In Lesson 3, we learned about the psycho-dynamic approach (Northouse, 2013). Reading this chapter has put a former workplace into a better perspective for me to understand. I always referred to it as a zoo. Not the crazed animals or anything, just the different creatures, in different areas that are happy not sharing the same caged area. After reading lesson 3 I have learned the reasoning behind some of their leadership traits. Let me explain a few…
“The Hippie” – My former inventory manager was quiet the new-age flower child. He had long hair, disheveled appearance and was very into his music. His leadership style was extremely laid back. There was not much that ruffled his feathers. His staff admired his intelligence and were happy to have such a laid back, carefree manage. As I got to know him, I found out the reasoning behind his ways. It was almost as if he came from the 1970s and he had his family origin to thank for that (lesson 3, p4). His parents raised him as if WoodStock never ended.
“The Warrior” – A former first line supervisor reminded me of the warrior archetype (lesson 3, p8). He was a former Marine and his shift were his troops. He ruled with an iron fist and would not except failure. If an employee would not make their productivity goals, he would tell them why they need to change since productivity affects him directly. He always demanded respect. Some of his employees found him to be too hard.
Lastly, there is me. The twenty-something who had a whole lot of knowledge to gain and not enough time in a day to do so. I am a product of my extremely drive mother. As I matured, my leadership style embodied hers. As her child, I was a follower. Some of the things I may in my adult career make me stop and think, “Am I turning into my Mom??”. I will be a go-getter until I have no breath left in my lungs and I have my Mom to thank!
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Denine M Greenwald says
Your analysis of the connection between your “Hippie” manager’s style of leadership and his parents’ Woodstock-style of parenting leadership certainly fits the psychodynamic view of familial patterns of leadership (Northouse, 2013). You did not mention your “Warrior” supervisor’s familial pattern of leadership, but if I had to guess, I would say that his father, and perhaps even his mother, was authoritarian by the way that he “ruled with an iron fist.” Would you agree?
I, also, contemplated the familial patterns of leadership as well as the effect of adolescent experiences on leadership amongst the employees in my workplace (Northouse, 2013). I decided to conduct a little research, and depending on their personalities and workplace behaviors, I asked them one of the following questions: (1) Were they raised by authoritarian parents? (2) Were they raised by lenient parents? or (3) Were they rebellious as teenagers? Every single one responded as I expected based on our studies in psychodynamic leadership.
The weakness with research such as this is the same weakness that the psychodynamic approach has: it is subjective and based on case-studies (PSU WC, 2014). The practical application, however, is what is beneficial about this theory. I feel as if I understand my co-workers a little bit better, as I am sure that you do, and that is the whole point of the psychodynamic approach to leadership. Gaining a better understanding of one’s own personality and the personalities of those with whom he or she interacts, results in a more amicable and effective workplace.
References
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2014). PSYCH 485 Lesson 3: Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/03_lesson/printlesson.html
David L Ryan says
Your analogies involving Carl Jung’s archeotypes seem very fitting. Archeotypes are strong patterns in the human psyche that persist over time (PSU WC L.3, p. 8) and your examples of the hippie and the warrior help us see how the psychodynamic approach to leadership can be applied. The primary aim however of the psychodynamic approach is to raise the awareness of leaders and followers to their own personality types and the implications of those types on work relations (Northouse, 2013). Given your examples it is obvious to me that you clearly understand this concept but I wonder if the leaders you described actually do.
It is my understanding that for the psychodynamic approach to work the leader has to participate in an objective evaluation of his inner self. To me, this is critical because by failing to understand and apply that concept, a leader is basically just doing things whatever way he chooses without understanding why. Additionally, it is not enough for the leader to simply understand his psychology but the leader has to take time to really understand the psychology of his followers in order to be effective (PSU WC L. 3, p. 3). This is not to say people should change whatever personality types they have or that the leader and follower’s types should match. What may at first appear to be an irritant or a conflict may become understanding when one grasps the psychological types involved (Northouse, 2013). To put it another way, regardless of whether you are a leader or follower, take a good hard look at yourself and be more understanding of each other.
References:
Northhouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University, World Campus (2013). Psych 485 Lesson 3: Psychodynamic Approach, Page 3, 8. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/03_lesson/03_page.html