinions joined in
solidarity they may be able to accrue enough influence to make change. Furthermore, the staff
member who spoke up could find solace in this solidarity and maintain her opinion instead of
having to concede to Raymond.
Self-efficacy underlies all aspects of this pursuit towards co-construction, especially with
a toxic leader. This resonates with Lipman-Blumen (2005): "but if the 'deviant' individual finds a
single ally.the holdout is psychologically rearmed, ready to fight on for what he or she
believes" (p. 44). In order to speak out, followers need to first possess the self-efficacy to
believe that they can effect change. Without a supportive network, it becomes more difficult and
risky to speak out. However, with the supportive network of colleagues there is more chance of
developing a self-efficacy that is not dependent on the leader, as seen in the case study, and can
reinforce the dissenting opinion.
Application
I viewed one of the main leadership issues in this case study as a lack of dialogue
between the institution, represented by the vice-president, and students. Students at NSU
identified their primary concerns as a "lack of representative diversity amongst the faculty and
staff, non-existent academic support programs, lack of sufficient diversity and cross-cultural
knowledge amongst faculty/ staff, and disproportionate funding of other student subpopulations"

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

12

(case). These concerns can be boiled down to support; however, there are two different types of
support that are being called for: physical support systems and a broader and pervasive
institutional support. The institutional response of elevating the MSA potentially addresses the
physical support piece. However, there is a disconnect between the students and institution on
addressing this more pervasive institutional support.
I believe that a line of communication between the institution and student needs to be
opened before any type of organizational restructuring takes place. Drawing from the social
change model, there needs to be more collaboration and the construction of a common purpose
between the institution and students (Clinete, 2009). Practically, I suggest that the vice-president
organize a town-hall or caucus with Student of Color populations. Logistically, this could look
like a separate one with each cultural student organization or, if time is a factor, provide a few
different opportunities for students of color to voice their concerns. Clinete described
collaboration as requiring "mutually beneficial goals, engaged participants, shared responsibility,
and self-aware individuals" (p. 59). Having a town hall meeting would require self-awareness
from both parties - students need to be able to identify what type of support services they need on
campus and institutional representatives would need to be able to determine the feasibility of
these suggestions based on institutional resources and convey this information. Additionally, this
conversation helps avoid the pitfalls of simply imposing one's view onto others - essentially what
happened in the case study. Wagner (2009) addressed the benefits of working collaboratively:
"working with others and not unto others ensures that those most affected by the change have a
say in what the change should be" (p. 13). Through having a voice in the process of change,
students are co-constructors of addressing the issue and subsequently share a responsibility with

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

13

the institution. As co-constructors, students and institutional representatives can then proceed
with a common purpose and vision.
Ultimately, hosting this town hall discussion is the beginning of addressing issue and not
the sole solution. Ideally, the result of this discussion between students and the institution would
provide the vice-president with a clearer understanding of how to organizationally restructure the
division so that student's needs from physical support systems are met. I conceptualize physical
support systems as those that directly and tangibly support students such as mentorship
programs. Incorporating these types of initiatives in the new MSA may increase the perception
that their voices are being herd. Physical support systems are apart institutional support.
However, there need to be more discussions amongst administration regarding hiring practices
and cultural training of faculty and staff. Hopefully, this town hall discussion can potentially
open up further opportunities for student input in these endeavors and initiatives.

Theoretical Analysis Assignment

14

References
Boggs, G. L., & Kurashige, S. (2012). The next American revolution: Sustainable activism for
the twenty-first century (2nd ed). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Cilente, K. (2009). An overview of the social change model of leadership development. In S. R.

Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding
the social change model of leadership development (pp. 43- 78). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and
corrupt politicians and how we can survive them. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ospina, S., & Su, C. (2008). Weaving color lines: Race, ethnicity, and the work of leadership in
social change organizations. Leadership, 5, 131-170.
Wagner, W. (2009). What is social change? In S. R. Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.),
Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership
development (pp. 7- 42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.