Many of us were raised in the “participation ribbon” culture…one in which we are told from a very early age that we can be anything that we want to be if we simply set our mind for achieving our goals. Behind this notion lies one underlying premise: that each of us begins life in a perfectly malleable form, and that we are able to “make” ourselves into something that we originally were not. This thought process does not take into regard any “baggage” we may have as individuals, whether that baggage exists in the form of our heredity, our culture or our genetics. In previous chapters, we studied the psychodynamic and trait theories; which spent considerable time focused on individual’s inherited traits and characteristics. Relative to leadership, the “skills approach” falls along the lines of the belief that, essentially, any individual can become a leader if they develop leadership skills. Northouse (2016) notes that “in the skills approach we shift our thinking from a focus on personality characteristics, which usually are viewed as innate and largely fixed, to an emphasis on skills and abilities that can be learned and developed” (p. 43). However, what skills are important at the various levels of leadership and management? Are the same skills required from a chain-restaurant manager (the 3-ft level) the same skills necessary of the chain-restaurant’s CEO (the 30,000-ft level)?
According to Katz and the skills theory, leadership is dependent on three skills: the technical, the human and the conceptual (Northouse, 2016). Technical abilities include basic job competency; for example, an I.T. professional being well-versed on an operating system. Northouse (2016) notes “technical skills play an essential role in production the actual products a company is designed to produce” (p. 44). Human skills involve our ability to interact with our fellow humans, or our “people skills” (Northouse, 2016). Human skills allow a leader to get people to work towards common goals and build trust amongst their teams (Northouse, 2016). If technical skills are rational intelligence, human skills are emotional intelligence. Conceptual skills represent the ability of a leader to work on ideas, which are central to the creation of an organization’s strategic vision and plan (Northouse, 2016). These skills represent the “big picture” thinking; helping to guide an organization and its followers.
The skills perspective is most important for determining where a leader is in an organization’s hierarchy. For lower level leadership, such as management and supervisory roles, technical skills are most important. The restaurant line manager must have knowledge of most of the tasks that can occur in the restaurant. They don’t need to have a working knowledge of the restaurant’s penetration in various market segments, or margins it makes on a given dish. It is not necessary to focus on “big picture” thinking when you’re operating at a “3-foot” level. However, if your leadership position is in upper management, technical skills dwarf in importance when contrasted with the necessary conceptual skills required to properly steer an organization. An upper manager in our chain-restaurant organization may know the strategic direction of the company without having any idea of how to turn on the fryer. Northouse notes “technical skill is most important at lower and middle levels of management and less important in upper management”, where in upper management “technical competencies are not as essential” (p. 43). It’s important to note that human skills are important at all levels of management and leadership (Northouse, 2016). The degree to which an individual possesses skills in the areas of technical, human and conceptual concepts will be a good indicator of where an individual is in terms of their organization and leadership development. A worker can improve their technical and human skills to become a good manager. Good managers can continue to develop their human skills while grasping conceptual skills required to elevate their leadership breadth and perspective. It’s all just a matter of how much work they want to put in.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Armin Vossooghi says
Hi Kirk, and I have to say I really enjoyed your blog on diverse types of leadership particularly the skills approach. I’ve noticed that you touched basis on Psychodynamic approach which is very similar to trait approach. Unlike Skills Approach psychodynamic approach has to do with a self-knowledge and one’s traits and abilities. In psychodynamic approach we were told that the leader needs to be aware of his or her emotional feedback and figure of his or her behaviors (PSU, 2016).
However, in Skills Approach we understand that leaders are not born leaders and or with a set of skills to take on the world as a leader. Unlike the trait approach, Skills approach focuses on the individual’s abilities to be able to learn the skills to become a leader. According to trait approach however, the individual(s) are born with the gift to lead and ultimately exactly the opposite of skills approach. To get in to skills approach further, there several, to be exact 3, skills that a leader must possess. For one there is the “Technical” skill, which means hands on. This set of skills are used almost by every blue color individual, such as factory workers, contractors and the employees whom work on the assembly line at the General Motors and even software programmers, accountants. In all these mentioned examples these individuals use hands on activity to complete their work. The second one is “Human” skill, which means having the ability to work with people and be aware of one’s objectivity and others viewpoint. Leaders with human skills tailor their own ideas to those they work with or even guide. One example I believe is our own professor. You must be a peoples’ person, have a good attitude and be able to communicate openly with others. Another example of this skill would be therapist and Psychologists / Psychiatrists. The last one according to the skill Approach is the “Conceptual” skill which unlike the other above mentioned two, conceptual skill works with “things” and “ideas”. With this skill, the individual likes to set ideas, and to give a clear example would be an individual who can come up with a detailed plan to help an organization move forward, such as a CEO. Also, I believe entrepreneurs fall under this category as well (Northouse, 2016, Pp. 44-45).
In conclusion, as I have mentioned in my other writings (Discussion and Blog), I believe skill approach its more authoritative, believable and convincing when it comes to leadership. With respect to others, dissidence regarding that trait approach is satisfying when it comes to defining leadership, I truly believe that skill approach is correct. I don’t even need to debate, since we can see the three basic skills associated with skill approach on our daily lives.
References:
Northouse, P.G., (2016). Psychology 485: Leadership: Theory and Practice. Lesson 4: Skills Approach. Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Penn State University, (2018). Psychology 485: Leadership: Theory and Practice. Lesson 4: Skills Approach.
Kirk says
Agreed! I didn’t mean to imply that a CEO alone generates ideas…in my experience in the manufacturing sector, the best ideas for improvement tend to be generated from those closest to the problems, i.e. the workers on the production floor. I think it was Steve Jobs that said “we don’t hire smart people and tell them what to do, we hire smart people and have them tell us what to do”. None of us is smarter than all of us, and when an environment exists where ideas can be brought up for review and respected, that is an environment that will be successful.
Thanks for the feedback!
Kirk
Jessica Marie Boulton says
Thank you for sharing your interpretation on the differences in skills required for varies positions of management. I found it interesting how you mentioned that each set of skills is dependent upon how much work goes into honing a skill. The Northouse textbook mentions that “conceptual skills are central to creating a vision and strategic plan for an organization” (p. 45). Which I can imagine the CEO in charge would come up with such a plan. But I don’t believe the CEO alone would devise the plan. The ability to conceptualize requires ideation, and ideation manifests best after receiving feed back, the ability to bounce ideas off of others to see what sticks and what does not. For a CEO to create a new product or vision for a company, it would require more than just once person’s ability to conceptualize. And feedback from lower level employees and managerial employees would also be important. Possibly a CEO could send out a survey to gather general feedback and use that as grounds for implementing a new plan. From there the CEO could conceptualize ideas and get feedback from upper level management to decide what would be best for the company as a whole. I do not believe that one person alone, whom may have the ability to conceptualize can implement a new plan or product without first testing the market or getting feedback from lower level employees, consumers, and management.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications