| Course | MAN-3110 Organizational Behavior |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Written exercise: leadership |
| Length | About 854 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | B.S.B.A. in Human Resources/Organizational Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MAN 3110 Module 4
A New Artistic Director After a Losing Season: Contingency, Transformational Leadership and Leader-Member Exchange
Student Name
B.S.B.A. in Human Resources/Organizational Management, Thomas Edison State University
MAN-3110: Organizational Behavior
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
A New Artistic Director After a Losing Season: Contingency, Transformational Leadership and Leader-Member Exchange
After the costly musical analyzed in the Module 3 activity, the board of the Raritan Stage Company, the composite theater in New Brunswick used in these samples, appointed a new artistic director. She inherits a staff shaken by budget cuts, a subscriber base that is shrinking and a company of long-serving artists loyal to her predecessor. The answers below apply Module 4's leadership concepts to her first season.
Question 1: What Does a Contingency View Suggest About Her Approach?
Early leadership research looked for traits or behaviors that would make a leader effective everywhere. Contingency approaches, such as Fiedler's model and path-goal theory, argue that effective leadership depends on the situation: the leader's relationship with followers, how structured the tasks are and how much power the position carries (George & Jones, 2012). The new director's situation is mixed. Her position power is strong, since she controls casting and programming. Her relationships with staff and artists are weak, because she is new and replaced a popular leader. And task structure varies: producing a familiar play is well structured, while rebuilding the subscriber base is not.
A contingency view suggests she should not adopt one style for every task. For structured production work, she can rely on the experienced stage managers and let established routines run. For the unstructured challenge of renewing the audience, she needs to set direction clearly and involve staff in generating ideas. Because her relationships are not yet strong, she should invest heavily in them early, since many contingency models treat leader-member relations as the most important situational factor.
The contingency view also suggests what to delegate. Production scheduling, where established routines work well, can stay with the production manager, freeing the director's time for audience development and relationships, where her involvement matters most.
Question 2: Should She Be Transformational or Transactional?
Transformational leaders articulate an inspiring vision, model the conduct they expect, push followers to question old assumptions and attend to their individual needs, while transactional leaders clarify expectations and reward performance (George & Jones, 2012). The obvious answer for a theater in trouble is transformational leadership, and it does matter. But the evidence suggests transactional behavior is not inferior. Judge and Piccolo (2004) pooled dozens of studies and reported that transformational leadership went with higher followers' satisfaction with the leader and their motivation, but that contingent reward, the core of transactional leadership, was almost as strongly related to many outcomes and sometimes more strongly, and that the two were highly correlated. Only passive leadership, avoiding decisions and intervening only when problems became serious, was consistently ineffective.
For the new director, this means combining both. A clear artistic vision for the theater's next five years, for example new plays drawn from New Jersey's communities, gives staff a reason to commit. Clear expectations and visible recognition, such as specific goals for each department this season and public credit when they are met, give that vision a practical structure. What she must avoid is passivity: delaying hard decisions about the budget or the season while hoping the situation improves.
Her first test will be the budget. Announcing the cuts with a clear rationale, a timetable and a promise to revisit them if ticket sales recover combines the vision and the clarity research supports, while avoiding the passivity that undermines trust.
Question 3: What Does Leader-Member Exchange Theory Warn About?
Leader-member exchange theory holds that leaders develop different quality relationships with different followers, forming high-quality relationships of trust and mutual support with an in-group and more formal, contractual relationships with an out-group. Gerstner and Day (1997) reviewed the research and found that higher-quality exchanges were associated with better performance ratings, greater satisfaction and commitment and lower intentions to leave.
The new director faces a particular risk here. She arrived with two associates from her previous theater, and staff already describe them as her people. If those relationships become the only high-quality exchanges, long-serving staff and artists will see themselves as an out-group, and the commitment and retention benefits research associates with good exchanges will be lost where she needs them most. She should deliberately build strong working relationships across the company: one-to-one meetings with every department head in her first month, invitations to long-serving artists to propose work for the next season, and visible fairness in casting and resource decisions. The aim is not equal closeness with everyone, which is impossible, but giving everyone a real chance to earn a high-quality relationship.
She can also make exchanges visible and fair by explaining how roles and opportunities are assigned. When staff understand the criteria, a close working relationship with some people reads as earned rather than as favoritism, which protects the commitment of those outside it.
Conclusion
Taken together, the three answers suggest a leader who adapts to tasks of different structure, pairs vision with clear expectations and rewards, and works to prevent an in-group from forming around newcomers. Each is a practical choice rather than a personality trait, which is good news for a leader starting in a difficult situation.
References
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2012). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (6th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.6.827
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755
What the MAN 3110 Module 4 instructions ask for
Module 4 of MAN-3110 covers leadership. The written exercise for this module typically asks several questions on leadership approaches, such as trait, behavioral and contingency models, transformational and transactional leadership, and leader-member exchange, often applied to a leader you know or a scenario. Each answer should run several sentences or paragraphs and show that you have understood the readings, as the syllabus explains for written exercises. Use the George and Jones chapters, add research where it strengthens a point, and keep each answer tied to the organization or leader you are discussing. Put your identifying information at the top of the paper. Keep a leader or scenario in view for every answer so the theories stay concrete.
How the MAN 3110 Module 4 example is put together
The exercise begins with a leadership situation that follows from the previous module's group episode, which keeps the course's organization consistent. The first answer analyzes the situation with contingency factors and turns them into advice for different kinds of tasks. The second answer defines both styles, reports what a meta-analysis found about their relative effects, including the danger of passive leadership, and recommends a combination. The third answer explains leader-member exchange, reports correlates from a review and applies them to a specific risk the new director faces, with concrete steps. A brief conclusion ties the three answers together. Each answer ends with advice the new director could act on in her first season.
MAN 3110 Module 4 rubric: what earns full marks
Mentors evaluate leadership exercises on accurate explanation of leadership theories, thoughtful application to a specific leader or scenario, and answers long enough to show the readings were understood. Strong responses compare theories rather than simply describe them and use evidence to support recommendations. Avoiding the assumption that one style is always best, and recognizing what research says about passive leadership, show critical thinking. Clear organization, complete answers to every question, proper citations and the required heading information complete the grade. Mentors also credit answers that compare theories rather than treating each in isolation. Clear links between theory and advice earn the strongest marks.
MAN 3110 Module 4 help: mistakes that cost marks
Leadership exercises often describe a favorite leader in glowing terms and label them transformational without evidence. Explain which behaviors fit the theory and what effects they had. Another weakness is presenting transactional leadership as outdated; research shows contingent reward remains effective. In leader-member exchange answers, consider how in-groups and out-groups form and what a leader can do about them. Keep each answer tied to a specific situation. Our writers can prepare MAN 3110 leadership exercise answers about a leader or scenario you choose, following your module's questions. Check that each theory is described accurately before applying it. Avoid labeling a leader without describing the behaviors behind the label.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More MAN 3110 and B.S.B.A. in Human Resources/Organizational Management sample papers
- MAN 3110 Module 1: Organizational Behavior Written Exercise
- MAN 3110 Module 2: Self-Awareness Exercise
- MAN 3110 Module 3: Group Processes Application Activity
- MAN 3110 Module 5: Capstone Paper
- MAN 4250 Module 3: Written Assignment: How the Firm's Leaders Embed Their Assumptions
- PSY 3630 Module 2: Selection Methods Paper: Weighing Validity and Adverse Impact
- MAN 3310 Module 3: Workforce Planning Assignment
MAN 3110 Module 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free MAN 3110 Module 4 sample paper?
This page shows the complete Module 4 leadership exercise: contingency analysis, transformational versus transactional leadership and leader-member exchange applied to a new theater director, with sources and notes.
Is transformational leadership always better than transactional leadership?
Not always. A meta-analysis found contingent reward, the core of transactional leadership, almost as effective on many outcomes, while passive leadership was consistently ineffective.
What is leader-member exchange theory?
The view that a leader's ties with each follower differ in quality, creating in-groups with high trust and out-groups with more formal relationships.
What do contingency theories of leadership say?
That effective leadership depends on the situation, such as leader-follower relations, task structure and position power.
Can I write about a leader from my own workplace?
Yes, if the exercise allows. Describe behaviors and situations specifically, and protect privacy by describing roles rather than names.