August Miriah Bruce

Golf, CEO’s and Discrimination

November 22, 2014 by August Miriah Bruce

Even though there is no evidence of women being inferior leaders to men, they still face gender discrimination in the workplace (Northouse, 2013), even if they are one of the few female CEO’s of large international corporations. This was recently brought to public attention in 2012, when IBM, one of the traditional sponsors of the Augusta Golf Club chose its first female CEO, Virgina (Ginney) Rometty. The Augusta Golf Club has been called “a peaceful enclave for powerful men”, with the majority of their members being CEO’s or former CEO’s; membership is by invitation only (Bull, 2013) . Previously, IBM’s CEO’s were invited to join the all male golf club, but when Rometty was chosen, Augusta declined to invite her based on her gender (Grgurich, 2012).

There are some people that would say that it’s just golf and the issue isn’t as important as other gender discrimination occurrences, but many don’t realize that golf can be a serious part of business negotiation. According to USA Today (2012), if a golf-playing businessman is asked where he has crafted a deal or two or 10, he’ll undoubtedly say: ‘the golf course’. Being excluded from a place where so many business deals are negotiated is an interpersonal barrier which equates to lack of access to an important informal network and would leave Rometty at a disadvantage when doing her job (Northouse, 2013).

It is now 2014 and Augusta has finally invited Rometty to join as a member (Harig, 2014); it took two years for them to do so. Granted, they invited a more powerful female leader, Condaleeza Rice, the year before (Brennan, 2012), but for Rometty, a CEO of one of their sponsors, they took much longer. It is amazing to me that such gross discrimination was allowed, especially when it became so public. Though this has now been rectified, it stands to reason that other informal networks are still closed to Virginia Rometty, and it is unknown how she will conquer them or how long it might take.

References

Brennan, C. (2012, August 20). Finally! Augusta National does right thing and admits women. Retrieved from USA Today: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/golf/masters/story/2012-08-20/Masters-women-Condoleeza-Rice-Darla-Moore-Christine-Brennan/57160258/1

Bull, A. (2013, April 9). Augusta falls in love with Condoleezza Rice, first lady of the Masters. Retrieved from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/apr/09/augusta-condoleezza-rice-masters

Grgurich, J. (2012, April 10). IBM CEO Still in the Rough Over How to Handle Augusta Snub. Retrieved from Daily Finance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/04/10/ibm-ceo-Ginni-Rometty-augusta-national-golf-membership-snub/#!slide=981463

Harig, B. (2014, November 13). Virginia Rometty member of Augusta. Retrieved from ESPN: http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/11871158/virginia-rometty-becomes-3rd-female-member-augusta-national

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

The Common Core’s Affect on Teachers’ Servant Leadership

November 8, 2014 by August Miriah Bruce

If one wanted to look at a prime example of the practice of Servant Leadership, a person doesn’t have to look very far. It is found in every school in the form of teachers and educators. But recently implemented reforms like the Common Core have stymied teachers in their role of servant leaders.

Servant Leadership is defined as a leadership that is based on serving others altruistically. Servant leaders put the wellbeing of their followers ahead of their own needs in order to see them grow to their fullest potential. The leader makes sure that their followers grow as persons, become wiser, healthier, freer, and more likely to become servant leaders themselves (Northouse, 2013).

Behaviors that are at the core of Servant Leadership are integral to the teaching occupation.

Being able to conceptualize allows a teacher to address problems creatively, which is necessary in teaching students of differing cultures, intellectual abilities and emotional maturity levels. Emotional healing speaks for itself; teachers, by nature of their job, have to be available for their students and provide them with support. Teachers do put their students first, often spending their own money (not their district’s money) on supplies that many students wouldn’t be able to have otherwise. Helping students grow and succeed is one of the core goals to teaching and ethical behavior is taught by teachers being an example of how to behave. Empowerment builds confidence for students to think and act on their own and by doing all of these things, teachers give back to the community when the students join the community as young adults, and as they become leaders themselves. But in order to be able to perform all of these behaviors, teachers have to have the support and the guidance of school districts and state governments. The Common Core Initiative that has been adopted by many states restricts those behaviors.

According to the Common Core Initiative’s Website (2014) the Common Core is “a set of clear college- and career-ready standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts/literacy and mathematics.” They were developed in 2009 and released in 2010; shortly after, they were endorsed by 45 states. The advocates of the Common Core saw the standards as a way to raise test scores by making sure that students everywhere in every grade were taught using the same standards (Strauss, 2014). What they did not take into consideration was the effect of these standards on the interaction between teacher and student.

The Common Core standards are based on the belief that all children should be taught in the same way with the same curriculum. Implemented, it makes no distinction for children with special needs or those who are disabled. By forcing teachers to deliver a set curriculum rather than teach children as individuals, the Common Core has removed the flexibility teachers need to reach children of all backgrounds, abilities, and learning styles (Townsend, 2014). When the tests were given in New York state, only 3% of English language learners, 5% of students with disabilities and fewer than 20% of African American and Hispanic students passed (Strauss, 2014). According to Northouse (2013), one of the defining behaviors of Servant Leaders (teachers) is having a social responsibility to be concerned about the “have-nots” and those less privileged. In some states, teachers say that the lessons are scripted and deprive them of their professional autonomy, the autonomy they need to tailor their lessons to the needs of the students in front of them (Strauss, 2014). In order to teach minority groups and children with disabilities, teachers have to have the freedom to teach them based on their own abilities and not government mandated ones.

There are some complaints that teachers are now being forced to teach to a test and deviation from the Common Core will result in poor evaluations and possible loss of their jobs (Minasian-Sommers, 2014). This, understandably, will force many teachers to move away from the altruistic behaviors of a Servant Leader, especially as most have their own families and must pay their bills.

While there are many proponents and critics of the Common Core based on educational standards alone, from a leadership standpoint, the Common Core is detrimental.

References

Frequenty Asked Questions. (2014). Retrieved from Common Core State Standard Initiatives: http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-asked-questions/

Minasian-Sommers, L. (2014, June 1). Common Core will harm education. Telegram & Gazette, p. A 13.

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Strauss, V. (2014, January 18). Everything you need to know about Common Core — Ravitch. Retrieved from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/18/everything-you-need-to-know-about-common-core-ravitch/

Townsend, S. (2014, January 30). Common Core is too rigid. Times Union.

Team Leadership at Amazon’s Customer Service

October 26, 2014 by August Miriah Bruce

Customer service is the key to many business’ success and this has proved true for Amazon.com. One of Amazon’s Leadership Principles is Customer Obsession; according to their website, “Leaders start with the customer and work backwards. They work vigorously to earn and keep customer trust. Although leaders pay attention to competitors, they obsess over customers” (Leadership Principles, 2014). As a matter of fact, according to Forbes magazine (2014), Amazon was the top rated company for Customer Service by Wall Street’s Tempken Consulting Group. For example, the Huffington Post did an article on a recent correspondence between a customer and Amazon’s customer service that went viral (Thomas, 2014).

During a recent interview with a former customer service representative, it was discovered that much of the success of Amazon’s customer service is due to its emphasis on team leadership and cohesive team members (Wolfrom, 2014). Customer service call centers are distinct from Amazon’s fulfillment centers as far as organizational structure. Each call center has a Site Leader, which oversees the center and maintains service levels. Subordinate to the Site Leader are Operation Managers who lead and develop a team of associates and managers, creating a high-performing team through a people-centric leadership culture (Amazon.com, 2014). According to the interviewed customer service associate (Wolfrom, 2014), Operations Managers also work together to ensure that their teams are working towards the same goal. Managers subordinate to Operations Managers lead a team of associates, ensuring high performance and delivery of excellent customer service; they are supported by Team Leaders who take direct responsibility for the day to day running of Customer Service teams. The Team Lead provides guidance and leadership to operations team through coaching and support (Amazon.com, 2014).Finally there are the Customer Service Associates who according to Amazon, are the heart of the organization, and directly handle interactions between customers and the company.

When real-life successful teams were studied, they were found to have eight characteristics that were associated with team excellence (Northouse, 2013). Amazon’s customer service department meets all of these characteristics

amazon

As can be seen, the studies have proven correct for Amazon as well.

References

Amazon.com. (2014). The face of Amazon’s Customer Service. Retrieved from Amazon.com Jobs: http://www.amazon.jobs/team/operations-customer-service

Leadership Principles. (2014). Retrieved from Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Values-Careers-Homepage/b/ref=smi_www_rcolv2_go_smi?_encoding=UTF8&node=239365011

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Soper, T. (2012, December 13). Here’s what employees love and hate about working at Amazon, Microsoft. Retrieved from GeekWire: http://www.geekwire.com/2012/employees-love-hate-working-amazon-microsoft/

Thomas, E. (2014, August 28). The Best Customer Service Reps Are The Ones Who Pretend To Be Thor. Retrieved from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/amazon-thor-customer-conversation_n_5725706.html

Wolfrom, C. M. (2014, October 23). Customer Service, Amazon.com. (A. M. Bruce, Interviewer)

Defining Military Leadership

September 28, 2014 by August Miriah Bruce

What does one think of when the subject of military leadership comes up? For me, when I think of military leadership I get images of Full Metal Jacket’s Gunnery Sergeant Hartman (played by R. Lee Ermey) yelling insults at a group of marine recruits. This leadership approach is confrontational, abusive and in the end, doesn’t end too well for Gny. Sgt. Hartman (Kubrick, 1987). For someone who has not been in the military, this type of portrayal has been the typical stereotype of a military leader. However, in doing research, I have learned that this is not necessarily the case; modern military leadership reflects both the style theory of leadership and the situational theory of leadership, depending on where the leader falls in the military hierarchy.

Individuals who study leadership theory might immediately assume that military leadership falls directly under the situational theory of leadership. There is after all a distinct directive behavior common to all branches of the military. This low supportive behavior focuses on achieving goals and doesn’t spend much time considering individual’s needs (Northouse, 2013). For those of higher rank that would be true; higher levels of leadership (rank) have broader missions and cannot always consider the individuals in each squad or platoon as mission tasking is less specific (Waddell III, 1994). Higher ranking individuals delegate mission specifics down to lower ranking individuals which is a low support, low directive style of leadership (Northouse, 2013).

At the unit level it is the lower ranking non-commissioned and commissioned officers who must use a multifaceted approach when it comes to leadership, from boot camp to active war or peace time. Social support is more important for successful and effective leadership at lower ranks than at higher rank. They must foster training and coaching as well as looking for additional subordinate leaders (Yeakley, 2002); this style approach to leadership begins early in boot camp. Drill sergeants not only enforce discipline but also engage in mentoring, coaching and building camaraderie and respect between recruits (Lapidos, 2009). This initiating of tasks, such as obeying orders and defining roles which are combined with the consideration aspect are the defining roles in the style theory of leadership.

Military leadership is full of complexities, especially during a more chaotic war time environment, but when examined using both the style and situational approaches to leadership, it can be better understood. As you can see, higher ranking individuals rely more on the situational approach to leadership while their subordinates rely increasingly on the style approach to leadership.
References

Kubrick, S. (Producer), Hasford, G., Kubrick, S., Herr, M. (Writers), & Kubrick, S. (Director). (1987). Ful Metal Jacket [Motion Picture]. United States: Warner Brothers.

Lapidos, J. (2009, September 22). How Mean Are Drill Sergeants? Retrieved from Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/09/how_mean_are_drill_sergeants.html

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Waddell III, D. E. (1994). A Situational Leadership Model for Military Leaders. Airpower, 3(3).

Yeakley, G. W. (2002). Army Leadership. Washington D.C.: US Government Printing Office .

Jungian Archetypes and Historical Leaders

September 13, 2014 by August Miriah Bruce

Jungian Archetypes and Historical Leaders
—Miriah Bruce

Jungian psychology has always fascinated me and I am certainly eager to learn more about his psychodynamic approach and archetypes. The first thought that came to me when considering these archetypes and our class, which is centered on leadership, was how it would relate to well known historical leaders. My first thought was that most historical leaders would be, as noted in the class commentary, confined to either the warrior/hero archetype or the magician archetype. However, I’ve found that it is not necessarily so. As stated in our text, using the psychodynamic theory is known to be subjective (Northouse, 2013) and many may not associate these leaders with their archetypes as I do.

There are of course, too many archetypes to create a singular list, but some of the common character archetypes are as follows: The Hero/Warrior, The Caregiver/Great Mother, The Explorer, The Lover, The Sage/Wise Old Man, The Scapegoat and the Devil (Wedgeworth, 2009).

Certainly Alexander the Great fits the Jungian Archetype of the Hero/Warrior. He has been described by some historians as the Midas of war; everything he touched turned to gold (Upbin, 2010).

A leader that might symbolize the Caregiver/Great Mother archetype could be Harriet Tubman. Nearly all children’s history books about the United States during the Civil War mention her as a leader amongst the slave population. She cared for and led fellow slaves to freedom at great personal risk (Maglaty, 2011).

There have been many explorers in our history, but for this archetype, I am choosing Ferdinand Magellan. He and his crew sailed around the world, not as a conqueror, like Cortez might be considered (and there for a warrior archetype), but to prove the world was round. Though was already accepted in academic circles, it was physically proven after his and his crew’s journey (Halsall, 1998).

The Lover is a difficult archetype to delve into without also delving into mythic or legendary heroes instead of legendary leaders. However, one person who came to mind that would match the Lover archetype was Cleopatra. She was the last Egyptian Pharaoh who used her wiles to ensnare not one, but two Roman emperors. While sources say that she did love Augustus Caesar, she used the relationship to her advantage as a leader as well to secure her throne and protect her country (Crawford, 2007).

The first to come to mind when considering a Wise Old Man or Sage who was also a Leader was King Solomon. While some of the stories about King Solomon may be apocryphal, he was known to be extremely wise. A common story told about him is of the two women who both claimed to be the mother of a child. His unique method of discovering who the child truly belonged to, offering to cut the child in half in order to give each woman a half, and then having the true mother give him up to the other woman in order to save him illustrates how he used his wisdom (Gordon, 2014).

The definition of a scapegoat is a person who has the blame laid upon them for actions of another or for an event. There have been many historical scapegoats and history remembers them poorly, but some were leaders before they became the sacrificial lamb (or in this case, goat). An example of a recent leader who became a scapegoat is Oliver North. A marine officer, Oliver North was appointed Deputy Direct of the National Security Council by then president Ronald Reagan but shortly after that was embroiled in the Iran-Contra scandal. It is a given that he did not sell the weapons to Iran completely on his own and without knowledge from those in higher authority, but Oliver North became the scapegoat on which all attention and legal motions were centered (Biography, 2014).

For some the Devil Archetype immediately brings to mind the biblical story of Lucifer, the Archangel. However, I am choosing a Leader with a bit more recent of a history. Ivan IV of Russia, also known as Ivan the Terrible fits the Devil Archetype quite well. Though at first he attempted to maintain justice and order, his reign descended into chaos due to his paranoia and possible mental illness due to syphilis. He created Russia’s first secret police, the Oprichniki. With the Oprichniki, Ivan slaughtered 60,000 people in the city of Novgorod; the resulting mass of bodies in the Volkhov River caused it to flood. Ivan also beat his pregnant daughter-in-law until she miscarried and when his son rose to defend her, beat him to death in a fit of rage. His friendships were usually short lived and his friends usually ended up dead (Bobrick, 1987).

As you can see, different Jungian Archtypes can be found in many different historical leaders. Not all of them fit the warrior/hero archetype that Jung spoke of. Examining further leaders may result in even further explorations of different archetypes.

References

Bobrick, Benson. Fearful Majesty: The Life and Reign of Ivan the Terrible. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1987.

Crawford, A. (2007, March 31). Who Was Cleopatra? Retrieved from Smithsonian: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/who-was-cleopatra-151356013/?page=2

Gordon, C. H. (2014, January 23). Solomon. Retrieved from Encyclopaedia Brittanica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/553506/Solomon/6747/Solomons-Temple

Halsall, P. (1998, June). Modern History Sourcebook: Ferdinand Magellan’s Voyage Round the World, 1519-1522 CE. Retrieved from Fordham University: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1519magellan.asp

Jung, C. G. (1934–1954). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. (1981 2nd ed. Collected Works Vol.9 Part 1), Princeton, N.J.: Bollingen.

Maglaty, J. (2011, February 2). On the Trail of Harriet Tubman. Retrieved September 13, 2014, from http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/on-the-trail-of-harriet-tubman-146048/?no-ist

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

Oliver North. (2014). The Biography.com website. Retrieved 09:22, Sep 13, 2014, from http://www.biography.com/people/oliver-north-9425102.

Upbin, B. (2010, December 12). Two Great Historians On Alexander the Great, Part One. Retrieved September 13, 2014.

Wedgeworth, P. (2009, April 5). Jungian Archetypes. Center for the Humanities. Retrieved September 11, 2014.