LDR 300 Week 2 Effective Leadership Behavior Example

What Good Leaders Actually Do: Task, Relationship and Change Behaviors Among the Location Managers of an Ohio Funeral Home Group

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

LDR/300: Innovative Leadership

Week 2 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Hartwell Family Funeral Homes, its managers and its survey results are composites written for a model paper.

Week 1 found that Hartwell Family Funeral Homes, a composite six-location funeral business in southwest Ohio, is well managed but thinly led, and recommended that president Claire Hartwell build a leadership team. Before choosing that team, she wants to understand what effective leadership looks like at Hartwell. Two location managers offer a contrast. Both run funeral homes of similar size, about 230 services a year each. At the Fairfield location, managed by Dennis Kroll for 14 years, five of 13 staff have left in two years. At the Springboro location, managed by Angela Ruiz for six years, no one has left. Families rate both locations highly. This paper reviews research on leadership behavior and uses it to compare the two managers.

Behaviors, Not Traits

Early leadership research tried to identify traits that made people leaders, with mixed results. Researchers then turned to behavior, what leaders do, which has the advantage that behaviors can be observed, measured and learned.

A Taxonomy of Behaviors

Yukl et al. (2002) reviewed half a century of research on leadership behavior and proposed a taxonomy with three broad categories. Task behaviors include planning short-term activities, clarifying roles and objectives and monitoring operations. Relationship behaviors center on people: backing them when work is hard, noticing good work, building their skills, asking their views and giving them room to decide. Change behaviors include monitoring the external environment, proposing new strategies, encouraging innovative thinking and taking risks for change. They argued that effective leaders use behaviors from all three categories as situations require.

Consideration and Initiating Structure

Judge et al. (2004) revisited two classic behavior dimensions: consideration, meaning how much warmth and regard a leader shows the people being led, and initiating structure, meaning how much the leader spells out who does what and how work is arranged. In a meta-analysis of studies over several decades, they found both dimensions related to important outcomes. Warmth and regard went with followers who were more satisfied and motivated, while organizing the work tracked a little more closely with how well leaders and their groups performed. Neither alone was enough.

Traits Compared With Behaviors

DeRue et al. (2011) tested trait and behavioral theories together in a meta-analysis and found that leader behaviors explained more variance in leadership effectiveness than traits did. Transformational behaviors, consideration and initiating structure were among the strongest predictors. The finding supports focusing development on what managers do.

Gathering Evidence at Hartwell

A confidential survey of all 26 staff at the two locations asked how often their manager performed 15 behaviors drawn from the taxonomy, from never to always. Exit interview notes from departing Fairfield employees and turnover records added context. Both managers also answered the survey about themselves.

Task Behaviors

Both managers scored high on task behaviors. Dennis Kroll's staff rated him highest of all Hartwell managers on planning and monitoring: schedules are set weeks in advance and every service is reviewed afterward. Angela Ruiz scored slightly lower on monitoring but high on clarifying roles.

Relationship Behaviors

The difference appeared in relationship behaviors. Dennis's staff rated him low on recognizing contributions, developing skills and consulting before decisions. Exit interviews mentioned that he corrected mistakes publicly and rarely thanked anyone, and that requests for training to become licensed funeral directors went unanswered. Angela's staff rated her high on supporting and developing; she holds a short meeting after each difficult service to check on staff, a recognized need in a job that involves daily contact with grief.

Dennis runs a flawless service and a draining workplace; Angela runs an equally good service and a team that stays.

Change Behaviors

Neither manager scored high on change behaviors, though Angela had piloted a livestreaming setup at Springboro after a staff member suggested it. Dennis said he preferred to wait for direction from the president.

Linking Behaviors to Outcomes

The pattern matches the research. Both managers' initiating structure supports reliable services, which families value. Angela's higher consideration aligns with higher staff satisfaction and no turnover, consistent with Judge et al. (2004). Turnover at Fairfield has costs: each departure means recruiting and training, and experienced staff carry more work. Replacing a funeral director apprentice takes months.

What Staff Said in Their Own Words

Open comments in the survey added detail. A Fairfield embalmer wrote that she never knew whether her work was good until something went wrong. Another staff member described being told about a schedule change by text message an hour before a service. At Springboro, staff mentioned that Angela asked for their opinions before changing procedures and explained the reasons when she could not take their advice. One wrote that after a child's funeral, Angela sent everyone home early and covered the phones herself. These comments show the behaviors behind the survey numbers and make the difference between the two locations easy to see.

Context Matters

Funeral work is emotionally demanding, which may make relationship behaviors more important here than in some other settings. Staff who absorb families' grief need support. In a different setting, the balance might differ, which is why Yukl et al. (2002) emphasized adapting behavior to the situation.

A Behavior Development Plan

Hartwell should help all location managers strengthen behaviors where they score low. For Dennis, the plan focuses on relationship behaviors: thanking staff specifically after services, holding monthly one-on-one conversations about development and correcting mistakes privately. For both managers, change behaviors would be developed by asking each to lead one new service initiative. Progress would be measured by repeating the survey after six months and tracking turnover.

Implications for the Leadership Team

For the leadership team recommended in Week 1, Angela's balance of task, relationship and change behaviors makes her a strong candidate. Dennis's planning strength could be valuable if he develops relationship skills.

Conclusion

Research shows that effective leadership depends on behaviors in three categories, task, relationship and change, and that behaviors predict effectiveness better than traits. At Hartwell, two managers equal in task behavior differ sharply in relationship behavior, and that difference appears in turnover. Because behaviors can be learned, a targeted development plan can raise leadership across the business.

References

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900102