Introduction
Leadership is the art of influencing groups of people to achieve positive personal and communal goals. Influence can be achieved through various means, such as persuasion, positive reinforcement, and manipulation. The boundaries between these terms are often blurred, leading individuals to view leadership as deceitful and unethical (Landay et al., 2019). The prompt for this essay describes several situations in which leaders achieve positive outcomes through means that may be seen as manipulative.
One of them, Sister Mary Clarence, achieves her goals through encouragement and words of potential success, even when that outcome is unlikely. Henrik Bunge, on the other hand, promotes fitness as a means to achieving personal and professional success whenever he addresses his employees (Dean, 2019). This essay argues that the examples provided are not manipulation but instead applications of transformational and leader-member exchange theories.
Definition of Manipulation
For this paper, the meaning of the word “manipulation” needs to be defined and agreed on. A standard definition of the term is that it is a way to acquire undue influence over others by lying, omitting key information, or utilizing the follower’s emotions and weaknesses (Kolenda, 2021). One could see the key demands for a method to be considered manipulative.
First, it is the undue influence and the underhanded ways used to achieve it. If a leader resorts to lying or emotion-baiting to get others to comply with their agenda, that person is unethical and manipulative. The second part of the definition concerns the selfish purpose of manipulation. It is not aimed at benefiting workers or the organization as a whole, but rather at accomplishing one’s personal goals (Kolenda, 2021). Doing so also makes manipulation an unethical method of influencing others.
Analysis of Manipulation in Leaders
Sister Mary Clarence
To answer whether the leaders in the provided examples were manipulative, their motives and methods must be evaluated against the framework above. Mary Clarence does not appear to be exerting undue influence, as she is not giving orders or lying to her followers. Instead, she encourages individuals to do their best, even when the likelihood of success is small. She does not appear to be doing so for personal gain, either, and does not take credit for any success. As can be seen, her methods are not manipulative.
Henrik Bunge
Henrik Bunge does not appear to be lying when delivering his message of fitness leading to personal and professional success. Science shows that becoming more active and physically fit can lead to better self-esteem, energy levels, and personal performance (Martschukat, 2021). Influencing his employees to become more physically fit cannot be connected to any selfish personal goals, either. The action is aimed solely at improving one’s employees’ well-being. Henrik Bunge’s influence cannot be considered malignant manipulation either, as it is aimed at improving his workers’ health.
Implications of Leader Manipulation
Based on the working definition used in this paper, manipulation of employees is an inherently unethical and dishonest act. It robs employees of their ability to make informed decisions about what they should or should not do(Kolenda, 2021). It also does not benefit them in any way, turning the practice into direct exploitation.
Should manipulations be discovered, it would lead to a loss of trust and credibility in a leader, with far-reaching long-term consequences. Therefore, manipulations are to be considered a poor and malignant tactic that lends itself to abuse of power and authority in a superior, to the expense of followers and the organization. It is to be avoided if the company seeks to be trusted, make long-term commitments, and preserve its reputation.
Conclusion
To conclude, the leader-member exchange (LMX) model describes the relationship between managers and their subordinates. The bonds between them are described as loose and based on emotional attachment and mutual respect. They do not order followers around; instead, they offer ideas for followers to accept or reject (Kolenda, 2021). It appears that Mary Clarence is using LMX, as she does not present herself as a formal superior to others; instead, she convinces them that the course of action she offers is beneficial to everyone.
Transformational theory, on the other hand, focuses on enacting positive changes within groups, commonly initiated by the decision-maker and structured in a top-down manner. Henrik Bunge appears to be following that paradigm. He seeks to inform and persuade his followers that fitness benefits everyone involved, while remaining a designated leader within his organization (Dean, 2019). He does not appear to be applying pressure to make a change voluntarily, but he takes the opportunities he’s given to influence the people he’s working with.
Manipulation is a malignant form of influence that seeks to deceive followers and to promote the leader’s personal goals. The decision-makers presented in the prompt scenario do not manipulate those who trust them. Mary Clarence is applying LMX to motivate others to undertake complex tasks, while Henrik Bunge uses a transformational framework to improve the fitness levels of his employees. Both are exhibiting proper leadership, with employee-oriented methods and goals.
References
Dean, J. (2019). When the CEO wants you to work out with him. Bloomberg.
Kolenda, C. (2021). Leadership. Rowman & Littlefield.
Landay, K., Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2019). Shall we serve the dark lords? A meta-analytic review of psychopathy and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 183-196.
Martschukat, J. (2021). The age of fitness: How the body came to symbolize success and achievement. John Wiley & Sons.