Defining and studying leadership is not as straight forward as it may initially seem to most people. The mere definition of leadership has evolved over time and still today it varies slightly depending on whom you ask. Just to be clear though regarding the modern concept of leadership, certain components should be present. Those components are that leadership is a process, leadership involves influence, leadership occurs in groups, and leadership involves common goals (Northouse, 2013). As for studying leadership, it doesn’t get any easier. Some of the different approaches involve examining the leader’s traits, style, or the situation involved just to name a few. Others are not as simple to comprehend. I am referring to one in particular and that is the psychodynamic approach. When I consider this approach, I immediately conjure up images involving repressed memories and the stereotypical leather couch.
The underlying concept of the psychodynamic approach is that of personality (Northouse, 2013). For me, it is easy to understand that leaders should possess certain traits, that certain styles work better than others, and that the situation certainly should come into play. Maybe it is because these concepts can be taught and have the ability to be applied accordingly. The psychodynamic approach however makes no assumption about good traits or best style and does not attempt to match a style to followers (Northouse, 2013). Additionally, and this is where it gets even more interesting, two assumptions are important to understand when considering the psychodynamic approach to studying leadership. They are that the personality characteristics of individuals are deeply ingrained and very difficult to change in a significant way, and that people have motives and feelings that are buried in the unconscious (Northouse, 2013).
So does this mean that when it comes to evaluating leaders we should follow the proverbial rule and not judge them until we have walked a mile in their shoes, maybe? We can examine the traits a leader possesses, we can examine his or her style, we can examine the context of the situation, and we can examine the interaction between the leader and his or her followers but until we have examined the family upbringing, personal backgrounds, emotions, and drives have we really identified who the leader is or what makes him or her act the way he or she does. Not according to the psychodynamic approach anyway. Our personalities, feeling and motives penetrate deep into our core and may not always be obvious to see and understand. I guess this all means that professional psychoanalysis should be a mandatory prerequisite not only for leaders but also for their follows as well. Not only is it important for each respective leader to have an understanding of his or her own psychology to be effective , but it is just as important for the leader to have an understanding of each of his or her followers as well (PSU WC, L.3, p.3). Given this approach, it would seem to me that we may just run into a shortage of leather couches.
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. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/03_lesson/03_page.html
PSYCH 485 blog
Yours is a very thought provoking post. I am finding studying leadership quite interesting yet also as you say not straight forward. Each approach studied so far is unique and I think every leader can find their place in either one of them. While the traits approach implies that leaders are born not made, the skills approach describes leaders from a skills perspective arguing that skills and abilities can be learned. The psychodynamic approach argues that our first experience with leadership is the day we are born, with our parents being our leaders. Due to that initial socialization with leadership, then like you say our personalities are deeply ingrained. I find the psychodynamic approach emphasis of the importance of a leader to understand their personality types and that of their followers valuable. This is because it makes for easy communication when the leader understands his/her reactions to their followers actions and also when he/she understands why the followers are reacting they way they are due to his/her actions.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
The stereotypical leather sofa is a fantastic analogy of the psychodynamic approach! Many of ones leadership traits come from their family; similar to anxiety and depression. If your mother taught you to be a follower, chances are you will be one too. In my case, my Mom taught me to be a strong leader and never a follower.
I agree with the point you made regarding some leadership traits that are learned. I am a firm believer that if you surround yourself with great leaders, you will soak up some of those good traits. The same goes for the opposite. In my work history, I have been around many types of leaders. Each one has showed me traits I want or don’t want.
I also enjoy the point you made about not judging a leader until you walked a mile in their shoes. As an HR professional, I cannot judge another peer on their leadership skills. They may have more experience and have encountered things I have yet to.
This was a great read!