Adam John Swain

It Looks Like We Have an Authentic Leader on Our Team

June 21, 2018 by Adam John Swain

As I was reading through the chapter on authentic leadership, and as a die-hard fan and follower of Penn State football, one person kept coming to mind, Coach James Franklin, or CJF. Because Coach likes to keep things private between himself, his players, recruits and their families, it’s tough to know if he is authentic, but if the characteristics of authentic leadership in Northouse’s (2016) text and the stories from families are indicators, then CJF fits the bill. And from my point of view, perception is reality.

The first perspective that Northouse (2016) introduces is the intrapersonal perspective (pg. 196). He quotes Shamir and Eilam’s (2005) quote that, “authentic leaders exhibit genuine leadership, lead from conviction and are original, not copies” (as cited by Northouse, 2016, pg. 196). With respect to CJF, one take away that seems to echo from all parents is his genuine leadership. Reports from parents and players all repeat the same sentiment, that Coach is “real”, meaning that he does not use tactics that would traditionally appeal to young players, like starring immediately and making it the NFL. The stories coming out of these meetings are the emphasis put on education, becoming contributing citizens and developing men as well as players. A recent video released by a parent shows the conviction of CJF, where he is seen becoming emotional when talking about the honor he feels from families entrusting him to help their sons grow. He takes the role very seriously, which parents recognize and he doesn’t need to use words to reinforce, they understand it. The last point in the intrapersonal approach is being an original. As I talked about above, CJF doesn’t rely on lofty promises of fortune and fame. Being an avid follower of college football, I can state that this is a break from the norm. Many programs trying to lure elite talent to their team talk about the early impact that they could make, which would translate to a draft position in the NFL and millions of dollars. All accounts of CJF, though as a football coach understands the importance of developing them as players, enforces the prestige of a Penn State degree, the support from the nationwide alumni base and becoming good citizens. Again, this is not the norm. CJF is original in his approach.

The next perspective that Northouse (2016) introduces is that of an interpersonal process. He states that, “it results not from the leader’s efforts alone, but also from the response of followers” (pg. 196). This is evidenced by the repeated theme of “family” from players and families. It would seem that not being treated as an athlete alone is an important factor in recruits. After every visit, there is mention of the close-knit community and their personal ties to Coach and the staff. In the video, you can also see CJF talk about family, how he feels about the staff and team and his connections to people, not just as players, which resonates with everyone. His genuine interactions can be seen any time Coach is in view. I have no reason to doubt that this occurs away from cameras as well.

The final process that Northouse (2016) addresses is the developmental perspective. He quotes Walumbwa et al. (2008) as saying authentic leadership is, “a pattern of behavior that develops from and is grounded in the leader’s positive psychological qualities and strong ethics” (as cited by Northouse, 2016, pg. 196). Famously, CJF has his core values plastered around Lasch Hall as a reminder of his morals that he tries to instill in the team:

:When it comes to application, I think CJF falls into the practical application. Bill George (2003; George &Sims, 2007) states that, “authentic leaders have a genuine desire to desire to serve others, they know themselves and feel free to lead from their values. Specifically, authentic leaders demonstrate five basic characteristics: (1) they understand their purpose, (2) they have strong values about the right thing to do, (3) they establish trusting relationships with others, (4) they demonstrate self-discipline and act on their values, and (5) they are passionate about their mission” (as cited by Northouse, 2016, pg. 197). Again, I fall back to the video where coach talks about why he is at PSU. He talks about how he could coach in the NFL if all he cared about was winning, but relishes in the chance to help mold his players, which I would relate to his purpose. I talked about his values already, though these are specifically related to the football team, which I’m sure he has more that he applies to life in general. The evidence about his doing the right thing is looking at his pattern for disciplinary action. During the biggest game of the year and a chance to showcase the team, CJF had to make the decision to bench two of his star players. He never publicized why he did it, and he could have easily not benched them because the public would have been none the wiser, but in keeping with his values, he made the choice to keep them from playing. I’ve talked repeatedly about his relationships with others and the impact that he makes on others, but this is probably his most important character trait, his ability to impact those he come into contact with. The last point to discuss is his passion, which I think can be summed up in three words that he used at his opening press conference: DOMINATE THE STATE!

Coach may have his flaws and he certainly has people standing by to point them out, but from everything that I’ve seen, CJF is as authentic a big time coach as there is, which emanates through his players and their families.

References:

James Franklin introductory press conference. (n.d.). Retrieved June 21, 2018, from https://news.psu.edu/story/299995/2014/01/11/athletics/james-franklin-introductory-press-conference

Brennan, M. (2018, May 27). Penn State coach James Franklin’s emotional speech to recruits posted by commit’s parent. Retrieved June 21, 2018, from https://247sports.com/college/penn-state/Article/Penn-State-coach-James-Franklins-emotional-speech-to-recruits-posted-by-commits-parent-118575494/

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Joyce, G. (2015, March 03). Penn State coach James Franklin shares core values with Lehigh Valley football scholar-athletes. Retrieved June 21, 2018, from https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/03/penn_state_coach_james_frankli_2.html

The Leader that Transformed Me

June 16, 2018 by Adam John Swain

As I started to read through the chapter on Transformational Leadership, I got a little excited because I was recognizing what had happened to me and how close to home this lesson was. This is my chance to brag on the best leader that I have had the pleasure of working for.

As the lesson states, “transformational leadership is a process that changes and transforms people” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2018). In my case, the impact of strong leadership completely changed my life’s trajectory and put me in the situation where I am today.

In 2015, I was nearing my timeframe to start negotiating for orders. I wanted to stay in the same community but my options to do so were in Guam or Bahrain, not the most appealing places to take my wife and two young kids. I opted to leave the job that I loved and move to Maryland, a place where I had dreaded since I came into this field. I had absolutely no intention of staying here. I opted to do my three years, try to promote and then return to Virginia Beach or try for San Diego, where I would hopefully be for another three years and would fall into a job.

I was speaking with the “elder statesmen” at work about what to expect and none of it sounded good. I was truly dreading the next three years. One of them mentioned that we had a trusted source in Maryland, someone who had recently retired and was establishing a new office in a larger corporation. I knew this guy by name but his reputation had preceded him as a hard worker and great all-around guy. After a phone call, he was willing to screen me, to make sure that we would be a good fit for each other. Oddly enough, when I arrived to interview, he wasn’t a part of it. He let the other members of the office do the screening because he didn’t want his personal opinion to overrule what the rest of the team felt.

We talked about the work climate and what I could expect. He covered the perks of the job; I would be wearing civilian clothes, would make my own hours and the biggest perk, my rolodex would exponentially grow, meaning that I would be more involved with the old community more than I had been. After the meeting, I found out that I was accepted and would work in his office when I got to Maryland.

As I mentioned before, I knew “Dave” by reputation but he came to be the most natural leader that I had ever met. Every topic we covered felt that he had tailored it to my level of understanding. Northouse (2016) talks about the “connection that raises the level of morality in both the leader and the follower” (pg. 162), and “Dave” was a master at it. Portfolio management was entirely new to me. He understood this and took the time to give me training, the amount of time I needed to finish and comprehend it, which helped me to reach the potential that he saw I was capable of.

The text discusses four traits of transformational leadership: charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Northouse, 2016, pg. 167). “Dave” was extremely charismatic, which the text (House, 1976) defines as being dominant, having a strong desire to influence others, being self-confident and having a strong sense of one’s own moral values” (pg. 164). I may have mentioned before that my office is comprised of type-A personalities. That may be enough to highlight the self-confidence and dominant demeanor. Beyond that, “Dave” was clear in his values: hard work, honesty, trust and transparency were what he asked of everyone in the office. He would give you anything needed for the job so long as he knew what was going on and you were truthful about it. His desire to influence others was in the form of making them the best and most well-rounded managers that we could be. Not only did he ask all of this from the other team members, he embodied it every day, making each of us want to follow.

“Dave” started the office from scratch, meaning that all the lessons learned and relationships built were a product of his hard work. In his first two years, when he only had one person to help him, he increased his budget ten-fold and his portfolio quadrupled. Not only was he a strong worker, but he was good person as well, which inspired us all to do more, to try to be near his level. He had to sacrifice time away from his family in order to get the portfolio where it was, so having an 8-hour work day became less of factor considering what he had done. This didn’t only apply to hours, but he inspired to be as knowledgeable as he was because saw how people reacted to his valued opinion on matters.

“Dave” was truly a visionary. It seemed as though he could read a situation and visualize how it would pan out, including reactions from others. This also allowed him to see the direction that technology would take our community. Sometimes I would be in awe of the things that he would introduce and conceptualize how to integrate in the customer that we support. Northouse (2016) says that, “it encourages followers to think things out on their own and engage in careful problem solving” (pg. 169). Seeing “Dave” do this encouraged us to push the envelope of what was possible and to use our imaginations to develop new ideas. Granted, I work in a research and development portfolio, where this should be natural, but I had been used to following guidelines all of my career and this was a break from the norm.

As I mentioned above, every interaction I had seemed to be tailored for me. If I needed personal advice, he always seemed to look at it from my perspective and to offer outside consideration, advising as to what route would be best. Understanding that for some time, I had issues with thinking “outside the box”, so I given projects that were close to what I had done before. He was completely supportive of my development and personal well-being. All he asked was trust and transparency.

“Dave” embodied all of the traits that the text highlights, but he also became my friend and a trusted confidant. Now, after two years, when I had planned to go back to the areas I talked about before, I have decided to retire. I enjoy my job and the team that I work with, to the point that I’m leaving the Navy so that I can stay here, in proximity to the people that have transformed my life. He literally took an outside chance on me, showed me what it meant to lead by example, gave me an opportunity and made me decide to change my life trajectory, a decision that greatly impacts my family as well. They have noticed the change in me as well, which makes them more willing to see this through as opposed to having to start over, again.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Canvas learning management system. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1940315/modules/items/24597567

The NFL’s Power and Influence.

June 8, 2018 by Adam John Swain

Without delving into any distinct sides of the argument, and with all of the coverage about the NFL and the National Anthem protests, I thought this would be a good opportunity to cover power and influence as it relates to the course material. There are many outside influences as well, but for the sake of focus, I’ll try to keep it centered on parties within the league.

Power, according to the lesson, is, “the capacity to produce effects on others, or the potential to influence others (as cited in The Pennsylvania State University, 2018). When power is mentioned, my mind immediately goes to an authority figure, such as a police officer or a supervisor at work. In this context NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell and the team owners would be the authority. The truth is that the players have the real power. As the quote points, power is simply having the ability to influence others into changing behavior.

Influence, per the lesson, is, “the change in a target agent’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors as a result of influence tactics” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2018). Tactics are what is actually done to influence the change and can be anything from acts of aggression, emotional appeals, like trying to tug at heart strings, encouraging patriotism or trying to convince others of a favor or of reprisal.

In the example of this NFL debate, the players are relying on their referent power to create change in the country. Referent power is defined as, “when the leader is seen as a role model, he/she has referent power” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2018). They know and understand that their platform, that of television coverage, is a way to reach (and influence) as many people as possible. The basis of the power comes from being at the pinnacle of what every football player from pee-wee leagues up strives to be, rich and doing what they love, playing football. The players understand that younger generations try to emulate their success and use this status to try to educate and create change.

The opponent to the players manner of activism is Roger Goodell, and in some cases, the owners. These parties have legitimate power, in that they are formal authorities who can create, implement and enforce policy changes. With the NFL case, Roger Goodell, with cooperation from the owners, created a policy change, that players desiring to abstain from participating in the National Anthem may do so by staying in the locker room. Those who choose to protest on the sideline, will bring upon a fine to be issued to their team and not the individual. This tactic is meant to influence team owners to support the policy, because if they don’t, they’ll be hit in the wallet. If no players protest on the sidelines, no penalties will be issued. This is also known as coercive power. The lesson states that, “it is the ability to control others through the fear of punishment or the loss of valued outcomes” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2018). Threatening the loss of money is a pretty strong coercive tactic. Many believe that this policy is an abuse of power in that it may be censoring the players first amendment right, because of political or financial motivations. Some have already said that it will not deter them from demonstrating.

The players, knowing that they have the ability to create change through influence use several tactics. The first, but least common that I see, perhaps because most players don’t speak during the games and I don’t watch post-game, is rational persuasion. Rational persuasion is the use of, “logical arguments or factual evidence to influence others” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2018). The most recent example of this occurred this week when Malcolm Jenkins of the Philadelphia Eagles used poster board to deliver is message during a media session, knowing that they would be televised. These boards contained statistics and other information that had occurred but get little publicity and serve as evidence of efforts.

Inspirational appeals are tactics used to create an emotional response. Colin Kaepernick was the first to demonstrate by kneeling during the anthem. Without getting into a debate about why he did it, this first method of demonstration caused an emotional eruption from both sides of the argument. The tactic worked because it caused immediate reaction, created awareness and brought those in power to the table to discuss. Unfortunately, the reason for protest itself has been overrun by the method of the protest. Being highly unpopular, the discussion has been centered on how to please those who oppose kneeling during the anthem while still protecting the rights of the players. Those who oppose the kneeling try to influence by instilling feelings of patriotism and pride as their motivation to object to the kneeling. Those who support demonstrating argue that Kaepernick is justified in his actions because the issue is bigger than the league. On either side, emotions run high.

Legitimizing tactics, or, “requests based on their position or authority” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2018) came from several sources, but to keep this discussion centered on the NFL, we can say that Roger Goodell was the force. As Commissioner of the league, he urged the owners to support the policy, pointing to declining revenue across the league caused by reaction to the protest. Attendance and sales were lower last year in comparison, which was his way to appeal. Through using coercive power and a coalition tactic, he used his place of authority as a means to persuade the owners, some of whom supported the players movements, to join his cause because he “knew what was best for the league”.

Again, I don’t want to make this a political or moral debate but I think it is valuable in this context to talk about one of the social influence principles introduced in the lesson by Cialdini (as cited by The Pennsylvania State University, 2018). Cialdini (2006; 2008) described social proof as a validation that if “other people are doing it, then it must be a good thing”. He goes on to say that, “Social proof is particularly effective in situations that are ambiguous or where there are no other clues as to how to behave, as people then start actively looking to others for what to do” (The Pennsylvania State University, 2018). Perhaps it’s just my lack of active following, but injustice has never been fully defined by the protesters. Many people have chosen to emulate the players, outside of the league, because they didn’t know of a better way to shine a light on the topic of injustice. Others do it because it’s being done by popular people. I’ve seen kids, who have no idea whatsoever what the protest is about, start to take a knee not just on the playing field, but also in the classroom because their heroes do it.

Keeping my personal feelings to the side and out of this discussion. I think that I have shown the players of the NFL have enormous power to influence the population. I would argue that their power exceeds that of those in authority positions because they are held in such high regard. They, along with many throughout the country feel that their use of power is just. Opposition thinks that using their position on the field is an abuse. Either way you choose to look at it, the power and influence is undeniable.

Canvas learning management system. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1940315/modules/items/24597532

Cialdini, R.B. (2006). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Harper Collins.

Cialdini, R.B. (2008). Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

A Leader for Evolving Situations

May 27, 2018 by Adam John Swain

Having to span multiple generations in my career, from the baby boomers when I enlisted, serving with generation X as a part of my own and now the millennial, I had to learn as much as I could regarding situational leadership to be able to cater to the evolution of the workforce. Northouse (2016) states that, “the premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership” (pg. 93). This is an exercise I encounter frequently.

When I first joined, the baby boomers were long into their career and set in their ways. Dealing with them came easy for me. Though I couldn’t relate socially, I found that they were much more direct in how they dealt with others, which I was appreciative of because there was little confusion on the message. It was my experience that if you were doing well, you wouldn’t hear much, but if you screwed up, you’d be sure to know. The assumption was that you knew what had to be done or would put in the effort to learn what was needed. No one had time to hold your hand because there was work to be done so everyone could go home. This coincides with how the text discusses the directive dimension of the situational approach (pg. 93), where the commitment and competency were high, as this was the culture onboard.

After a few duty stations, my generation, the “X’s”, made up the bulk of the force because the boomers were now retiring. We were now taking leadership roles. Though we were still on the lower fringes of the rank structure, we were now responsible for others. Because we were now the knowledgeable (competent) ones, it was incumbent that we trained up the “new guys”. Many of us still had the commitment to do what was needed without being told, but I saw that this was not the case with the newest generation coming in. Perhaps it was just my perception, but they required a lot more of the other dimension of the situational approach, the supportive dimension.

This has increasingly been the case with new personnel rolling in. I’ve found that there is little interest in becoming completely fluent at their field. Status quo seems to be the acceptable standard. There is less commitment and competency, which has made me shift from the direction dimension, which suits me more, to the supportive, where I find myself spending a lot of my time, teaching and convincing of why something is done a certain way. Northouse talks about the four leadership styles. I find that I have migrated from the directive style, considered to be high-directive and low-supportive, through the coaching style, which is high-directive and high-supportive, to the more common for me, supporting approach, which is high-supportive and low-directive. Of course, as we all transition out, the goal is train ourselves out of the job. We have to teach our replacements to be able to stand on their own. Now that I am months away from retirement, I try to let them deal with the day-to-day on their own. I employ the delegating approach, where there is low-direction and low-support, because they have to build their confidence that they can do it on their own. Of course, I make sure that they get what is needed, but I try to let them figure it out.

I mention all of this backstory because the text talks about how this theory is dependent on the situation and based on the development level of followers. The text outlines four developmental levels as well (pg. 96), which influence how a leader can move from directive to supportive and vice versa. Because the level of commitment is different from person to person because of personal motivations, I have to first make sure that their competency level is high. Setting a knowledge and capability (competency) baseline will allow me to move across the continuum from directive to supportive dimensions with each individual, to try to get the commitment level high to match. Getting both of these levels up will ensure that I did my job and helped to mold leaders who are prepared to carry on the mission.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.

Being human was the best leadership lesson that I had to relearn

May 20, 2018 by Adam John Swain

With 20 years in a single organization, I came across many different style and traits of leadership that I was able to identify as something I wanted to emulate or not. We go through pretty extensive leadership training and unfortunately, now that I am starting to transition out, I’m starting to realize that I really don’t agree with much of what we are force-fed. Things like infallibility, segregation, loyalty to people who haven’t earned it and authoritative leadership don’t suit me. Once I started to be myself, I realized what I valued and what got me the best results; showing subordinates that we are human as well.

“Intelligence or intellectual ability is positively related to leadership” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 23). I think the key word here is ability. No one would follow someone who they thought were unable to comprehend the scope of the job or would be able to learn it, but more importantly, I don’t think anyone wants to follow someone who thinks they know it all. I think part of building a strong relationship comes from showing vulnerability, especially when it comes to level of knowledge. When asked a question, if we don’t know, it’s okay. Demonstrating that we are committed to learning and solving the problem can help to build credibility.

This leads me to my next trait that I think goes hand-in-hand with intelligence and was touched upon before, integrity. Admitting that we may not have all the answers but putting in the legwork to remedy that problem are important. More important than that though is doing what we say we will. The old saying that, “we are only as good as our word” still holds true. If followers don’t believe what you tell them, there is no way to repair a loss of trust.

Self-confidence, or “the ability to be certain about one’s competencies and skills” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 24) is a fine line that can be easily crossed. It’s important that followers understand that their leader is confident in what they are doing because it creates comfort on their behalf that they are doing what is needed. Confidence can easily be taken as arrogance if the leader is not careful, which can break bonds or create tension. I think a balance between self-confidence and humility are the best approach. We should never act as if we have all the answers or those we rely upon may not make themselves available when we need them.

Sociability and emotional awareness are different topics but I think they can be discussed together. The awareness part means being able to read and understand the emotional signs that present themselves in the workplace. This is important because sociability is knowing how to approach the situation. Having a bad read and then acting on what was interpreted can create more issues or tension. The goal of sociability is to create pleasant working environments where everyone treats each other with dignity and respect. If someone is having issues at work and a leader fails to key in on it, it can create an environment where the group thinks the leader is out of touch with their people and can drive them away.

At the end of the day, there were a lot more traits throughout the lesson but these were the ones that stood out to me the most because they were all things that I think get glazed over too often. Yes, they are traits of leadership but they are also traits of humanity and allowing followers to connect to the human side of us can build trust, respect and increase the desire to be followers.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE.