Answer & Explanation:Question 1: 350 – 400 wordsQuestion 2: respond or comment on a, b and c 150 – 200 words on eachThanks.
leader_member_exchange.pdf
path_goal_thoery.pdf
questions_d4_path_goal_theory___leader__member_exchange_theory.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
D4: Path Goal Theory & Leader- Member Exchange Theory
1. When leading a virtual team, which approach, Path-Goal or LMX, would
be more effective? Why? or would one of the other Approaches we’ve
study be more effective? Why? 350 – 400 words
2. Comment on a, b and c below in 150 words
a. LD: I believe that the best approach for leading a virtual team is
the path-goal leadership approach. In an online environment your
main form of interaction is through seeing results from work
performed. It would be easiest to motivate employees through
rewards based on those results. More specifically, directive
leadership would be most useful. This is because it’s necessary for
tasks to be clearly outlined and for people to be held accountable
for them. I would think that team members in a virtual team would
appreciate this style.LMX is not ideal in leading a virtual team
because it is harder and less necessary to get to know everyone. It
doesn’t matter so much whether someone is an acquaintance or
stranger, for example, because the only thing that matters is that
they get the job done. Out-group members tend to show up to
work, do their work, and go home, and this is basically all that is
asked of virtual team members, proving it doesn’t matter your
status to succeed. Because you don’t get to know your coworkers
as intimately as if you were face-to-face, the out-group/in-group
idea from the LMX approach is irrelevant.
b. DC: I believe that the LMX theory would be more beneficial in an
online environment.” Leader member exchange (LMX) theory takes
still another approach and conceptualizes leader ship as a process
that is centered on the interactions between leaders and followers”
Northouse (2016). I think that the leader could also eliminate the
so called “in group” and “outgroup” status of each member because
they would not be required in an online environment. It eliminates
the face to face contact and the fact that people cluster together.
Online is very straight forward with no favorites and each student
knows exactly what is expected of them without and bias or extra
work put on other students. It is very informal and can be done
anywhere there is an internet connection. The leader just needs to
give the guidance and directions to the assignments and answer
any questions that may arise. This way it helps to keep down on
any sort of violation of not knowing assignment dates or special
extra credits for a student doing things for the professor. In turn
D4: Path Goal Theory & Leader- Member Exchange Theory
everyone will feel involved and important and that all of the
students are on an equal standing with the leaders.
c. AJ: Generally speaking, virtual teams work with people who are highly competent
and able to self-manage. Usually there are high levels of trust between leadership and
subordinates as the nature of these teams (and the individuals therein) are highly
independent. There is no office to report to every morning at 8am, which also frees
the team to work more efficiently. While both Path-Goal and LMX focus on nurturing
and adapting leadership styles depending on the follower’s performance and
satisfaction, one of the key differences is that Path-Goal has a strong emphasis on
expectancy theory of motivation (Northouse, 2016). I would imagine this is key with
virtual teams, since a highly motivated team member would be easier to manage in a
virtual environment. Additionally, Northouse (2016) points out that a leader can
choose their variety of leadership based on their types of followers and adjust
appropriately, suggesting, “leaders might exhibit any or all of these four styles with
various followers and in different situations,” (p. 118). For example, if a virtual team
is highly competent, a leader might choose to adapt a Supportive, Participative, or
Achievement-Oriented Leadership style, but may not need to be highly directional
with such an independent team. LMX does focus on the importance of the direct
relationships that must exist between the leader and the follower, and this concept is
certainly important in a virtual team since the team does not see each other face-toface every day. However, the nature of a virtual team suggests these types of
interactions may not be necessary to pay attention to as frequently. Because of this, I
believe the Path-Goal theory offers enough follower adaptability to nurture the dyadic
relationship that LMX so highly esteems, without the negative inferences associated
with in-group/out-group concept. Further developing this idea, I would think that
parts of the Situational Approach would be important to consider in the virtual
environment. Understanding the competence and commitment of each individual
follower is important when approaching leadership from a Path-Goal style as well,
because this can provide valuable insight on what motivates certain groups of
followers and how to navigate roadblocks to help these teams reach their goals.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
