Author: Michael Robinson
In Lesson 5, our leadership class watched a video about a broadcast news professor named Brian Sherman, and we were instructed to analyze his leadership style. The class consensus was that he was high on relationship oriented behaviors and low on task oriented behaviors. This resulted in his students making many errors with respect to the FCC regulations (Lesson 5). Ultimately, Brian had a leadership style that motivated his students and kept them interested and wanting to work for him, but was not very conducive to actually getting the job done. Unfortunately, we have probably all had a Brian in our lives at one time or another. It has been my experience that such individuals typically feel as though they have to choose between sticking to their guns and doing what needs to be done to push their subordinates to success, and being well liked and respected. I want to take the opportunity to expand on this concept and point out that it is really a false dichotomy that results in both failure to achieve the ultimate goal and the leader actually being less respected over the long run.
During my senior year of high school, I had an Advanced Placement Biology teacher named Mrs. Wilkerson (name changed to protect the guilty). Mrs. Wilkerson was one of the most liked teachers in the school. Even those who were normally disinclined to take AP biology would sign up for Mrs. Wilkerson’s class. She was articulate, a dynamic speaker, and gave lectures that really captivated her audience. If there was one word to describe Mrs. Wilkerson’s teaching style, it would be “engaging.” Her students really showed up to class wanting to learn.
However, Mrs. Wilkerson had her shortcomings. Chief among these, was the fact that she really did not stick to the curriculum and give test questions and study items that reflected the types of questions that were ultimately going to show up on the AP examination. The College Board has a very particular, standardized curriculum that needs to be followed in order to be successful on the AP test, and she did not stick to it. Mrs. Wilkerson’s class assignments and projects focused more on current innovations and topics that she thought the class would find interesting, rather than actually teaching to the AP examination. Often, what the next project would be was determined by a class vote. Ultimately, the goal of taking an AP course is to prepare for, and achieve a good score on, the AP examination and get college credit for it. Mrs. Wilkerson failed miserably in preparing her students for this goal, because she substituted topics in the standard curriculum for topics that she thought the class would find interesting. What her students learned, they learned well, but they did not learn what they were supposed to in order to achieve the goal they had their sights set on when they signed up for the class in the first place.
Those students who took Mrs. Wilkerson’s class, who thought very highly of her at the time, came to see her from a much different perspective after they went off to college and found themselves having to take a class they should have gotten out of in high school, because they did not do well on the AP exam. Mrs. Wilkerson’s substitution of necessary topics for topics that the class wanted to study, while making her popular at the time, actually diminished the respect that others had for her in the long run. She also did her students a disservice and ultimately failed to achieve the purpose of the course. This is a problem that usually becomes evident after a while with leaders who emphasize relationships over goals. The gratification they get from their subordinates is only immediate, and fades once the subordinates realize that they are not where they wanted to be. True success, and respect, comes from accomplishing the mission.
Fortunately, one does not have to be sacrificed for the other. A leader that is only concerned with goal achievement, but does not understand the needs of his people, will also fail. What is required is a balance, and finding that balance is the key to becoming a successful leader. The classic leadership studies done at The University of Michigan demonstrate that relationship oriented and task oriented behavior fall along separate continua (Likert, 1961). One can be improved or diminished without increasing or decreasing the other. The challenge for leaders who are in a position like Brian or Mrs. Wilkerson, is to find ways to take what makes their followers gravitate to them, and channel that in a manner that is conducive to achieving the goal, rather than losing sight of it. The track record of success that one achieves over the long run will be its own reward, and result in a lasting respect.
References
Lesson 5: Style and situational approaches. (2014). Retrieved September 24th, 2014, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/002/content/05_lesson/01_page.html
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York; McGraw-Hill.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
I would agree. I think we have all had those types of teachers who we loved to listen to but didn’t exactly prepare us with the knowledge we needed to succeed. In those types of classes, it turns into the responsibility of the students to learn and understand the material, which can be difficult.
In the example of Brian Sherman, he displayed a leadership style with high levels of leader-member relations. In order to increase his leadership effectiveness, he should try to become more task structured. I think that he should remain consistent with his leader-member relations, but add some clear tasks for his students. By doing this, students will know exactly what is expected from them, how to complete them, and why it is important to do so. These students were violating some FCC regulations that could ultimately get them into trouble. Adding task requirements gives students knowledge that they can use in the classroom, as well as later in life if they continue to work in telecommunications. They will benefit from Brian Sherman’s dual leadership styles of both relationship and task oriented.