acb5493

Leadership Theory 101

December 14, 2012 by acb5493

When I applied for a commission in the United States Navy, I had to sit on a board where a panel of five Naval Officers would ask me random questions on topics ranging from naval history to leadership. Undoubtedly, a candidate sitting on one of these boards always gets asked the question: “What is your leadership style?” To which I replied, “Uhhh, effective?” Needless to say, I am not a Naval Officer. However, next time I sit on a board I will confidently be able to say. “I am a mix between S2, S3, and occasionally S4 on the SLII model; it kinds depends on the situation.” Now what does that mean?

The SLII model is a chart that shows how the two leadership behaviors blend together to form the four different leadership styles (Northouse, 2013). S 1 is the high directive -low supportive style, S2 is the high directive-high supportive style, S3 is the high supportive-low directive style, and S4 is the low supportive-low directive style (Northouse, 2013). Each approach has its own set of advantages and disadvantages; each is good for certain situations, which I guess is why it is explained under the situational approach.

SL two.jpg I rarely use S1, or the directing style of leadership, but have used it before when time is of the essence. When something needs to be done in an instant, a leader does not have time worry about supporting the subordinates feelings or concerns. A good example of when to use the directing, or S1 style, is in combat situations. Leaders sometimes have more information that the subordinates do, because they are more in-tune with the over-arching communication. In these situations, clear, precise directions need to be followed quickly and accurately. If not, lives and mission objective could be at risk.

S2, or the supporting style is used when teaching someone to perform a task for the first time. I clearly explain my instructions and give lots of feedback and praise when they do something right and wrong. I most frequently use this style when I am working with new recruits, who need a lot of direction and support. Just telling them what to do would be almost the same, but by giving them support, I can build their confidence, plus hear their feedback and questions on the task they are performing.

The S3, or supporting approach is my favorite of the four. As a leader, I really want the people that work for me to know that I trust them. The opposite of the S3 approach is micro-managing, and is by far my least favorite trait in a leader, for this reason, I try to remain as favor from that trait as I can. The S3 approach is useful for bring out employees skills and developing their problem-solving, because they make decisions and handle issue, but a leader is still there for support if they run into any issues.

Lastly, I occasionally use S4, or the delegating approach. Sometimes I use this approach when testing how a more experienced, young guy handles adversity. I will present them with a challenging problem, and tell them to go figure it out. This style is used a lot in the Navy, and is sometimes referred to as “Baptism by Fire”, because you are basically throwing a person in the middle of a problem with no direction. The delegating approach can be very effective and training and developing leaders, but in my opinion is not for everyone, and should not be used in heavy doses. In my experience, when I worked for leaders who delegated too much, I always thought they were lazy, and didn’t care. So I try to only use it in situations where a lot of learning by the subordinates and evaluation by the leaders can be accomplished.

Knowing what the leadership styles are can help you to apply them, or a combination of them, when you are faced with different situations as a leader. It is important to remember however, that a leader should not fix on one style, and should instead move around the model as the situation and subordinates dictate.

References

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

The Psychodynamic Approach

December 14, 2012 by acb5493

Are you a good leader? I always wonder that about myself. How do people view me? What do they think about when I ask them to do something? What do they say about me when I am not around? Unless you are the most supremely confident person in the world, chances are you have thought about this at one point in time.

5 months ago, was transferred from Maryland to San Diego, to go back to a deployable helicopter squadron where I fly in the back as a rescue swimmer and crewchief. This is a normal situation in the military, you move from place to place. However, the different thing about this move is that I had moved up enough in rank to be put in the position of leading 25 other rescue swimmers as the Leading Petty Officer (LPO). This was a huge step for me and a big difference from my previous positions.

The first day at work I felt like I was light-years behind. People were coming and going, I was getting weird looks, and overall people were avoiding me. I didn’t like it all, and didn’t like it because I didn’t know anybody. The next day, I got up in front of my shop (work center) and gave a big speech. I said things like “Things may change…”, “I don’t like this…”, and “This is how it’s going to be done…”. Well, it did not go over well. My Chief Petty Officer sat me down and gave me some advice. He said, being the new guy in the shop is hard enough; don’t make it harder by trying to make everyone know you the first day. Next, he said not to make any changes for the first few weeks, just sit back and observe the way people work and interact. Last, he said be yourself, don’t change who you are just because you are in a leadership position. I didn’t know it then, but my Chief was telling me to use the psychodynamic approach.

The psychodynamic approach has to do with personality (Northouse, 2013). More specifically, how we interact with other people in the environment of the workplace. The psychodynamic approach focuses on the way a leader leads based on what the followers personalities are (Northouse, 2013). So when I came in the second day, and put my foot down, I was doing so without any consideration for the personalities I was working with. Now don’t get me wrong, you don’t have to worry about anyone’s personality when you are a leader, but if you are constantly asking yourself: “I wonder what they think about me?” You might need to be a psychodynamic leader. In that case, you should worry about other people’s personalities.

What I should have done that second day was sit down and watch, and get to know the people I was going to be leading, or as Northouse puts it, analyze the relationship between the leader and the follower (2013). I could have figured out what was appropriate for me to do when it came to leading each person, before I addressed the group as a whole. Now I want to make myself clear, I might not have changed anything at all about my speech, but at least I would have known who I was alienating and who I was inspiring. After my speech, I could have gone to the people that felt alienated and explained myself a little more, in hopes of connecting with their personality. The psychodynamic approach will also increase your awareness as a leader (Northouse, 2013). Understanding why people react to certain situations the way they do allows the leader to control the actions of the people he or she is leading, so they can use them to his or her advantage. For example, a coach is getting ready to lead his team on to the field for a big game, he wants to get them fired up. Who do you think the coach turns to? The kicker? Or the amped up linebacker who is easy to get going? Because the coach understands his subordinates using the psychodynamic approach, he is able to go to the linebacker, and call him out, get him all fired up, and use the linebackers reaction to motivate and fire up the rest of his team.

The last piece of advice my Chief gave me was to be myself. Your subordinates and followers are trying to figure you out, just like you are trying to figure them out. They are analyzing you and your reactions just like you do to them when they are reacting to your leadership. If you are being someone you are not, overly laid-back, demanding, or scatter brained, they are going to have a hard time learning how to follow you. In an article by Shelley Kirkpatick and Edwin Locke, they state that “Leaders can gain trust by being predictable, consistent, and persistent and by making competent decisions” (1991, p. 54). I’m sure all of us have experienced a person that you didn’t know who you were going to get that day, the bubbly happy -go-lucky person, or the cold, heartless demon with no soul. If your followers cannot gauge who you are, how are they suppose to know who to be. Being the same person everyday is easier to do when you are being yourself, and consistency is much easier when you do not have to act like someone you are not.

Many of the styles and approaches to leadership we have learned about in this class are things we may have already been familiar with. Like myself and the psychodynamic approach. After reading the lesson, I went to the Chief who gave me the advice about laying back and learning about my people and told him that he was telling me to use the psychodynamic approach. After hearing this he looks at me with a smirk and says, “What do you think you are smarter than me now because you read a book, smart guy?” Man, I’ll never understand that guy.

References

Kirkpatick, S. and Locke, E. (1991) Leadership: do traits matter? Retrieved on December 14^th, 2012 from http://sbuweb.tcu.edu/jmathis/Org_Mgmt_Materials/Leadership%20- %20Do%20Traits%20Matgter.pdf

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Likeable Leaders?

December 14, 2012 by acb5493

Chances are, somewhere down the line in a career, a leader or boss you have had to follow has not been someone you send a Christmas card to. But does a likable leader really matter? There is no doubt that an effective leader, who is also likeable, is the perfect mix, but people shouldn’t be picky. But if you had to choose, would you pick likeable, or effective?

When I reported to my first squadron in the Navy, I was pleasantly surprised at first with my laid back, personable supervisor. Usually, Chief Petty Officers in the Navy are brash, demanding individuals with high standards that have been shaped by years of tough, Naval service. My supervisor however, was soft spoken and demanded that we refer to him as “Lumpy” his call sign, instead of the more formal term “Chief”. At first his attitude was a welcome break from the past leaders who seem to always want more from us young sailors. Lumpy did care what we did as long as we showed up for work on time. He would frequently take young sailors out to lunch, and arrange work center golfing trips. On weekends he would throw parties at his house and let underage sailors drink, as long as they promised to stay there until the next morning and the alcohol wore off. He was a cool, likeable person, but his leadership skills where another thing. Very little emphasis was placed on training and daily work, and he would rely heavily on the leaders who worked underneath him to “be the bad guy” and make other people hand out difficult work assignments. Other work centers in the squadron would place extra work on our work center, and Lumpy would never stand up to the other supervisors, because he was too laid back and nice. Soon we realized that Lumpy wasn’t the best thing for us.

When it was time for Lumpy to move on to the next assignment, our work center anxiously waited for our new supervisor. When he arrived, he quickly let us know that the old “buddy-buddy” system of the past was gone. “I’m not here to be your friend, drinking buddy, or golf partner,” he said “I’m here to make sure you all take care of business and get taken care of.” “Any Questions?” he demanded. The old ways were defiantly gone, work was done while at work, training picked up, and performance increased. It turns out we didn’t need another friend, we needed a boss, and while he was not even close to likable, he was a much better leader.

Now that I think back, I like the second supervisor better, because I realize that he actually cared about us. He made sure the younger sailors were getting the training they needed and stop the outside work from other work center supervisors. He wasn’t friendly, and nobody hung out with him on weekends, but he did his job well and the other people in the work center began to realize what an actual leader is supposed to do. Robert Schwarzwalder, a senior vice president at the Family research council says, “Character counts far more than likeability. A person can be winsome, charismatic and funny, and also be a serial adulterer. On the other hand, someone might be socially stiff and a bit awkward and be an exemplar of sterling virtues (2011).” How a leader performs for his people is what should count the most in determining how good a leader is. According to Northouse, the definition of leadership is, “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (2013).” Lumpy didn’t lead us to achieve any goals; he just wanted to have fun, which is ok, but not if you are sacrificing your subordinates’ careers at underage parties and long lunches. Likability can vary from person to person, and trying to be friends with everyone can be exhausting. Instead leaders should focus on leading their subordinates to be better. They may not like you in the short term, but will most likely respect you for it later down the road when they are successful.

However, I want to make it clear that don’t think leaders should be jerks on purpose. Leaders sometimes need to make tough decisions, and those decisions (like working over a weekend to catch up) might not be popular with everyone. But the perfect leader is one that is likeable and effective, and uses his or her likability to influence their subordinate to achieve their goals. As a leader, you want people to work for you because they want to, not because you are telling them to.

References

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Schwarzwalder, Robert. (2011). How important is likeability in leaders? Retrieved on November 20^th, 2012 from http://www.troymessenger.com/2011/12/09/how-important-is-likeability- in-leaders/

Do Ethics the Ethics of our Leaders Really Matter?

December 14, 2012 by acb5493

I thought it was interesting how the scandal with CIA director David Petraeus almost matched up with our lesson on ethics and leadership. The scandal broke because of a relationship with a writer that was oddly enough writing a book about Petraeus and his leadership. This story got me thinking though; do the ethics of our leaders really matter? Technically, yes, but not in the way most people think. Let me explain my point of view by comparing the Petraeus scandal to the three different approaches to making decision regarding moral conduct contained in Northouse: ethical egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism (2013).

First ethical egoism states “that a person should act to create the greatest good for himself or herself” (Northouse, 2013, p. 425). Basically, do what is best for you. Certainly this can be applied to the scandal, as Director Petraeus was thinking only about himself when he was engaging in the alleged affair. But if he had believed in ethical egoism, his actions are moral and ethical to him, or people who agree with ethical egoism, because he is bettering himself and that is all this is important.

Second, utilitarianism states that we should behave a in a way that creates the most good for the most people, while producing the least amount of harm to others (Northouse, 2013). In this sense, you could argue the Petraeus situation two ways. One, the act itself (the affair) was only harming his wife and family (which I’m not downplaying) or two; his act harmed the CIA and the Army because his leadership was synonymous with the two organizations. Depending on which way the scandal is viewed can make his actions hugely unethical, by harming the integrity of everyone involved in the CIA and Army, or just make him look like a scumbag for cheating on his wife and family.

Last, altruism is the belief that “actions are moral if their primary purpose is to promote the best interest of others” (Northouse, 2013, p. 425). Certainly by altruistic standards what Petraeus allegedly did was unethical and immoral. Now, look at the results of each category, they are all different.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that the ethical behavior of our leaders is subjective. There are many people that would have no problem with what Petraeus did because they do not feel that it affected his leadership at all. While on the other hand, some people would be so disgusted with the heinous act of adultery that they could never follow another order he gave ever again. I guess this example I bring up relates back to a common theme throughout this course, that followers play a much bigger role in leadership than we all think. In fact, a book by Barbara Kellerman called Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders states: “followers are more important to leaders than leaders are to followers, because it is followers that influence other followers to take action” (2008). The differing groups of opinions in the scandal were caused by followers speaking their opinions. Petraeus, who has served in service of his country for 38 years, and has done remarkable things in difficult leadership in situations like Iraq and Afghanistan, was undone because of the opinions of followers, not because his leadership was ineffective.

But do the opinions and views of followers really change the fact that Petraeus was a great and effective leader in difficult circumstances? No, Director Petraeus is a good leader; his leadership only became ineffective when people found out about his unethical behavior. This brings me back to my initial question: Do ethics and leadership really matter? Yes, but only when people find out or know about your unethical behavior. Petraeus was an effective leader one day, headed most likely to higher positions because of his success. Then, the next day he was a nobody. His leadership didn’t change, but what did change was his followers views of him. This is why I think ethics and leadership will be difficult to study going forward. The differing values of people, coupled with secrecy, and the emerging importance of followers is going to make studying the ethical aspects of leadership challenging due to the board scope of the subject. The real subject people should be studying is ethics and followership, because that is what really matters when it comes down to leadership ethics.

A link to a review of Kellerman’s book can be found at: http://www.ciozone.com/index.php/Management/Why-Followers-Matter.html

References:

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Leading into Danger with Transformational Leadership.

December 14, 2012 by acb5493

On August 5^th, 1864 Vice Admiral David G. Farragut commanded a Union fleet of ships in the Battle of Mobile Bay against the Confederate Navy. Greatly outnumbered and out gunned, Farragut devised a strategy that would have his fleet ships advance into the bay in two columns, with the heavier ships on the side facing the enemy to protect the smaller wooden ships (Symons, 2008). When the first ship in the column was hit and disabled, Farragut maneuvered his ship around the damaged ship and drove head-on into the confederate mine field. It was then that Farragut shouted his now famous line: “Damn the torpedoes!” (Symons, 2008). The other ships in the fleet abandoned the strategy and followed Admiral Farragut’s ship into harm’s way. The Union feat eventually defeated the Confederates, which dealt a serious blow to their navy (Symons, 2008). This story is an example of people following leader into a dangerous situation, and begs the question: What makes people want to follow certain individuals into what seems like a deadly situation? Why did all of those ships and Sailors pull out of line, sacrificing their protection, to sail head first into a mine field? This phenomenon, which is what I think it is, can be explained by transformational leadership.

First, Farragut used transformational leadership to inspire his men to head into harm’s way. One of the most important factors that a transformational leader must possess is inspirational motivation (Northouse, 2013). Making people believe they can achieve things and attain goals they never thought they could is the first step needed to make people do unbelievably amazing things. Also, when you are inspiring people to do something dangerous, it is important that the leader and the follower share the same goals and visions. There is no doubt that the other Sailors on those Union ships believed in one United States and that they could defeat the more powerful Confederate ships, the same can be said for people who follow leaders into dangerous situations now. For example, the Seal Team 6 rescue mission that saved the life of an American doctor held captive by terrorists is a story getting a lot of attention right now. Can you believe what would have happen if the leader of the unit didn’t agree with the person who gave the order to go on the dangerous mission, which ultimately cost the life one of the team members? Making sure the values and goals of the leaders and followers mesh has to be one of the most essential factors in being transformational leader.

Almost just as important, people need to feel like they are essential to the situation. As Northouse mentions, leaders need to communicate the integral role the individuals play in the successful complete of the task (2013). I know I personally would be less inclined to stick my neck out in a dangerous situation if I wasn’t fully convinced that my role was absolutely necessary. This is why transformational leaders need to be able to clearly demonstrate the ability to communicate their goals, plans, and directions to everyone involved in the task. Sometimes this can be more difficult than it sounds, in my opinion, just telling someone they are important is not enough. Leaders need to be able to say why everyone is important, and make the most basic jobs sound like they are absolutely necessary for mission or task accomplishment.

Transformational leaders also need to have a lot of charisma. Leaders who are asking their followers to enter dangerous situations have to make their followers want to emulate them; they have to be idolized by their followers (Northouse, 2013). Respect, trust, and an abundance of intelligence are necessary to develop the kind of charisma theat must be wielded to ask someone to put their lives at risk. At the time of the Battle of Mobile Bay, Admiral Farragut was a well respected, seasoned leader, that had been sailing as a member of the Navy since he was 8 years old (Symons, 2008). Farragut didn’t just step on to the deck of the ship and ask the crew to sail through a mine field. Years of consistent leadership, sound judgment, ethical decisions, and fair practices put Farragut, and puts other leaders, in positions to ask followers to do amazing and dangerous things. Perhaps time should be added to the list of negatives for transformational leadership, it takes time to develop that kind of relationship with followers. It may take months or even years to build enough trust and understanding to do some of the dangerous things leaders ask followers to do.

Because of the time it takes to develop a transformational leadership, followesr become very important to the overall process of transformational leadership. Getting people to place their own welfare aside to accomplish the goals a leader has set for his followers requires and intimate understanding of the followers (Northouse, 2013). Just like communicating everyone’s integral role in the mission, transformational leaders need to motivate followers to accept the risk that they are placing themselves in ,because it will mean accomplishing something that leaders have convinced them is more important for the organization, team, group, country, etc.. than their own well-being(Northouse, 2013).

Admiral David Farragut, like so many military leaders before and after, have used transformational leadership to motivate their followers to do amazing, and dangerous things. The communication, experience, charisma, intelligence, and inspiration that it takes to motivate people to go in harm’s way can take years to develop with leaders. Maybe this is why we do not see any young Generals on battlefields, because people may not respond, or may question the reasoning of someone they feel hasn’t been through enough. For whatever its worth, I think transformational leadership is one of the most difficult forms of leadership to practice, because it involves understanding what makes your followers tick.

References

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Symons, C.L. (2008). Damn the Torpedoes!: The Battle of Mobile Bay. Retrieved on December 5^th, 2012 from http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/mobilebay/mobile-bay-history-articles/damn-the- torpedoes-the.html