Amy Lynn Crain

Virtual Teams and Leadership

October 22, 2014 by Amy Lynn Crain

With globalization has come the emergence of virtual teams. Virtual teams are important for organizations that conduct business and connect with people all over the world. Virtual teams use technology in order to communicate and attain goals, rather than the conventional face-to-face methods. Because communication is such a viable part of team work, Hill’s Team Leadership Model becomes even more important when a dealing with virtual communication (PSU WC, 2014, L. 9). This model illustrates that leaders of teams should continuously monitor and intervene in order to predict, diagnose, remedy, and prevent internal and external issues that could affect the efficiency and success of the team (Northouse, 2013). This is more challenging for virtual teams than more conventional ones because communication does not always occur at the same time or place. Sometimes, it can occur via email or discussion board, when team members participate at their leisure. This can be due to the nature of the task or time differences of the different locations. There are clear advantages and disadvantages to virtual team work; but none-the-less, the Team Leadership Model needs to be handled more delicately to ensure success and effectiveness.

There are numerous advantages of virtual teams. First, it connects people all over the world. Individuals from different cultures and beliefs are able to come together to share experiences and reach goals. Second, it is convenient since communication does not have to be simultaneous. It allows individuals’ to communicate at any time, whether they are at work, at home, on vacation, or travelling (PSU WC, 2014, L. 9). With those advantages come a few disadvantages of virtual teams. First, communication is difficult since it does not occur face-to-face. Often times, communicating through text-based technologies is not as effective as verbally talking to team members. Second, it is hard for leaders to emerge (PSU WC, 2014, L. 9).

There are five ways virtual teams can be as effective as more conventional teams. The leader, or leaders, must be willing and able to change from the norms of single location leaders. This stems from the fact that leading face-to-face is much different than leading in a virtual setting. Virtual teams must also utilize the communication technologies to their advantage, figuring out what works best for them and making the best of it. There must be a sense of trust between all the members. Team work relies on interdependency; especially in virtual teams since the members do not get to spend much time together in a singular location (Northouse, 2013). Thus, they need to trust that their fellow team members are capable and working hard enough. The design of the team, or how they work, is also important. The team needs to be designed based on individual strengths and weakness, as well as consideration of the context and different environments, in order to enhance the process of reaching the common goal. Lastly, taking advantage of the cultural diversity in decision-making and creative processes will lead to stronger final outcomes (PSU WC, 2014, L. 9).

Based on the details about virtual teams, I think shared leadership is much more beneficial than individual leadership. All of the team members need to follow the Team Leadership Model by continuously monitoring and intervening in order to produce the best results. Shared, or distributed, leadership can benefit the group because they are all aware of the team’s strengths and weaknesses and the external factors affecting the team. These issues can also be different for each individual in each different location, so it is important that all members are continuously creating mental models of the situation. Northouse (2013) calls this mental model the first step of the Team Leadership Model. Once all of the members of any virtual team led by shared leadership have an appropriate mental model, they can work together to make sure they are effective.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6thed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). Psych 485 Lesson 9: Team Leadership. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/content/09_lesson/printlesson.html

Eliminating Out-Groups

October 16, 2014 by Amy Lynn Crain

The Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) emphasizes the importance of the reciprocal relationship between leaders and each of their followers. Early studies of LMX found that there are two kinds of relationships in work groups: in-groups and out-groups. Employees who get along with the leader and yearn for more responsibilities at work are categorized as in-group. In-group employees benefit from more information, commitment, involvement, and communication. They receive rewards in return for their extra work and more support from the leader. Employees who only satisfy the responsibilities outlined in their employment contracts are put into an out-group. These employees do not get any special treatment; instead, they are trusted less and communicate less with the leader (Northouse, 2013). More recent studies stress that leaders should strive to have in-group relationships with all of their employees, eliminating out-groups, to create more organizational success. This process is called leadership making (Northouse, 2013). However, it may not be possible or desirable to completely eliminate out-groups from the workplace.

There are two reasons why the elimination of out-groups is not possible or desirable. Firstly, some employees may not want to be in an in-group (PSU WC, 2014, L. 8). During the second phase of leadership making, called the acquaintance phase, either the leader or employee initiates a desire to increase the quality of their exchange. Employees can initiate this, looking for leaders who are able to give them more responsibility. Leaders look for individuals who are out-going and enthusiastic, then offer them opportunities to expand their roles in the organization (Northouse, 2013). At this point, if employees have not initiated the process, and deny the leader’s invitation to the in-group, then there is nothing further that can be done. Employees who do not want to be in the in-group have to remain in the out-group, and there are always individuals that only want to do what is required of them, nothing more. Employees cannot be forced to expand their roles. They are getting paid to satisfy the requirements of their employment contract and are not obligated to do more if they do not want the benefits of being in the in-group.

Secondly, the elimination of out-groups would make in-groups the new norm (PSU WC, 2014, L. 8). If it was possible to get every employee in the in-group, then the preferential treatment that in-groups used to get would become how all leaders treat all employees. This would eliminate groups all together, redefine employment contracts, and increase the amount of information shared at an organizational level. Organizations and groups need different levels of employees in order to dictate how relationships are carried out.

According to Northouse (2013), a major criticism of LMX is that it does not take fairness into consideration. The benefit of realizing that leadership making is not entirely possible or desirable is that the fairness issue of LMX would be erased. The leader can try to have a reciprocal relationship with all employees, trying to treat them all fairly, but if they reject, it cannot be said that the leader is being unfair, or preferential. The employee who rejects in the invitation to the in-group has no interest in being treated like the employees in the in-group, thus cannot complain about being treated differently. Fairness is not an issue if some employees do not want the benefits of being in the in-group.

When I was a general manager of a pizza place, I tried to have a high-quality exchange with all my employees. However, given that it was a demanding job paying minimum-wage, many of my employees were not interested in going above their job description, let alone even satisfying that description. These employees did not need extra information, communication, or support from the managers of the company because they simply wanted to come to work, do the minimum that they had to do, and leave. The contrast between these employees and the employees in the in-group led to even higher-quality exchanges with the more motivated, enthusiastic and participative employees. Seeing the preferentially treatment, rewards, and support they received in contrast to what others did not receive motivated them even more. Without having both groups, no one would feel like they were getting treated better in direct relation to how hard they are working. At the restaurant, the existence of both out-groups and in-groups built confidence, security, and satisfaction for those who went above-and-beyond what was outlined in their employment contracts.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6thed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). Psych 485 Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/printlesson.html

An Obvious Trend

October 2, 2014 by Amy Lynn Crain

Although the different approaches we have studied so far have their own assumptions, predictions and practices, some of them have an obvious trend that is hard to overlook. Although they all provide different theories, the style, situational, contingency, and path-goal approaches all use two leadership aspects to explain how a leader can perform effectively – tasks and relationships. Each theory uses these two aspects differently in order to explain what effective leadership involves (Northouse, 2013).

The style approach assumes that there are two kinds of leader behaviors that influence followers. First, task behaviors emphasize goal achievement. Second, relationship behaviors emphasize comfort and confidence (Northouse, 2013). In this theory, different combinations of both behaviors help a leader influence the group to reach goals in an effective way. Northouse (2013) describes three different studies that used these two behaviors to attempt to predict what combinations work best. The Ohio State Studies provided a framework for Stodgill (1963) to develop the LBDQ-II, an instrument that tried to understand the frequency of certain leadership behaviors. He summed up the style approach by describing two clusters of behaviors – initiating structure, focusing on task behaviors, and consideration, focusing on relationship behaviors. Then, the University of Michigan tried to explain the relationship between leaders and small groups. They found that employee orientations and production orientations can be combined at differing levels to influence followers. Finally, Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid (1960) attempted to combine the findings from both studies to explain how leaders help organizations succeed through concern for people and concern for production. They devised a 9-poit scale that determined 5 major styles of leadership based on how concerned the leader is about tasks and relationships. These 5 styles include authority-compliance (high task 9, low people, 1), country-club management (low task 1, high people 9), impoverished management (low task 1, low people 1), middle-of-the-road management (moderate task 5, moderate people 5), and team management (high task 9, high people 9). Although this approach does not provide applicable information, all of the studies of have led to the same descriptive assumption; leadership is dependent on two behaviors, tasks and relationships, in order to be successful (Northouse, 2013).

Like the style approach, the situational approach assumes that tasks and relationships encompass how a leader behaves. Directive and supportive dimensions are defined in this theory too parallel the two behaviors in the style approach. The two dimensions are used interchangeably and sometimes simultaneously at different levels in response to what the situation calls for. Unlike the style approach, the situational approach requires that leaders are flexible and adaptive. They must be able to read situations and act accordingly, while the style approach just describes how specific task and relationship behaviors create different leadership styles. Leaders need to evaluate employees’ competence and commitment in order to change how much of each dimension they use to lead them. Northouse (2013) outlines the Situational Leadership II (SLII) Model, developed by Blanchard, which illustrates the different combinations of the two dimensions that are possible. They include directing (high directive, low supportive), coaching (high directive, high supportive), supporting (low directive, high supportive), and delegating (low directive, low supportive). Which style is used depends on different development levels the followers possess, all varying in levels of competence and commitment (Northouse, 2013). This approach moves past the descriptive nature of the style approach, while utilizes the same two aspects, tasks and relationships, and makes a more practical and prescriptive approach (PSU WC, 2014, L. 5).

Like the style and situational approaches, the contingency theory utilizes tasks and relationships to match appropriate leaders with appropriate contexts. So, unlike the style approach that deems certain behaviors work best to influence groups, and unlike the situational approach that tries to explain that different situations call for different leadership styles, the contingency theory tries to place leaders in situations where they will succeed rather than fail. It assumes that if the leader’s style does not match the situation, they will be unsuccessful in influencing subordinates and reaching goals. The leader’s style is based on how much tasks and relationships motivate them. Using the Least Preferred Coworker Scale, it can be determined if a person is more task motivated or relationship motivated. Determining the levels of these two aspects leads to the ability to place the leader in certain situations based on three factors – leader-member relations, task structure, and positive power. Leader-member relations refer to group atmosphere, confidence and loyalty. Task structure refers to how well defined a task is. And positive power refers to legitimate authority of the leader. Varying levels of leader motivations work best at varying levels of each factor, which are defined in 8 different categories. These categories stress the importance of task and relationship aspects in the contingency theory (Northouse 2013).

The path-goal theory utilizes the same task and relationship aspects; the difference lies in the fact that this theory, unlike the other approaches, attempts to explain how these aspects motivate individuals. Leaders attempt to behave in ways that complement or supplement the needs to the subordinates and situation. The motivational needs to the group involve how capable followers feel and whether or not they feel that payoffs of the task are worthwhile. The four leadership behaviors of this theory are to be used interchangeably and sometimes simultaneously at varying degrees in order to reflect subordinate characteristics, such as need for affiliation, preference for structure, desire for control, and self-perception of ability, and task characteristics, such as design of the task and formal authority system of the organization (Northouse, 2013). The directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented behaviors of this theory encompass tasks and relationships just like the other approaches, only in this theory they are used to motivate and support during task completion (Northouse, 2013).

It is clear that all four approaches utilize the same two leader aspects in order to try to define and explain effective leadership. The style approach uses the two behaviors to show that combinations of each influence followers. The situational approach uses directive and supportive dimensions to explain how a leader needs to be adaptive in order to be successful. The contingency theory tries to match leaders to situations based on task and relationship motivations. And finally, the path-goal theory stresses that leaders must be adaptive in their directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented behaviors in order to motivate employees (Northouse, 2013). This trend does not surprise me. The two main concepts of work are tasks and relationships. It makes sense that effective leaders need to manipulate these two aspects in order to influence and motivate. While each theory clearly has pros and cons, I think that a general rule has emerged – certain behaviors pertaining to tasks and relationships need to be used in the work place. I believe that the flexibility aspects of the situational and path-goal theories ring more true than the style and contingency approaches. In my eyes, it is important that leaders be able to evaluate themselves, their subordinates, and the situation in order to adapt to different needs.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6thed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). Psych 485 Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/content/05_lesson/printlesson.html

The Situational Approach in Action

September 25, 2014 by Amy Lynn Crain

Northouse (2013) states that studies have not completely validated the prescriptive nature of the situational approach; however, I have used many of its aspects at work. The situational approach involves leaders being able to adapt depending on the needs of subordinates. This approach is illustrated by the Situational Leadership II Model developed by Hersey and Blanchard (Northouse, 2013). The theory states that different leadership styles are required in different situations. Then, depending on the development levels of the subordinates, leaders should use varying levels of directive behaviors and supportive behaviors in order to reach the goals of the group (PSU WC, 2014, L. 5). Directive behaviors are those that emphasize tasks and schedules in order to attain goals. Supportive behaviors are used to help subordinates feel comfortable and reach goals. According to the approach, there are four combinations of leadership styles that the leader can choose from, and four different development levels that determine which style a leader chooses (Northouse, 2013).

Leadership styles are varying combinations of directive behaviors and supportive behaviors. The first style is called directing style (S1). It is characterized by a leader using directive behaviors rather than supportive behaviors. The next style, coaching (S2), is characterized by a leader using high directive and supportive behaviors in order to communicate goals and then help subordinates reach them. The supporting (S3) style is characterized by a leader who uses supportive behaviors rather than supportive behaviors, giving control to subordinates while still being involved to help make them feel comfortable. Lastly, the delegating (S4) style is characterized by a leader who does not use directive or supportive behavior, trusting subordinates to get the job done. The development levels of a group of subordinates determine which style a leader should use.

Development levels are the degrees to which subordinates are competent and committed. A leader needs to know the levels of all his employees in order to determine how to manage each of them individually. When employees are on the first level, D1, they are not competent in the task, but they have confidence that they will complete it. D2 employees are somewhat competent, but not committed. D3 employees are mostly competent, but lack commitment to the task. Lastly, employees that are on the level D4 are very competent and have high commitment to the task. Clearly, employees on each level need different management styles in order to be the most effective and perform the best. For example, an employee who is on the D4 level with high competence and high commitment would only require a delegating style of leadership. The leader would feel comfortable giving this type of employee control over the task without much direction or support.

When I was working as the general manager of a pizza restaurant, I had a staff of about 20 different employees. Each of these employees had a different work ethic, as well as different strengths and weaknesses. Thus, each employee required different levels of direction and support from me. Thinking back on this job experience, I had no idea I was utilizing the situational approach so practically. I did not think in terms of leadership style or development levels; however, I did recognize that certain employees needed tasks specifically delegated to them while others were self-starters. In the same vein, some employees needed more of my time and support than others – some needed me to hold their hand during their shifts in order to make them feel confident and motivated. There was one employee in particular that I utilized a coaching style with on a daily basis. She needed a great deal of direction and tons of support in order to reach the goals of the shift (i.e. stocking and prepping food supplies, and customer service). I would have categorized her as D1, and D2 with some tasks that she was more familiar with. Not only did she need almost constant direction, but she also needed unending verbal support from me. This went on even after her “new employee” phase had ended – she did not seem to be grasping the skills needed to complete tasks. This could entirely be because she did not feel committed to the job, and lacked motivation. It was hard to work with someone like this who required so much of my time and energy. I eventually had to let her go in exchange for someone who started as D1 or D2 and grew to become D3 and D4, so that I could focus my energies on my own tasks, trusting my subordinates to successfully complete theirs.

I can understand why this approach is the most widely recognized leadership theory. One of its major strengths is that it can be used by any level of management in any organization. I think that it is used way more often than people would think because of how intuitive it is (Northouse, 2013). Looking back on all my managerial experience, I needed to be flexible constantly; especially with new employees and promoted employees who were going back and forth between development levels. I bet that most people can name a time when they had to manage two different employees differently. The most universal aspect of this theory is that flexibility is the key to effective management, and I have seen this in action.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6thed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

The Dark Side of Assigned Leadership

September 9, 2014 by Amy Lynn Crain

When an organization is in the market for a new manager, it is common that they use the trait approach to find the right individual for the job. The trait approach focuses on certain characteristics that certain individuals have, and are born with, that differentiate them from their subordinates. These traits make them born leaders, (Northouse, 2013). However, many individuals who possess positive leadership attributes also possess dark side personality traits. In my mind, the biggest issue with hiring based on the trait approach is that dark side personality traits are not always detectable until an individual is already in a leadership position. The reason is the one-note nature of the hiring process.

As we know, dark side personality traits include argumentative, interpersonal insensitivity, narcissism, fear of failure, perfectionism, and impulsivity (PSU WC, 2014, L. 2). An argumentative person is someone who is overly negative and defensive. Interpersonal insensitivity is tied directly with emotional intelligence; it is related to the individuals lack of perception of others feelings, emotions, and concerns. Narcissism is arrogance. Perfectionism and fear of failure stem from an individual’s need to be always right. Lastly, impulsivity pertains to the leader’s lack of patience and selfishness. These six traits can really render a goal unattained because it makes followers less motivated and less inclined to work hard (PSU WC, 2014, L. 2).

One way that a person can become a leader is by being assigned to a position. The most obvious example is being hired for a job. The most successful way of assessing whether an individual will be an effective leader is through the multiple-hurdles approach, which begins with a competency model. Using the trait approach, this model would be a list of desirable traits the employer is seeking in a perspective leader. After a list of traits is determined, the perspective leaders will be given a paper-and-pencil test, often used as a personal inventory to assess personality traits and consistency of answers. If this is passed, the applicants move on to a face-to-face interview where a predetermined set of questions is asked to everyone. If the applicant passes the interview, an assessment center is the last stop before an individual is selected for a job (PSU WC, 2014, L. 1). Although this a common sequence of the hiring process, it has a glaring fault – dark side personality traits are often times undetected during the hiring process and do not come out until after the leader has been in charge for a extended period of time. Personality inventories and questionnaires are designed to determine where the perspective employee stands in regards to the Five Factors Model of Personality – neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness – all of which have varying correlation with effective leadership. However, they only scratch the surface of the deeper dark side personality traits. Interviews are designed to find out how individuals have handled situations in the past, but do not delve into why. One of the main issues with this hiring process is that it leaves the applicant open to answer in a way that he/she thinks is desirable, leaving out certain things that would be unfavorable. Overtime, individuals who “cheat the system” generally begin to uncover negative traits that can greatly harm the company. This happened at a restaurant in Philadelphia, PA, leading the company to experience high employee turn-over rates, low employee morale, and loss of business.

I once had a manager who was narcissistic and argumentative. Erin Nooks was my manager at a local pizza restaurant in downtown Philadelphia. He became the executive manager by charming the owner with his wit, intelligence, and charisma. During the interview process, he answered every question correctly and was quickly named the leader of the restaurant. Things started off smoothly while he was transitioning into the job, but once he was comfortable, the situation turned for the worse. Erin Nooks was an incredibly arrogant and selfish individual. I quickly found myself dreading coming to work, and sensed that my fellow employees felt the same way. I had worked there for a few years before Erin took over as manager, and grew familiar and friendly with a few customers who regularly attended the restaurant. A few of them mentioned to me that something seemed wrong in the restaurant. The negative attitude of the employees was greatly affecting their customer service – we simply did not care anymore. The restaurant lost an abundance of repeat customers during Erin’s employment.

Dark side personality traits create problems for organizations because they lead to lack of goal attainment and negative employee morale. The assessment and selection of leaders through the trait approach needs to be evaluated further in order to figure out ways to detect dark side personality traits before a leader is implemented. By conducting further research, managers like Erin Nook can be weeded out before they negatively affect the organization. One way this can be altered is through new personality inventories, questionnaires, and structured interview questions designed to bring negative traits to light.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). Psych 485 Lesson 1: Introduction to Leadership. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/content/01_lesson/printlesson.html

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). Psych 485 Lesson 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/content/02_lesson/printlesson.html