About twenty-five years ago, I was first introduced to Freud’s ideas. Although somewhat extreme at times, I thought he was brilliant. It was his original ideas and theories that fueled my interest in psychology. Conceptualizing the mind as having different layers was, and still is, an amazing concept even if there isn’t tangible proof. Using hypnosis to treat patients with hysterical paralysis is an antiquated treatment by today standards, but during Freud’s time it was groundbreaking medical treatment. (Northouse, 2013). It was only later Freud determined that “talking therapies” was sufficient. (Northhouse, 2013). He started a movement that has spawned people like Lacan (Female Sexuality, 1985) and countless others to think outside the box. It is not surprising that the works of Freud, and his discipline Jung, are credited with creating the psychodynamic approach to leadership.
The psychodynamic approach to leadership deals with looking at “personality types” and the presentation of proof that certain “personality types are better suited to particular leadership positions or situations.” (Northhouse, 2013). It involves the analysis of the direct relationship between the leader and follower, which is a more believable approach to leadership than the trait approach. (Northhouse, 2013). A leader and his subordinate does not need to be a match in order to be an effective relationship, but a leader is only as good as his followers. (Northhouse, 2013). To fully understand what makes someone willing to follow the leader, an analysis of the relationship between the two seems plausible.
During my adolescent years, my mother and father were the only two leaders in my life. I had a very isolated life. I was the youngest of five and we lived on a farm in the middle of the Amish people. The parenting in my family was of the very traditional, authoritarian kind. For reasons unknown to me, I was naturally drawn towards my mother’s leadership, but appreciated my father’s advice significantly. My father was controlling and obsessed with money. According to Freud, his leadership dynamic would be of the “obsessive personality” type. (Northhouse, 2013). My mother, on the other hand, was the opposite. She and I could talk for hours about anything and everything. She, having come from a wealthy upbringing, did not have monetary desires. Her personality type would fall into the erotic kind. (Northhouse, 2013). What I have learned from my earlier experiences and reading this chapter in Northhouse, is this earlier psychological development created my personality type. With this information, I recognize my tendency to follow leaders that are friendly, social and of the “erotic” personality type. Moreover, as a result of this personality awareness, I can better understand the implications on my work and everyday relationships. (Northhouse, 2013)
I agree that the importance of parental models has decreased in modern families, and therefore, having only two potential personalities to gain leadership experience from is somewhat extinct. (Northhouse, 2013). Modern families are blended, or same-sex, some include working mothers and stay-at-home fathers, others have step-siblings and transgendered members, but my first leadership experience comes directly from only my mother and father. Therein lies my criticism with this particular approach to leadership. I had limited exposure to a variety of personality types and only two personality types to gain leadership experience from. From my limited childhood experience, I became more like one parent and less like the other. Why? What other factors could have played a role in my choice? Perhaps I could have rebelled, or become narcissistic. This approach to leadership does not provide a way to determine or explain why I was drawn to my mother’s leadership as opposed to my father’s.
Freud saw “infantile experience as dominated by raw sexual and aggressive impulses, culminating in the oedipal crisis”. (Freud and Beyond, 1995). Although modern thinking does not support this view directly, it cannot be argued that understanding the parental role is key to understanding leadership. An effective leader will not just understand his leadership style, he will understand how the style came about.
References
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015). PSYCH 485 Module 3: Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1486679/modules/items/15958888
Mitchell,S.A., Black, M.J.(1995) Freud and Beyond. New York: Basic.
Willie Vigil says
I have three children, one of which has already left the nest and is married. I have one that is on the cusp of spreading her wings and my youngest who is just begging to discover himself. Utilizing the psychodynamic approach in understanding myself during and after my divorce and my new role as mother and father was an interesting transaction. Like your father, I too was obsessed with providing and my former spouse fulfilled the same shoes as your mother. Then one day things changed and I became a mother and father to my two younger children. Did I not only have to provide I also had to nurture and console. Understanding my personality and my new role helped my transition into a father that was able to speak with his daughter about things that traditionally a mother would handle. I must admit I wish I had a shotgun and shovel, but I think I did well on those discussions that fathers do not want to have with their daughters. Understanding and applying the psychodynamic approach (although at the time unbeknownst to me) has its advantages in spite of its shortfalls.
REFRENCES
Northouse, P. (2013). Introduction. In Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed., pp. 319-
– 348). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Pennsylvania State World Campus (n.d.). Module 3: Psychodynamic approach Retrieved from
https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp15/psych485/001/content/03_lesson/printlesson.html
Derek Collier Block says
Another interesting side note to this, is that our upbringing consists of more than just our immediate family, it consists of friends, teachers, pastors or priests or rabbis or imams, and others that we encounter during our daily lives, even much later in life, after “we’ve grown up” even.
The expectancy theory deals with the way to motivate others and, according to (Northouse, 2012), it postulates that people are more likely to engage in a task with full effort when they feel that the outcome will lead to something they value and this most likely occurs when such individuals have a since of competency when engaging in the task; e.g., self-belief.
I mention this because, along with the idea of traits, I feel strongly in the piece of psychodynamics which suggests what (Northouse, 2013) refers to as, “childhood and adolescent experiences are reflected in reactions to paternalistic, maternalistic, and familial patters of leadership and management,” (p. 320). He goes on to say that some may rebel against authority; some may accept it but that the psychological development that is unique in each of us designs a unique leader, (Northouse, 2013).
That stated, I feel that even followers go through this process (such as the expectancy theory suggests) so, knowing both pieces will help one to be a better leader.
References
Northouse, P.G. (2012). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and Practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.