akl5178

There is more to leadership than leaders

December 15, 2012 by akl5178

The trait approach and the skills approach are both important pieces of the leadership process. Combined they show that many successful leaders start out with desired traits (trait approach) and that those traits can be developed and behaviors can be learned to make the leader more effective (skills approach) (Northouse, 2013). But what about the follower? These two leader-centric approaches can only be a piece of a bigger puzzle because leaders are only a piece of the leadership process. A leader cannot be a leader without followers no matter what they have for skills and traits. And what about the situation? Again, the trait and skills approaches are missing a major factor in the leadership process–context. Leaders and followers react differently depending on the situation. There are some situations in which one person is the leader and there are some situations where a different person is the leader. The process of leadership includes not just leaders, but followers and situations as well.

I think that for leaders to be successful they have to understand both the followers and the situation, meaning leaders must be able to identify what response the situation invokes in themselves and their followers. Leaders who look to be effective in many situations must be prepared to identify the needs of their followers in a specific situation and adapt accordingly. That’s what I like about the situational leadership and path-goal approaches. The situational leadership approach mandates that leaders “match their style to the competence and commitment of the subordinates” in a specific situation (Northouse, 2013, p. 99). In the path-goal approach the leader determines his or her behavior depending on the characteristics of the follower and the characteristics of the task being performed (Northouse, 2013). If only the leader’s traits and skills are taken into account two entire sections of the leadership process are ignored. For example in the path-goal leadership diagram below, taken from Northouse 2013, there would be no way for a leader to reach the level at which he or she can motivate subordinates to reach their goals and be productive without insight on the characteristics of the subordinate and of the task being performed.

I think that leader-centric leadership approaches are a good start and combined with other theories leader-centric approaches are very effective. However, leader-centric approaches like the trait and skills theories can never and should never be the sole leadership theory applied in producing leaders. Effective leadership cannot exist without the consideration of the leader, the follower, and the situation.

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6^th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Can you be a transformational leader without individual consideration?

December 14, 2012 by akl5178

I’ve been thinking about transformational leadership and Steve Jobs ever since the group I am in for this course finished a paper on the topic. Steve Jobs was no doubt transformational throughout his lifetime. He revolutionized personal computing by successfully marketing Steve Wozniak‘s computer design, and by making an innovative connection that led to the commissioning of the mouse. Jobs reinvented how we access and listen to music and how we define the word “phone”. By the standard definition of transform, to change composition, structure, outward appearance, or character, there is no doubt in my mind that Steve Jobs was transformational. However, was he a transformational leader in a way that incorporates the definition of transformation leadership?

To summarize, transformational leadership is “the process whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower” (Northouse, 2013, p. 186). Transformational leadership combined with transactional leadership, which is more focused on the exchanges or transactions between leaders and followers, stimulates peak performance in followers according to the diagram below.

This image demonstrates that while transactional leadership is needed, the addition of transformational leadership is what inspires follower performance to reach beyond expectations. According to this definition, there are four factors that a transformational leader embodies: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

Now back to Steve Jobs. Few will deny that Jobs had idealized influence, the first factor of transformational leadership often referred to as charisma. Former president of PepsiCo, John Sculley, admitted in his interview in BBC’s 2011 documentary on Jobs that to this day he’s not entirely sure how jobs convinced him to leave his secure senior executive job at PepsiCo. Scully just knew that he wanted to join Jobs. Jobs’ charisma is what helped him market the first Apple computer. Along with idealized influence, Jobs also exhibited the second factor of transformational leadership, inspirational motivation. He was often heard saying that he wanted to change the world (BBC, 2011). Who wouldn’t find inspiration in that statement? According to Northouse 2013, leaders focus follower efforts to “achieve more than they would in their own self-interest” through inspirational motivation (p. 192). Jobs was an inspirational motivator in all of the companies he owned and to the industry in general. The third factor of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation or creativity and innovation – Jobs had those characteristics too. It’s true that he didn’t build the first Apple computer and wasn’t innovative as much in the hands-on technical sense. However he seemed to know what the public needed well before the public knew what it needed, and so he was always ahead of the game taking inventions and innovations that he experienced and applying them to personal computing and media in a way that no one ever imagined was possible.

I can clearly see the connection between Steve Jobs and the first three of the factors of transformational leadership. It’s the last factor, individualized consideration, that I struggle with a bit. Individualized consideration is when a leader coaches followers based on their needs and “spends time treating each employee in a caring and unique way” (Northouse, 2013, p. 193). From what I’ve heard and read about Jobs, this doesn’t seem to line up exactly with Jobs’ style. According to Gladwell (2011), Jobs was known for screaming at his employees. He was also known as a bully, targeting people’s weaknesses and belittling them, and it is also said that he was dishonest when splitting some profit between himself and Steve Wozniak (BBC, 2011). If transformational leadership involves being sensitive to follower needs and raising the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower, can we still claim that Jobs fits the definition of a transformational leader?

It’s true. Steve Jobs had an amazing impact on the world, just as he said he would. He transformed the world. However, his lack of individual consideration, one of the four factors of transformational leadership, does leave me wondering if his style does in fact fit the definition of transformational leadership.

BBC (Producer). (2011, December 14). Steve jobs: Billion dollar hippy. [Web Video].

Retrieved from http://documentaryheaven.com/steve-jobs-billion-dollar-hippy

Gladwell, M. (2011, November 14). The tweaker: The real genius of steve jobs. The New Yorker. Retrived from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=1

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6^th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Take what you need and leave the rest

October 1, 2012 by akl5178

My first office job was working for a small, local bank that employed about 250-300 workers and had just under a billion in assets. During my last couple years there the bank implemented the situational leadership approach using Situational Leadership II (SLII) (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2012). By that time, I was an assistant manager, so I witnessed the change from the staff side and from the manager side. Neither side took the switch all that well at first (change like that never really goes well in the beginning!); however those in senior management made it very clear that they were 100% behind the SLII method. Any manager or staff member reported as not participating in SLII would receive the corresponding consequences. So we all took part in mandatory training, the managers to learn how to guide their staff through different development levels, and the staff to learn how to communicate which development level they are in when completing a particular task (Northouse, 2013). Initially, I think a lot of people were turned off by the idea of being labeled and labeling themselves with development levels. We can’t all fit so simply into four categories! However, the bigger picture that the situational approach and specifically SLII address is facilitating–sometimes forcing (arguably in a good way)–communication between managers and their staff.

In addition to the basic SLII structure, as part of the program, managers were required to meet with their employees one-on-one for 15 minutes once a week every week. That is another piece that people countered. Who has time to meet that often? And what can you get done in a 15-minute meeting? However, these one-on-one meetings were a central part of implementing the SLII method because it was during these meetings that staff and managers discuss development levels (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2012). The difference between these one-on-one meetings and other more traditional meetings was that they were run by the staff member. In these meetings, staff members were to proactively communicate what development level they were in by telling their managers what they needed. “I need more direction in this task” or “I need this specific tool to complete this task”. “I need” became a familiar prompt around the office (I believe I have a keychain from that era that says, “I Need…” on it!). It was stressed over and over that these one-on-one meetings were supposed to be run by staff. If managers tried to take over the meeting, staff members were encouraged to interrupt and let the managers know that they were hijacking the meeting.

Thinking about some power-hungry managers I’ve worked with since then this technique sounds a little crazy, but it was actually very useful. So often staff members are afraid to talk about what they need and managers don’t have the sense to ask, both of which hurt productivity not to mention morale. The structure of these one-on-one meetings aimed to open up the lines of communication up and down the corporate ladder. Still there were objections. Doesn’t that shift the power completely away from the manager? It could, but it doesn’t have to. Just because staff members are encouraged to voice what they need doesn’t mean they will always get it. There are many reasons why employees can’t always have the best tools they need to do their job, including budget constraints, federal policies, company policies, and general feasibility of the request. The important piece is that the conversation happened; theoretically the manager and staff member are on the same page, and together they can figure out a way to get the job done.

Honestly, I don’t think the specific language of SLII matters all that much in theory. It’s really just a structured way of facilitating communication. However, in practice the specifics of the SLII method serve as the concrete process for people to hold on to while they navigate unfamiliar leadership waters. I think one of the most important pieces of the situational approach and specifically SLII is that they can help break down communication boundaries. It’s just important to know when following the program too religiously is counterproductive. When applying the situational approach, as with all the styles of leadership we’ve read about so far, I think it’s important to take what you need and leave the rest.

References:

The Ken Blanchard Companies. (2012). Situational leadership II (SLII). Retrieved from http://www.kenblanchard.com/Effective_Leadership_Solutions/One_to_One_Talent_Management/Management_Situational_Leadership_Training/

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6^th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

One Approach to Rule Them All

September 24, 2012 by akl5178

Now familiar with three approaches of leadership: the trait approach, the psychodynamic approach, and the skills approach, I think the best approach is actually a combination of all three. Many leadership approaches were developed due to gaps in previous theories; however, each new theory has its own set of holes. I think it’s difficult to have one specific approach describe the process of leadership. Leadership is complicated and there are too many variables between the leader, the followers, and the situation. If the weakness of many of these theories is that they are not true for all situations, and people can agree that a number of these theories are correct in certain situations, then it makes sense that combining these situationally valid theories would be effective.

Regarding the trait approach, for example, theorists identified certain traits that they believe define a great person or leader and that these special leader traits are innate (Pennsylvania State University, 2012). This idea that great leaders are born and not made is attractive, but has its downfalls. For example, there is no finite, objective list of leadership traits (Northouse, 2013). Theorists could sit around for eternity battling over what makes a good leader, coming up with new traits and conflicting examples of established traits. Also mentioned in Northouse (2013), the trait approach misses the importance of learning and developing as a leader. If leaders are born great what do they have left to learn? And what about followers and situations? Those aspects of leadership affect the effectiveness of the leader; however the trait approach is leader-centric. Although there are many criticisms of the trait approach, traits are important to the leadership process because they give people a base from which to develop their leadership abilities. To me the trait approach serves to define more of HOW a leader can lead, and not IF a leader can lead.

The psychodynamic approach has some similarities to and difference with the trait approach. In Pennsylvania State University (2012) the psychodynamic approach is identified as an “extension” of the trait approach, where the trait approach describes who leaders are in a theoretical sense, and the psychodynamic approach gives leaders the tools to identify their strengths and weaknesses and analyze how those characteristics play into different situations with different followers (p. 3). The psychodynamic approach picks up where the trait approach left off because it recognizes the relationship between the leader and the followers. The psychodynamic approach is also presumably universal and objective, which is another area where the trait approach falls short (Northouse, 2013). However, an important hole in the psychodynamic approach that the trait approach doesn’t fill is taking into consideration learning and developing as a leader.

Enter skills approach. The skills approach is based more on behavior whereas the trait and psychodynamic approaches focus on personality (Northouse, 2013). The skills approach indicates that leaders need specific skills and abilities to be successful with certain followers and in certain situations; however because skills are behaviors and not inherent traits they can be developed (Pennsylvania State University, 2012). In other words, leaders do not need to be born; they can also be made. The idea that leadership can be taught is less limiting and gives people more control. In contrast with the idea that society has to wait for nature to provide it with great leaders, the skills approach gives people the opportunity to develop into great leaders even if they aren’t born exhibiting a specific personality. The skills approach does have its own criticisms, though; one being that the theory is so expansive and includes so many different components it becomes too general and difficult to accurately measure and predict (Northouse, 2013).

I don’t think it’s feasible to imagine one very specific leadership approach defining and explaining the idea of leadership. Combining the factors of the leader, the followers, and the situations, it is impossible that all possibilities of each factor could be taken into consideration in the creation of one theory. However, I can imagine that there are certain patterns of leadership that can be identified using a vast array of leadership-defining tools that are consistent, conflicting, and constantly evolving with humans as we move through our existence. The trait, psychodynamic, and skills approaches are just three of those tools, and I think the other approaches to come will probably fit together and compliment each other in similar ways.

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6^th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pennsylvania State University. (2012). PSYCH485: Leadership in work settings. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/001/toc.html

Predicting the Future

September 17, 2012 by akl5178

As part of the application process for my first office job, I took a personality test called the Predictive Index. The Predictive Index (PI) is a psychodynamic assessment tool that claims to “help [managers] select, retain, and develop…key talent for long-term business results” (Predictive Index System, 2010). To complete the test, participants look through two lists of adjectives (the lists contain the same adjectives, but in a different order). On the first list participants check off adjectives that they would use to describe themselves, and on the second list participants check off adjectives describing how they think people expect them to behave. There is no time limit and there are very general requirements surrounding the number of adjectives required.

To calculate results, the PI uses the participants’ choices to predict four primary “personality constructs”: Dominance (control), Extroversion, Patience, and Formality (organization, discipline, conforming) (Rouse, 2011). The PI also measures two secondary personality constructs: Decision-making and Response level (Rouse, 2011). The results are then plotted as points on three charts: One chart measuring the participants’ description of themselves (self), one chart measuring how they think people expect them to behave (self-concept), and one chart that combines the first two (synthesis) (Rouse, 2011).

Lucier_Figure 1_PI Assessment (640x525).jpg

Figure 1: Example of self, self-concept, and synthesis results for a Predictive Index assessment. Retrieved from http://www.powershow.com/view/b3b60-ZWQ4Y/Predictive_Index_flash_ppt_presentation

Of course I had no idea when I was applying for that job that I was taking a personality test. I just filled out all the paperwork and turned it in. Months later, after accepting the position, I was in a training session where the facilitator explained that she brought along copies of our PI results to analyze and compare in class. Some of the participants knew what she was talking about, a few didn’t, and as she described the process I finally realized why I had to check off all of those adjectives in my interview. Then I wondered, is a personality test reliable enough to be the base of a company’s hiring strategy?

According to PI Worldwide’s website (2011), the answer is yes. They claim that their tool is built to help managers and business owners hire the right people for the right jobs and retain employees by keeping them motivated in a way that complements their PI profile. On the other hand, the Myers-Briggs Foundation, home of another psychodynamic tool the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), discourages making hiring decisions based on the MBTI assessment claiming that it is “unethical and in many cases illegal to require job applicants to take the Indicator if the results will be used to screen out applicants” (Myers-Briggs Foundation, n.d.).

Personally, I’m wary about an employer’s use of any test to assess either candidates during an interview or current employees. I think the PI and MBTI are both insightful assessments and both seem to be relatively accurate; however, it’s important that the test results be interpreted appropriately, and to me that means taking many other qualities and situations into consideration. I imagine the creators of the PI and MBTI feel the same, but that doesn’t affect how employers, managers, colleagues, and other members of the business world treat the information. As mentioned in Northouse (2013), one of the criticisms of the psychodynamic approach (which includes both the PI and the MBTI) is that it has a narrow focus, measuring only the personalities of leaders and followers. It does not take into consideration organizations, situations, or any other factor external from the personalities of these two groups.

Overall, I did have a positive experience with the PI. It was helpful both in class and in the organization to compare different parts of my personality with others using a shared language. I learned a lot about myself as well. One specific piece of the assessment I remember was that my “self” patience level was very low, while my “self-concept” patience level was high, which showed that I spent a good deal of energy being patient because although it was contrary to my natural tendency, that is how I thought I was expected to behave.

Can personality tests predict the future? I think they are one of many tools that can help leaders and managers understand their candidates and employees, along with helping followers understand their leaders and managers. However, I don’t think that they are reliable enough to be the sole predictor of employment performance.

References:

Myers-Briggs Foundation, The. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/index.asp

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Psychodynamic approach. Leadership: theory and practice (6^th ed.) (319-348). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Predictive Index System. (2010). Wellesley Hills, MA: PI Worldwide. Retrieved from http://www.piworldwide.com/Products/Predictive-Index-System.aspx

Rouse, M. (2011, November). WhatIs.com. Retrieved from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Predictive-Index-PI