PSY 365 Module 4 Project One Leadership and Motivation Analysis example

Project One: Leadership and Motivation Analysis of a Parcel Depot in Transition

[Student Name]

Southern New Hampshire University

PSY 365: Leadership and Motivation in the Workplace

Module Four Project One

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.

Project One: Leadership and Motivation Analysis of a Parcel Depot in Transition

Organization and Leader

The organization is a composite parcel delivery depot in central Pennsylvania operated by a regional carrier, employing roughly 80 people, most of them the 52 drivers who run its routes. Its manager, Marcus Hale, was promoted from driver eight months ago. The depot's operating measures have improved, but three experienced drivers have resigned, and the depot is preparing for the addition of Saturday deliveries in three months. This analysis examines the relationship between Marcus and his drivers, the leadership approaches that could strengthen it and the motivation issues the final project will need to address.

Factors Shaping the Leader-Follower Relationship

Four factors stand out in interviews with drivers and dispatchers. The first is the role transition itself. Marcus supervises people who were his peers until last year, and several of them resented being passed over or felt he now kept his distance deliberately. The second is contact. Drivers spend most of the day alone on routes, so their relationship with the manager is formed in a few minutes at morning load-out and end-of-day check-in, and Marcus is rarely present at either. The third is communication style: Marcus communicates mainly through posted data and email, which drivers read as impersonal. The fourth is trust in the process of decisions, which the Saturday change is now testing, since drivers expect the region's plan to fall hardest on newer drivers.

Leader-member exchange theory offers a way to organize these factors. Its premise is that a supervisor does not have one relationship with the team but a separate one with each person, some close and marked by trust, respect and favors returned, others kept to the bare contract of the job. Across the studies pooled by Gerstner and Day (1997), followers in stronger exchanges received better performance ratings, liked their supervisor and their job more, felt more committed and clearer about their roles, and were less inclined to quit.

What the Exchange Survey Shows

With Marcus's agreement, drivers completed a short, anonymous seven-item exchange quality survey, rated from 1 to 5, alongside a question about intention to leave. Table 1 shows the results for 48 of the 52 drivers.

Table 1

Leader-Member Exchange Quality and Turnover Intention by Driver Group

Note. Composite survey data.

Interpreting the Results

The pattern is the reverse of what is typical in depots with long-serving managers, where the most experienced drivers often have the closest relationship with the boss. Marcus's former peers report the weakest exchange quality and the highest intention to leave. Interviews suggest why: Marcus has deliberately kept his distance from his old friends to avoid favoritism, and they experience that distance as a loss. Drivers hired after his promotion, who have known him only as manager, rate the relationship higher. The drivers who know Marcus best are the ones who feel he has left them behind. Since these experienced drivers carry the depot's knowledge of routes and customers, their exchange quality is the relationship most worth repairing.

Rebuilding Exchanges With Former Peers

Research on exchange quality suggests the relationship is built through repeated offers of trust, information and support that the follower accepts and returns. For Marcus, that means making specific offers to the experienced drivers rather than treating everyone at the same distance. He could ask three senior drivers to help plan Saturday routes, since they know the residential areas best; share information about regional decisions with them before it is posted; and meet each of the 21 former peers individually over the next two months to ask what they need from him as manager. Favoritism is a real risk, so the same offers should be open to any driver who wants them, but starting with the group whose relationship has weakened most is a reasonable priority.

Transformational Leadership as a Direction

Transformational leadership involves articulating a compelling vision, acting as a role model, stimulating followers to think in new ways and attending to individual needs. Judge and Piccolo (2004) found it had the strongest overall relationship with follower and leader outcomes among the leadership styles they compared. For Marcus, the individualized consideration component matters most, since it addresses the missing personal attention, and the Saturday change offers an occasion to articulate a vision of what the depot can become. The risk is authenticity: inspirational communication does not come naturally to a reserved manager, and drivers may see a sudden change of style as an act.

Servant Leadership as a Direction

A servant leader starts from the question of what followers need to grow and do well, and expects commitment and results to come from answering it. Eva et al. (2019), reviewing two decades of research, described it as a distinct approach centered on one-on-one prioritizing of followers' needs and interests, and found it related to follower attitudes and behaviors beyond what transformational leadership explains. For Marcus, servant leadership may be the better fit. Practical acts of service, removing obstacles on routes, fighting for a fair Saturday rotation, arranging ride-alongs on new routes, suit a manager who solves problems well but does not enjoy speeches. It also speaks directly to his former peers, who want evidence that he is still on their side.

Motivation Issues for Project Two

The analysis identifies three motivation issues the final plan must address. The Saturday change threatens drivers' sense of autonomy and fairness, and without a fair process it could accelerate turnover. Recognition is scarce and impersonal, which leaves drivers' sense of competence unacknowledged. And the depot's goals are almost entirely operational, scan compliance and departure times, with nothing that gives drivers a reason to care about the depot beyond avoiding criticism. Project Two will propose a motivation plan that Marcus could put into practice, combining a servant approach to leadership with specific actions on fairness, recognition and goals.

Limitations

The survey is small and anonymous, so differences between groups are suggestive rather than definitive, and intention to leave does not always lead to leaving. The interviews also relied on drivers willing to talk candidly, who may not represent everyone. Repeating the survey after changes are made would show whether exchange quality improves, particularly among former peers.

References

Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004

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