Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Case Study: Arizona State University, Scaling the New American Research University
Alyssa Arroyo
and members making the relationship between a leader and a member the focal of the leadership
process (Northouse, 2015, p. 137). The interactive exchange between the leader and the member
can potentially design the path to successful advancement within an organization. Northouse
(2015) believes that leader-member exchange theory not only describes leadership, but
prescribes leadership (p. 144). Descriptively, leader-member exchange theory explains that
when using interaction as a focal point, social and personal interaction with a leader can cause a
members relationship to link in two different forms. One form is considered the in-group
which is when a member and leader create a productive relationship in which it motivates the
member to go above and beyond for the advancement of the groups goals. The other form is the
out-group in which a member and a leaders interactions do not produce the same effect and
the members do only the work that is essential to their role. However, there are benefits to the
in-group such as additional time, support and opportunities for growth by the leader.
Prescriptively, leader-member exchange theory suggests that when interaction is a focal point, it
(Northouse, 2015, p. 145). By creating high quality relationships with members, it fosters a
There are four tools I will be using to deconstruct leader-member exchange theory. The
first tool I will be using is an ideological critique, which questions how ideology and hegemony
4). I appreciated that leader-member exchange theory is not a dominant narrative in that this
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 3
specific theory is focused on a member working with a leader as opposed to the traditional
leadership style of a member working for a leader. However, cultural context matters when
deconstructing the theory as it does not give support or reference to how this may look across
The second deconstruction tool I will be using is commodification, which examines the
negative effects that can occur when production and consumption are pursued regardless of costs
(Dugan, in press, ch. 2, p. 5). The descriptive aspect of the leader-member exchange theory
creates a hierarchy of subgroups which send you back to elementary school either sitting at the
popular table, or not. By creating a divide, unintentional or not, the production of this theory can
cause a negative effect on the social dynamic and productivity of the workplace. Depending on
intersectionality, some may see the production of in-groups and out-groups as favoritism, while
The third deconstruction tool I will be using is flow of power which address the mutually
constituting relationship between knowledge and power (Dugan, in press, ch. 2, p. 5). This
theory is heavily based on social interaction and exchange thereby creating flow of power to a
member that is essentially more likeable. This discerns a mutual relationship between
knowledge and power. The leader-member exchange theory explains that a need for a high-
quality leader is imperative for the exchange between a leader and a member to be effective.
However, the theory does not explain criteria for what a high-quality leader-member exchange
may look like, but bases the exchange off of preference such as personality, interpersonal skills,
or job competencies (Northhouse, 2015, p. 147). Essentially, the flow of power is based off of
the leaders social preferences. This can discount individuals who may not be personable or
social which can hinder confidence, inadequacy and motivation in their work.
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 4
The final deconstruction tool I will be using is willful blindness, acknowledging ways we
something is harmful (Dugan, in press, ch. 2, p. 7). I can largely see willful blindness being used
to oversee the negative divide and focusing on the social interaction and relationship with the
In-groups members are willing to do more than is required in their job description and
look for innovative ways to advance the groups goals. In response to their extra effort and
devotion, leaders give them more responsibilities and more opportunities. Leaders also give in-
Due to this theory being based on interaction, someone who utilizes this type of theory may be
willfully blind to the out-group. While out-groups do not receive any special treatment, they do
only what their job is intended to do. We can assume that a leader who uses this type of theory
may be willfully blind to those they are not interactive with and only focus on the growth of the
in-group members.
To reconstruct this theory, Id suggest disrupting normatively and have the leader be
culturally competent, as well as the individuals who work in relation with the leader.
Furthermore, Id suggest that the leader not give special opportunities to someone who they may
have a better relationship with but give opportunities with those who may have the skill level.
breaks down in-groups and out-groups. It is important that both groups and the leader are
equally advocating for the same goal as opposed to individuals partaking in a greater purpose
than others, which can show elitism. This particularly also cultivates agency and a common goal
in the work place. Reconstructing this theory, I would also suggest that the leader member
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 5
commodification and flow of power. Its important that there isnt flow of power only being
received by the member but delegating the responsibilities and opportunities across all staff.
This is important to create healthy dialogue and differing viewpoints and stocks of knowledge.
In reading the case study, there were many pieces that resonated with. Majority of the
case study talked about the accomplishments that the institution created, however largely
attributed to Michael Crow. This was interesting to me as the case study set the tone for Crow to
take ownership of the accomplishments. However, when it came to difficult decisions without a
desirable outcome, he handed that decision to his leadership team. This leadership team was
addressed twice in the case study; when discussing how he built the leadership team and when he
needed them to address budget cuts. Leader-member exchange theory is interactive, meaning
that the leader should be creating relationships with his team. However, in making his leadership
team, the case study references, if you weren't on board with where he was going, it was widely
known that you would surely be left behind (Higgins & Magnuson.2016 p. 7). The leader-
member exchange theory calls for a partnership however, he [Crow] had a perspective about
what to do, but was anxious about the decisions that needed to be made and how they would
impact the enterprise when it came time to make a budget cut (Higgins & Magnuson, 2016, p.
15). This creates a lack of support within the leader and the member which should have been
made within the leadership team together. Furthermore, the makeup of the leadership team came
from backgrounds heavily similar to Crows which gave his team overlapping priorities, not
giving a vision of diversity or discourse. While the decision to make the budget cuts is not
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 6
revealed, I have to question what priority certain funds held as the lens that the budget was
growth and inspiration leading to members feeling supported, valued and purposeful. The most
crucial role of transformational leadership relies on the leader itself. Leaders should not only be
role models for their members but evoke a of vision that creates trust and contribution to the
greater good. According to Northouse (2016), Transformational leaders are effective at working
with people and help build a trust and cultivate collaboration with others to ultimately create a
self-efficacy within not only the members but the greater good they are creating within the
organization (p. 176). In order for transformational leadership to be successful, the leader should
be engaging, involved, descriptive and articulate. In return, members should have a strong sense
of purpose and understanding of how they contribute to the greater good of the organization.
Members should have a sense of community and support to create a positive transformation.
I will once again be using the four tools utilized to deconstruct transformative leadership theory
that Dugan (in press) references throughout Chapter 2. When using ideological critique as a tool,
Northouse (2015) and I have similar views in regards to who may qualify as a transformational
leader (p. 126). There are not specific guidelines or criteria that need to be met to be considered
transformational leader are characteristics that cannot be taught but are behavioral. This critique
concludes that the underlying belief of transformative theory is to be socially engaging and
When using commodification as a tool for deconstruction, the question that particularly
arises for me is, who is doing the leading and to what extent? While I do see some benefits to
they believe in. This type of leadership does not delegate, this type of leadership does not work
collaboratively to make decisions, however, this type of leadership has made the decision and
Transformational leadership results in people feeling better about themselves and their
contributions to the greater common good (Northouse, 2015, p. 176). This statement
particularly is the most concerning. We understand that through willful blindness, individuals
can be susceptible to purposeful ignorance when it benefits themselves. What happens when the
greater common good is biased? What happens when we start questioning, the greater common
good for who? If individuals feel better about themselves, and their contributions, are they more
likely to stand up if its not benefiting the common good and they know that? Power is in the
hands of the leader, which can very easily be abused. Individuals such as Jim Jones, Hitler, Steve
Jobs or my sorority sister who sells Herbalife come to mind. Steve Jobs, and my sorority sister
who sells Herbalife genuinely want to better their community in which they serve. They want to
promote their lifestyle and be a role model. However, there are many who can easily abuse this
type of power. Jim Jones and Hitler are great examples of how this type of power can be abused.
They have great characteristics and personal traits of motivation and creating a vision, however
authority figure with a vision in mind. In reconstructing this theory, I would suggest creating
trust and relationships with individuals different to my social and cultural identity. Furthermore,
while transformational leadership is about creating a vision and wanting people to not only see
and embrace that vision, it is about being a role model and reflection of that vision. To
reconstruct this theory, I would alter the flow of power so that the flow of power was a shared
vision, not a transformed vision through structural leadership. This would then delegate a person
With the reconstructed theory, transformational leadership would have not only
transformed the university into a vision, but it would have done so with a common vision in
mind. The vision of The New Research University would have been modeled through
structural leadership by creating teams that all have the same vision in mind. With the
reconstructed transformational theory, Crow would have created a vision that he wanted to instill
in the university. This vision would not have been a pitch to make everyone understand what he
was doing, but a rally to be on board with his idea. Once individuals were on board, he would
have started to develop a leadership team. Like the reconstructed theory states, his leadership
team would have been individuals from different cultural and social identities unlike his team of
all males with business and science backgrounds (Higgins & Magnuson, p. 7). Thus, when
having a crisis that includes cutting a budget that is more than expected, he would be able to sit
down with his leadership team that represented different lenses of the community and define
what needs to be restructured. While this may be difficult, Crow would not have left the meeting
and left it in the hands of his leadership team. Furthermore, the leadership team would be
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 9
looking out for the vision and also the common good of the students because of the diversity
Conclusion
I would like to start off with what leadership is. While there are many types of leadership
and ways we can define leadership, Heifetz (2010) states as the ability to gain informal
authority: gaining the respect and admiration with which to influence people in informal,
persuasive ways without having to use the coercive mechanisms of formal authority (p. 13).
Would I consider Michael Crow a leader? From the evidence shown in the case study, Michael
Crow did not understand the concept of leadership, he understood the power of formal authority.
He was described as someone who could become intractable when he believed his way to be
right (Higgins & Magnuson, 2016, p. 7). If I were to approach the major leadership issue, I
would address the growth of the community relations over the rapid growth of the vision. While
the vision had many goals, I would have suggested the goals to my staff and rallied for them to
be on board, instead of having it be widely known that you would be left behind if you
werent. (Higgins & Magnuson, 2016, p.7). With these changes, I believe that the core group of
his leadership team would not have been the team to recommend budget cuts. But as a group, we
would have discussed and had a civil discourse with what may make sense, instead of what
would impact the enterprise. (Higgins & Magnuson, 2016, p.15). I believe that if I could have
had a staff who admired my work ethic, trusted me, and had my respect; there would be a civil
discourse about what the budget cuts may look like. I also would not be anxious about these
decisions. I would hope my staff and faculty would trust me and know that their best interest is in
References
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS PAPER 10
Dugan, J. P. (in press). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. San Francisco, CA:
Higgins, M. & Magnuson, N. (2016). Arizona State University Scaling the New American
Group.
Heifetz, R. (2010). Leadership. In R. A. Couto (Ed.), Political and civic leadership: A reference
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.