Leadership ‘means different things to different people’. To what extent does this hold true or not for you?
Leadership is a multifaceted concept mainly because cultural, organisational, and personal values influence it. Recognising this subjectivity is crucial in the context of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, which posits that leaders develop unique relationships with each follower, potentially leading to a varied perception of what leadership entails within the same group or organisation (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
From an HRM perspective, understanding the nuances of LMX is vital for fostering effective leader-follower dynamics. However, LMX theory suggests that it is natural for leaders to form in-groups and out-groups based on the quality of interactions with each member (Dulebohn et al., 2012). This can lead to a disparity in the perception of leadership within the team, as those within the in-group may view the leader as supportive and empowering. At the same time, out-group members may perceive a need for more support and development opportunities.
Critical reflection on professional experiences suggests that leadership effectiveness is enhanced when leaders acknowledge and bridge these gaps (Martin et al., 2016). By striving for high-quality exchanges with all team members, leaders can mitigate the risks of perceived favouritism and its impact on team cohesion and morale. Moreover, a leader’s flexibility in adapting their style to each follower's needs can be seen as a practical application of situational leadership, which aligns with the varied interpretations of what leadership should represent.
Reflecting on the statement, acknowledging the inherent diversity in the interpretation of leadership is accurate and a necessary consideration for effective leadership and follower development (Eagly & Lau Chin, 2010). Through this lens of approaching leadership, the goal is to balance a personal leadership philosophy with the expectations and needs of individual team members.
References
- Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L., & Ferris, G.R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715—1759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280
- Eagly, A.H., & Lau Chin, J. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. The American Psychologist, 65(3), 216—224. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018957
- Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219—247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
- Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67—121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100
SETUPLAN is a global shipping multinational organisation with offices in 75 cities across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. In the past year, the organisation has faced significant challenges, including the haemorrhaging of top organisational talent, with a significant number of senior managers leaving in the past six months alone. After consultation, it has been decided that SETUPLAN needs to strengthen its decision-making capabilities and provide strong leadership at all levels to stem the exodus. Leadership Development has been identified as the required intervention to mitigate the outflow of valuable top talent. You have just been appointed Global Director for Learning and Development at SETUPLAN with the charge to make this happen. You have been encouraged to be as innovative as is necessary. However, you have also been given the following brief: ‘Leadership Development must make sense to the intending user.’ How would you interpret this brief? What is the first thing you would think to do?
In response to SETUPLAN’s brief that ‘Leadership Development must make sense to the intending user’, creating a relevant, engaging, and applicable programme to the leaders’ day-to-day challenges is imperative. As the newly appointed Global Director for Learning and Development, this brief underscores the need for a targeted, practical approach that resonates with the specific needs of SETUPLAN’s leaders.
The first action would be to conduct a needs assessment, drawing from employee feedback, exit interviews, and leadership self-assessments to identify core competencies that require strengthening. This data-driven approach ensures that the leadership development programme addresses current employee retention gaps (Taris & Schreurs, 2009).
Utilising the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory as a foundational framework, the programme would focus on enhancing the quality of interactions between leaders and their teams. LMX emphasises relationships built on trust, respect, and mutual commitment, which are crucial for employee satisfaction and retention (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Practically, the programme would feature experiential learning, such as action learning projects, where leaders tackle real business issues, benefiting from real-time coaching. Digital learning platforms would supplement this with microlearning modules tailored to leaders’ immediate needs, enhancing continuous learning (Noe et al., 2014).
Recognising SETUPLAN’s diverse and dispersed workforce, the programme would integrate cross-cultural leadership and remote team management skills. Leaders must navigate cultural nuances and manage teams virtually to maintain cohesion and performance (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000).
To underline the programme’s relevance and encourage its application, successful SETUPLAN leaders would serve as mentors, sharing their experiences and demonstrating effective leadership within the company’s context. This approach provides relatable exemplars and fosters a mentorship and shared learning culture (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012).
References
- Chaudhuri, S., & Ghosh, R. (2012). Reverse mentoring: A social exchange tool for keeping the boomers engaged and millennials committed. Human Resource Development Review, 11(1), 55—76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311417562
- Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219—247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
- Maznevski, M.L., & Chudoba, K.M. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organisation Science, 11(5), 473—492. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.5.473.15200
- Noe, R.A., Clarke, A.D.M., & Klein, H.J. (2014). Learning in the twenty-first-century workplace. Annual Review of Organisational Psychology and Organisational Behaviour, 1(1), 245—275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091321
- Taris, T.W., & Schreurs, P.J.G. (2009). Well-being and organisational performance: An organisational-level test of the happy-productive worker hypothesis. Work and Stress, 23(2), 120—136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370903072555
