For this blog post I will attempt to moderately connect what I have learned from both industrial/ organization psychology and developmental psychology. This will be attempted by relating Northouse’s (2016) team leadership chapter with the family unit, an important element often discussed in developmental psychology. Family unit in my use of the term means the parent(s) or guardian(s) and his/ her/ their children. My first idea is best explained by referencing Shaw’s (1981) definition of what a “group” constitutes, as well as referencing Northouse’s (2016) definition of what constitutes a “team”. According to Shaw (1981) a group is composed of at least two people, possibly more, who are independent of each other yet also able to influence one another. In my relation to developmental psychology, the family unit is a group. Northouse’s (2016, p. 363) “team” is a group made up of individuals who need to work together to achieve a shared goal, task, or mission. The family unit can be considered a team at various points in its existence, but likely not constantly. That is, parents and their children may act as a team for specific tasks throughout the day or week, but the parents often separate from their children to go to work and the children do the same when they go to school. I will focus this post on the situations where families most exemplify the team characteristics according to Northouse’s (2016) interpretations of team leadership.
It is important, though not groundbreaking, to mention how parents are synonymous with the leaders and their children are synonymous with the followers. Referring to Northouse’s (2016, p. 138-140) descriptions of the leader-member exchange theory, the family unit’s leadership is predominantly dyadic as parents issue orders down to their children. This exchange is mostly one way as the parents are usually adults, as well as usually more competent than their children; especially when children are very young. I bring this up because Northouse (2016, p. 365) goes onto explain the basic ideas behind “shared or distributed leadership”. For most decisions, namely the important ones requiring an adult’s reasoning abilities and knowledge, children should have little to no direct influence. However, developmental psychology studies often mention how allowing or encouraging decision making participation of the children can boost their sense of autonomy and therefor their sense of control over their life outcomes. In this way, shared leadership in the family unit should be limited to “team” decisions that are not likely to have major negative effects on the family. Allowing children to plan weekend activities or help choose the new living room paint color will likely be beneficial rather than an example of negligence on the parents’ part.
For this portion of the blog I will use a hypothetical, yet not uncommon, situation where a parent acts as a leader of their children within a team. Picture a mother supervising her son and daughter selling baked goods for a school fundraiser outside of the local gas station. Applying the Hill Model for Team Leadership the mother, i.e. the leader, is actively “monitoring” the team, i.e. her children, who are all working towards the same goal of selling as much as possible (Northouse, 2016, p. 366). The mother monitors her children as they are approached by potential buyers. There are various reasons the mother may need to get involved or in this model’s terms “take action” (Northouse, 2016, p. 367). This model goes onto divide action into two broad categories, “internal leadership actions and external leadership actions”. The mother can actively assist her children with the tasks at hand, e.g. “maintaining standards” like ensuring the children are respectful to those approaching the table, or with their emotional needs (relational), e.g. “managing conflict” such as if the two children begin arguing with one another and require intervening authority (Northouse, 2016, p. 367). The mother, much like the leader in this model, likely may need to intervene between the children, i.e. followers, and the environment in some respect. An example of “taking action externally” may be if the mother needs to act as a “buffer” between the children and a possible external threat, say a hungry dog or a local bully picking on her children. The latter may also be considered as the mother “advocating” for her children depending on what the bully is doing or saying (Northouse, 2016, p. 367).
Also important to this concept is the mother’s ability to produce a “mental model” of the situation which is helping her children as they sell goods for a fundraiser (Northouse, 2016, p. 366). Her mental model may include contingencies that may arise and plans for when or if said problems do occur. Adding onto this concept Barge (1996) recommend a leader, the mother in this example, to have as extensive a variety of “skills” or abilities as possible to best use or even create such a mental model. In this way, the mother is more likely to better plan for potential issues, as well as better handle said issues, if she is properly prepared to act in this leadership role. Perhaps a farther stretch, yet still relevant, is how we can often see an experienced parent handling the same situations as an inexperienced parent markedly “better”. Again, many of my observations are not groundbreaking per se, but the models described in this text are considerably more so, or at least highly, enlightening.
Referring once again to the layout of the Hill Model for Team Leadership, there are two important components of the overall effectiveness of the team, which are performance and development. Both components are important in this example as the mother is both desiring her children to perform adequately during this fundraiser as well as for them to both develop by learning from this experience. Development is especially important for children as they are not only developing physically as they age towards adulthood, but mentally and intellectually as well. According to Nadler (1998) performance here can be assessed by the amount of goods sold and money raised. These standards are likely known to the mother and perhaps the children as well. For example, if the minimum amount to be raised for their entire contribution was $200 and they raised $220 so far, they met these expectations, therefor they are performing within standards. Also, according to Nadler (1998) development is represented both through the teamwork exemplified by followers, i.e. her children, and by their successful balancing of fulfilling their own needs in the process. The mother can assess this through how well her children worked together as well as how well they worked, and progressed, over time.
Speaking of effectiveness, Northouse (2016, p. 369) charts both Hackman’s (2012) “enabling conditions of group effectiveness” and Larson’s and LaFasto’s (1989) “characteristics of team excellence” as they relate to each other. First is Larson’s and LaFasto’s (1989) two characteristics of a “clear, elevating goal” and “results-driven structure”. Both are important for maintaining a focus and determination on a specific goal until it is reached, and both are related to Hackman’s (2012) “compelling purpose”. In this scenario the mother must keep her children focused on the main goal, i.e. selling goods for the fundraiser, which is accomplished by fulfilling supporting goals like maintaining a respectful attitude and working together efficiently. Next is Larson’s and LaFasto’s (1989) characteristic of “competent team members”, which is related to Hackman’s (2012) later terminology of the “right people”. A mother cannot change her children for this task, unless she supervised someone else’s children, and so she must do her best with the available followers. Back to the team aspect, Larson’s and LaFasto’s (1989) next characteristics are centered on a unified effort and collaboratively working environment between team members. This was related to Hackman’s (2012) condition of a “real team”, and again applies to the mother’s situation as a leader assisting her children as they work together effectively. The next characteristic described by Larson and LaFasto (1989) is that of standards which had been later related to Hackman’s (2012) recommendation for a leader to make clear the expectations for follower behavior. This can be done by the mother explaining how she expects her children to act in this situation, e.g. respectful. Larson’s and LaFasto’s (1989) next characteristic of team excellence is one of my favorites and likely is any child’s favorite part of helping too; rewarding good results or behavior. Similarly, Hackman (2012) termed this as “supportive organizational context” and this scenario the mother would display this behavior by appropriately addressing the good work and/or results shown by her children and properly rewarding them, as well as clearly addressing the successes. Larson’s and Lafasto’s (1989) last characteristics, “principled leadership”, which basically equates to the leader being firm and resolute in the positive standards and expectations originally set out for the team. This is comparable to Hackman’s (2012) “team-focused coaching” in a sense as this is also centered on the idea the leader has an important part to play in keeping followers on this path. The mother in my example would play an active role in keeping her children along the proper path as they move towards accomplishing their end goal.
References
Barge, J. K. (1996). Leadership skills and the dialectics of leadership in group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 301-342). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Hackman, J. R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal in Organizational Behavior, 33, 428-444.
Larson, C. E., LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right, what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Nadler, D. A. (1998). Executive team effectiveness: Teamwork at the top. In D. A. Nadler & J. L. Spencer (Eds.), Executive teams (pp. 21-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. ISBN 9781483317533
Shaw, M. (1981) Group dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Dynamics (3rd Ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
cyh5382 says
John,
I love that you posted about the connection between the family unit and leadership! I have been developing a similar concept to write about in my blogs, but struggled to find the right approach. I think you did a nice job outlining the similarities. For me, the Leader-Member exchange theory is where this became evident, so I was thrilled to see your thoughts on that.
My favorite part was bringing in the child development aspect, because anyone who has experience with young children knows the importance of what happens in their early life. Graen and Uhl-Bien’s three phases really hit me as almost defining the process of parenthood. Phase 1, the “stranger phase,” reminded me of when a parent would bring their new baby home and basically have no clue how to respond to their needs. But overtime, as the parent learns the baby’s and behaviors, they are better able to meet their needs.
This leads us to phase 2, where there are “improved career-oriented exchanges (Northouse, p. 142).” This is where parents move away from simply providing basic needs and start developing the kind of relationship they will have with that child; basing it upon more trust and respect (Northouse, 2016).
Phase 3 is the “mature partnership (Northouse p. 143).” I think of this as the point where a child reaches greater levels of independence and, much like mentioned in the theory, can begin influencing the parent. Northouse defines the benefits of developing high-quality relationships, including better treatment and communication; something we might see from a child with a strong parental figure. Similarly, low-quality relationships create limited trust (Northouse, 2016).
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership theory and practice, (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
jrk32 says
This was a really interesting post! I like the specific ways you connected leadership principles to parenting, particularly “shared and distributed leadership” from the Northouse text. As you point out, giving kids opportunities to make some low-stakes decisions involving the family is healthy and important. I remember getting that advice when my kids were young. What’s interesting to me is how closely that ties to the theory I chose to talk about this week, The Expectancy Theory. I used the theory to address a work-related problem, but now you have me thinking about how the theory applies to parenting–particularly, how it supports the idea that giving kids opportunities for leadership could be a good motivator for kids to do the things we want them to do (as the theory is focused on motivation specifically)
As described in a good Expectancy Theory article I found by Robert G. Isaac, Wilfred J. Zerbe, and Douglas C. Pitt, the theory a process theory, based in external motivators, that emphasizes the way individuals perceive the working environment and then subsequently interact with it based on what they’ve come to expect in return. A lesson from PSU (referenced below) describes 3 components to the theory: Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence. Expectancy is the confidence level that an employee has in being able to do a job well enough that the desired outcome is even attainable. Instrumentality is how confident an employee feels that the reward will actually come if they do the work. Valence is how much the employee values the promised reward. The theory suggests that all these factors work together to determine whether an employee feels motivated enough to put energy into a project. (The Pennsylvania State University, 2016).
So, for parenting, let’s say you were trying to get your kids to take on a leadership role once a week and make dinner for everyone. The theory states that in order to motivate this behavior, we’d need all 3 components. So, to satisfy Expectancy, the children would need to feel confident that they were capable of cooking a meal adequately enough to get the job done. If not, we wouldn’t be able to go much further. Instead, we’d need to spend some time teaching them the skills they needed first before moving on. Once we have Expectancy, we move on to Instrumentality, which is the level of confidence the child will feel that the reward for doing the chore will come. In some cases, the reward is the recognition and good feeling the child will have for performing an adult activity to completion. Some families are able to give an allowance or offer some other reward as well. But I feel that empowerment is its own reward. 🙂 Finally, and this one’s important–Valence is whether or not the child cares enough about the reward to do the task in the first place. All children are different in this regard. I have one daughter for whom all the money in the world couldn’t make her clean her room. On the other hand, for a couple of bucks, my younger daughter will do whatever I ask her to.
Anyway, I really enjoyed your post, especially the part about empowering kids to be leaders in the household. I saw a connection in your post with the theory I was researching and wanted to share!
References:
Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W. J., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The effective application of expectancy theory. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 212-226.
The Pennsylvania State University. (2016). PSYCH 484: Work Attitudes and Job Motivation. Retrieved from https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/4.+Expectancy+Theory
bdl15 says
Mr. Shepherd,
First off, kudos to you! You’ve developed a phenomenal post here and I thoroughly appreciate how you’ve connected leadership to the dyadic relationship between a mother and her children. I’m a mother myself and I have often connected many of the theories and approaches from this course to parenting as there are many similarities. Sometimes, leading employees in the workplace can be likened to parents leading children. It’s all a matter of the leader (or parent) having more experience in the work situation (or life experience) and attempting to guide the followers (or children) to make the correct choices in various situations.
One of the areas of your post that I was particularly interested in was your example of leader-member exchange theory (LMX) and the dyadic relationship that parents have with their children. You’ve focused on the vertical leadership perspective found between parents’ overseeing the actions of their children and handing down orders to their children. This is true, and in addition, I’d like to add that an additional link to the dyadic dimensions of a vertical relationship such as with a parent and child (Northouse, 2016). The identified connection types between leader and followers that Northouse (2016) points out are followers of the in-group and followers of the out-group. This can be connected to parenting in a number of ways such as an older child who is concerned with earning more freedoms (driving the family car to and from school, going out on a Friday night with friends, etc.) by taking on additional responsibilities in the household (performing extra chores or babysitting younger siblings after school until their parents return home from work) being a part of the “in-group” (Northouse, 2016, p.138). Whereas an older child aligning with “out-group” behaviors that are “based on the formal…contract” which in the case of parent and child relationships would be where the child behaves poorly, backtalks, takes on no additional responsibilities within the family roles, and essentially relies on the parent-child biological relationship for survival until they can escape after the age of 18 (Northouse, 2016, p.138).
Another area of your post that I read and thought to myself, “Yes! Great connection!” was where you described the mental model in the team leadership chapter (Northouse, 2016). It is very true, as a mother I can tell you that you were spot on when you noted that experience helps to handle similar (if not the same situations) better in time. The mental model changes. For instance, my oldest is now 14 and he was born with cerebral palsy so his toddler phase with tantrums and emotional instability lasted a few years longer than with typical children. When he was about 8 years old, I remember him having full-on breakdowns (crying, kicking, screaming) because it was time for bed and the transition from a preferred activity to a non-preferred activity would throw him through a loop, much like a typical child in their toddler years. This would be an everyday occurrence and after a few days without a “good day” I would eventually break down and cry, feeling overwhelmed and lost as to how I could help him. With time though, I figured out that the best way to cope in those situations with him today is to 1) wait it out, 2) not react, I stay calm, 3) I redirect his attention to a positive aspect of bedtime (it leads to school the next day, where he can see his friends and his favorite teacher). He still has the tantrums (his emotional development level is between a 4 and 6-year-old child), but due to the experience of learning how to manage and navigate these types of situations through the years, I have had a much easier time navigating similar situations with his younger sister and brother. I have even gone for months at a time without feeling overwhelmed, now that’s growth resulting from experience, whew!
Back to your post, the effectiveness portion where you connect the “Characteristics of Team Excellence” to parenting, you’ve listed some examples that show you understand each characteristic and how it relates to leadership very well (Northouse, 2016, p.369). I have to admit though, I may have laughed a little when I read the portion where you related “competent team members” to the mother not being able to change her children so she has to do her best with the hand she’s deal (Northouse, 2016, p.369)! Oh, how true! Realistically, with children being so impressionable, the time and work that parents put in with their children to help guide them towards becoming happy, healthy, and productive adults leaves plenty of room from birth to 18-years-of-age to do their best with their children. I suppose this is one benefit of being a parent versus a manager because as a manager, your followers are already adults and you’re trying to mold other people’s adult children into “happy, healthy, and productive adults!”
Overall, thank you for a great read! Your post was entertaining, you had some really great points, and I can see that you clearly understand both the leadership concepts from this course and the child development concepts you’ve used as examples in leadership.
Brandie
Reference:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership theory and practice, (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.