Why is theory so separate from practice? I sometimes feel torn two ways, as a Doctoral student (and now a blogger), I can write about anything I want, and once-in-a-while, even pass myself off as an expert. But as a manager with employees, I am nowhere near an expert. It’s tough to actually lead people; it’s much easier to write about leading them. I think of Jim Collins’ oft-quoted analogy of getting people on and off the bus, and into the right seats on the bus. It’s a brilliant metaphor, and is something organizations should probably take to heart as part of their long-term strategy. Of course, few of us who praise this metaphor actually consider how ruthless it is, and consider the people involved in carrying it out. It is heart-wrenching to sit across the table from someone and fire them or lay them off, because the organization considers them to not be suited for their “bus.” The movie Up In the Air illustrates some of the struggles involved in this. Ignore the soap opera relationships and this movie is really about the struggles of HR professionals justifying their role in layoffs. I wonder if Mr. Collins has ever had to do that personally? Trust me, it’s not fun.

Anderson writes about the ’4AM Club’, where leaders lie awake at 4AM wondering if they have what it takes to do the job or wonder what the next move is. He is brutally honest, but perhaps we need more leaders like Anderson who are willing to say “I don’t know” rather than leaders who promote themselves. Perhaps we would have fewer leadership failures if our leaders were willing to reach out publicly and say they need their team, because their team compensates for their own lack of leadership capacity. Maybe. Or maybe I’m just another idealistic grad-student writing about the hypothetical rather than the practical.

Anderson, B. (2010, October). Confessions of a reluctant businessman: In over my head?. Integral Leadership Review, 5. Download Article here.

The Portable Guide to Management – LeaderLab Papers

A new study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology provides additional support for the efficacy of creating a positive service climate for your employees if you want to enable them to display the service delivery enhancing positive emotions. A service climate is positive to the extent that employees share the perception that supportive resources and conditions (e.g. training, managerial practices, supportive colleagues, HR policies and practices) are available to help them deliver quality customer service.

This study of 211 frontline employees and 63 supervisors of a fashion retailer in China looked at how the emotional exhaustion – feelings of being overwhelmed and exhausted by work – of both employees and their supervisors affected the positive emotional display of employees. As expected, emotionally exhausted employees were less likely to display positive emotions. When the employee’s supervisor was also emotionally exhausted, the employees were even less likely to display positive emotions.

But the severity of this combined emotional exhaustion effect was itself affected by the service climate. When the service climate was less positive, the emotional exhaustion of the supervisor combined with the employee’s emotional exhaustion to have a big effect on the employee’s positive emotional display. But when the service climate was more positive, the relationship between an employee’s emotional exhaustion and positive emotional display was not affected by the supervisor’s emotional exhaustion.

…A positive service climate seems to make employees immune to the potentially adverse impacts of their own and supervisors’ emotional exhaustion. This finding suggests that a positive service climate facilitates employees to internalize service quality norms and to generate a strong motivational force to persist their efforts to deliver positive emotions. However, without such a positive climate, employees are more likely to rely on their supervisors’ state of emotional exhaustion in responding to their own feelings of emotional exhaustion and determining the appropriate level of effort to put into positive emotional display. (p. 373).

If your business is bleeding customers because of lousy service, it’s likely because your employees are so frazzled by your poor management practices and policies that they are simply unable to muster the energy to continuously remain positive at work. It’s a double whammy when your poor practices and policies also affect your supervisors.

Be smart. Consider providing your employees with a positive and supportive service climate one of your primary responsibilities. If you are really smart, you will let your employees help you improve your service climate. Partner with your employees to fix the lousy systems that disable them from impressing your customers.

• Bret Simmons is a business professor at the University of Nevada, Reno.

In Theory X, management assumes employees are inherently lazy, dislike work and will avoid it if they can. Management believes that workers need to be closely supervised and comprehensive systems of controls developed. A hierarchical structure is needed with narrow span of control at each and every level. According to this theory, employees will show little ambition without enticing incentive programs and will avoid responsibility whenever they can. These ideas have been proven counter-effective in most modern practice.

In Theory Y, management assumes employees may be ambitious and self-motivated and exercise self-control. It is believed that employees enjoy their mental and physical work duties. They possess the ability for creative problem solving, but their talents are underused in most organizations. Given the proper conditions, theory Y managers believe that employees will learn to seek out and accept responsibility and to exercise self-control and self-direction in accomplishing objectives to which they are committed.

For McGregor, Theory X and Y are not different sides of the same coin. Rather they are two different coins all together. If managers felt the need to apply Theory X principles, that does not preclude them from being a part of Theory Y. McGregor incorporated Maslow’s hierarchy of needs into his theories. He grouped Maslow’s hierarchy into “lower order” (Theory X) needs and “higher order” (Theory Y) needs. As the influence of McGregor and Maslow’s writings spread, management theorists soon realized the possibility of connecting higher level needs to worker motivation.

Useful Lies

Strengths-based leadership theory is supported by over 30 years of research from the Gallup Organization and others. In addition, it’s core beliefs overlap a variety of other developing theories in personal and organizational psychology including positive psychology and appreciative inquiry. However, many have criticized the fundamental assessment tool of the Gallup Organization, StrengthsFinder 2.0, as unreliable. Recent research has found that when leading teams, strengths-based leadership causes individual team member efficacy to increase, but collective team efficacy to decrease, suggesting that it is not an optimal method for leading teams where cohesion is necessary.

• Intro to Leadership Theory
• Why Theory
• A Word on Theory
• Trait Theory
• Skills Theory
• Style Theory
• Contingency Theory
• Situational Leadership Theory
• Path-Goal Theory
• Leader-Member Exchange Theory
• Transformational Leadership Theory
• Servant Leadership Theory
• Strengths-Based Leadership Theory

The magnum opus of Robert Greenleaf, Servant Leadership is a recent theory of leadership that argues that the most effective leaders are servants of their people. Servant leaders get results for their organization through whole-hearted attention to their followers and followers’ needs. Unlike many approaches to leadership, which offer suggestions on how top-level leaders can influence and motivate those further down the hierarchy, servant leaders puts its emphasis on collaboration, trust, empathy and ethics. The leader should be a servant first, leading from a desire to better serve others and not to attain more power. The assumption is that if leaders focus on the needs and desires of followers, follower will reciprocate through increased teamwork, deeper engagement and better performance.

Greenleaf first presented the theory in a 1970 essay, “The Servant as Leader.” However, numerous others theorists have contributed to our understanding of servant leadership. One theorist, Larry Spears, outlined ten characteristics of servant leaders by analyzing the writings of Greenleaf. These ten characteristics are listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of others, and building community.

Useful Lies

Servant leadership is one of the more popular theories of leadership, especially among Christian leaders who vigorously cite Jesus as the penultimate example of servant leadership. However, its effectiveness in organizations is still being debated. Many researchers and theorists argue that servant leaders can become so focus on the needs of their followers, that the needs of the organization suffer as a result. In any case, Servant leadership theory has a place within the spectrum of leadership theory, as it represents the strongest emphasis on followers of any theory.

Transactional leaders focus on gaining compliance by giving and withholding rewards and benefits. Transformational leaders focus on “transforming” others to support each other and the organization as a whole. Followers of a transformational leader respond by feeling trust, admiration, loyalty and respect for the leader are more willing to work harder than originally expected. Another researcher, Bernard M. Bass, added to the work of Burns by explaining the psychological mechanisms that underlie transformational and transactional leadership. Bass’ work established that transformational leaders demonstrate four factors: individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation (charismatic leadership) and idealized influence.

Useful Lies

Transformational leadership theory is supported by nearly 30 years of research correlating transformational leadership to positive performance outcomes including individual, group and organizational level variables. It also solidified the need to study followers in leadership research. Transformational leadership was the first developed and validate theory to emphasis morals and values in leadership. However, research on the theory is primarily based on the multifactor leadership questionnaire, which has produced inconsistent results. Research has also focused heavily on senior-level leaders. Transformational leadership also has the potential to be used negatively by leaders “faking it.” Regardless, transformational leadership theory is a valuable and widely used approach to studying and teaching leadership.

• Intro to Leadership Theory
• Why Theory
• A Word on Theory
• Trait Theory
• Skills Theory
• Style Theory
• Contingency Theory
• Situational Leadership Theory
• Path-Goal Theory
• Leader-Member Exchange Theory
• Transformational Leadership Theory
• Servant Leadership Theory
• Strengths-Based Leadership Theory

LMX separates these relationships into two groups: the in-group and the out-group. Researches have found that those classified as part of the leaders in-group are often more productive. They are given more trust and take on extra roles within the organization. In contrast, out-group members receive the standard job benefits and respond by performing up to the standard job description. More recent research has identified three phases that each leader-follower dyad goes through as one moves from out-group to in-group: stranger, acquaintance and partner. As the relationship moves from stranger to partner, mutual trust, respect and obligation toward each other develops.

Useful Lies

LMX is widely researched and accurately depicts leader-member relationships. It explains why leaders often develop “go-to” people and utilize their skills more than others. LMX was also the first theory to focus its study on the leader-member relationship, rather than just the leaders attributes or behavior. However, LMX is merely a descriptive theory. While it explains that mutual trust and respect develop as dyads progress, it fails to explain how or why this occurs. Likewise, it accurately explains leader-member interactions but it does not prescribe any method or model for developing in-group relationships.

• Intro to Leadership Theory
• Why Theory
• A Word on Theory
• Trait Theory
• Skills Theory
• Style Theory
• Contingency Theory
• Situational Leadership Theory
• Path-Goal Theory
• Leader-Member Exchange Theory
• Transformational/Transactional Leadership Theory
• Servant Leadership Theory
• Strengths-Based Leadership Theory

According to path-goal theory, leaders help followers be selecting a style of leadership (directive, supportive, participative or achievement-oriented) that motivates followers and helps them move toward the desired reward. In essence, followers are on a path toward a goal, and leaders are there to help followers reach that goal through guidance, coaching and direction. Path-goal theory is a contingency theory, in that it predicts how leaders style will interact with follower needs and the nature of the task. It argues directive leadership for ambiguous tasks, supportive leadership for repetitive tasks, participative leadership for unclear, autonomous task and achievement-oriented leadership for challenging tasks.

Useful Lies

Path-goal theory provides leaders with a practical yet theoretical foundation for discerning which leadership style to select. It also builds on a motivational theory as its foundation. However, path-goal theory is difficult to apply to organizations because it utilizes so many, interconnected assumptions. Despite building upon a motivational theory, path-goal theory does not fully explain how leadership styles affect follower motivation, which is one of many reasons why it lacks a strong research supporting its claims.

• Intro to Leadership Theory
• Why Theory
• A Word on Theory
• Trait Theory
• Skills Theory
• Style Theory
• Contingency Theory
• Situational Leadership Theory
• Path-Goal Theory
• Leader-Member Exchange Theory
• Transformational/Transactional Leadership Theory
• Servant Leadership Theory
• Strengths-Based Leadership Theory