ORG 5020 Module 2 Leading a Mixed Team: Situational, Path-Goal and LMX Example

One Team, Three Theories: Adapting Leadership to New Hires and Veterans

Student Name

Master of Science in Management, Thomas Edison State University

ORG-5020: Leadership and Management in the Twenty-First Century

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

One Team, Three Theories: Adapting Leadership to New Hires and Veterans

Introduction

The theories in this module share a premise that the first module's approaches lacked: effective leadership depends on the followers and the situation. The module's three theories, as Northouse (2022) presents them, share one premise: a leader should treat the claims processor with two months on the job differently from the one with twelve years. This assignment applies them to a composite team lead in an auto insurance company's claims unit who supervises nine adjusters, four hired in the past three months and five with more than five years of experience. Claims cycle time has risen, two veterans have complained that meetings are wasted on basics, and the new hires say they do not know whom to ask for help.

Question 1: Situational Leadership

Situational leadership matches the leader's style to the follower's development level, defined by competence and commitment on a specific task. Followers range from enthusiastic beginners with low competence and high commitment (D1), through disillusioned learners (D2) and capable but cautious performers (D3), to self-reliant achievers (D4), and the matching styles run from directing (S1) through coaching (S2) and supporting (S3) to delegating (S4).

The four new adjusters are enthusiastic beginners on complex claims and need directing: clear procedures, close review of their first files and specific feedback. The five veterans are self-reliant achievers on routine claims and need delegating, with freedom to manage their own files. The team lead has been using one coaching style for everyone, which over-directs the veterans and under-directs the new hires. Thompson and Vecchio (2009), testing several versions of the model, found limited support for its central matching prescription, although some simpler claims, such as giving new employees more structure, were supported. The model is therefore best used as a practical reminder to differentiate, not as a precise formula.

Question 2: Path-Goal Theory

Path-goal theory holds that leaders motivate followers by clarifying the path to goals and removing obstacles, choosing among directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented behaviors according to the task and the followers. Ambiguous tasks and inexperienced followers call for directive behavior; stressful or tedious tasks call for supportive behavior; capable followers on complex tasks respond to participative and achievement-oriented behavior.

Claims adjusting combines ambiguous judgment calls with tedious documentation. For the new hires, directive behavior on coverage decisions and supportive behavior during the stressful first weeks would clarify the path. For the veterans, participative behavior, involving them in redesigning the slow approval steps that have lengthened cycle times, and achievement-oriented behavior, setting challenging cycle-time goals, fit their capability. Removing the obstacle that new hires do not know whom to ask is a classic path-goal task: assigning each new adjuster a veteran mentor clarifies the path for both groups.

Question 3: Leader-Member Exchange

Leader-member exchange theory focuses on the relationship between the leader and each follower. High-quality exchanges, typical of an in-group, involve trust, mutual influence and extra effort; low-quality exchanges, typical of an out-group, stay within formal job requirements. Dulebohn et al. (2012), in a meta-analysis, found exchange quality associated with job performance, satisfaction, commitment and lower turnover intentions.

The team lead has strong exchanges with two veterans who were peers before the promotion and weaker ones with the others, especially the new hires, who see an in-group they are not part of. Northouse (2022) describes leadership making, in which leaders offer every follower the chance to build a high-quality relationship. The team lead should hold regular one-on-ones with each adjuster, give new hires visible assignments with feedback, and avoid relying only on the familiar veterans for information and favors.

Comparing the Theories

The three theories complement each other.

Recommendations

The team lead should replace the single weekly meeting with a short team meeting focused on cycle-time goals and separate training sessions for new hires, pair each new adjuster with a veteran mentor, delegate routine claims fully to veterans and invite them to redesign the approval steps, and hold monthly one-on-ones with all nine adjusters. Cycle time, new hires' time to independent file handling and the team's engagement scores would show whether the changes work.

Limits of the Theories

Each theory has limits worth stating. Northouse (2022) notes that path-goal theory has received mixed empirical support, partly because it includes so many variables that it is hard to test as a whole, so its value here lies in the questions it prompts rather than in precise predictions. Leader-member exchange theory has strong evidence that relationship quality matters, but it says less about how leaders should build good relationships with everyone, and in-groups can appear unfair even when they form naturally. Applying all three together reduces the risk of following any one too literally, since each catches what another misses.

Conclusion

All three theories point the team lead away from one style for everyone. Differentiating by development level, clearing different paths for different followers and building high-quality relationships across the team are practical changes supported, to varying degrees, by research.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE.

Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837-848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014