For my last blog post, I would like to address something personal to me and to many other adult students. During this course we have talked a lot about our jobs, organizations that we are a part of and great (or not so great) leaders in history. One thing that I have not touched on yet is arguably one of the most complex leadership roles to navigate; the role of parenting. After all, children can be a part of organizations, and have experiences with leadership through peer groups and teachers. It makes sense that we should consider leadership beyond adult interactions. Parenting has been on my mind a lot lately, as my husband and I are due to have our last baby in early September. We also have a 9 year old son and a 2 year old daughter. Having children in different phases of life has got me thinking about what we have learned and how it could apply to the role of a parent. After reading about so many different leadership styles in so many different scenarios, I have realized that some of these approaches and theories can be harnessed into raising a family. There are a lot of conversations about parenting, especially to first time parents. Are you ready? Do you know what to expect? What kind of parent are you going to be? One conversation that I have never heard is, are you ready to be a leader? Even if one is naturally a follower within an organization, we don’t consider that you become an assigned leader when you have children weather you like it or not. Children rely on their parents for stability, happiness and guidance from the beginning to the end. I suggest that it would benefit a parent to consider a systematic leadership mindset in their parenting approaches. The same positive leadership outcomes could be possible for our little ones. The ultimate question that parents ask themselves is, ‘how do I become a good parent?’ In a world where there is so much advice, perhaps it’s time to approach parenting from a different angle.

To figure this out, we need to consider the end goal and the fact that children are not the same as adults in their cognitive abilities. Ultimately, I want to raise my kids to be leaders themselves, to be confident in their abilities, and to be firm in their convictions but kind in their actions. I spent a long time letting my insecurities hold me back because I was not encouraged to do better and be better. I still struggle with this attribute to this day. Past research on parenting and leadership has suggested that parents are considered leaders of family, and are responsible for the social climate and the personality development of their child (Ferguson et al., 2006). Up until this recent school of thought, past studies on parenting styles focused primarily on compliance through discipline while ignoring the many other social factors that make up a family unit (Ferguson et al., 2006).

First, we understand that being a parent is an assigned role that can be understood through a process definition of leadership. Assigned leadership in parenting is unique in that the role is an occupied position, but there is no opportunity for ‘real’ emergent leadership to arise to take the place of a parent’s leadership shortcomings (Northouse, 2019). While it is true that many parents possess leadership traits prior to becoming parents, overall, as a parent you become a leader weather you like it or not. It is one’s understanding of their leadership approaches that defines how they choose to manage their family. This is why, in this setting, leadership development is crucial. Due to the assigned position, the capability to develop a leadership approach is important. Traditional workplace leadership skills may not apply in this scenario, so even emergent leader parents may not be effective if they are unable to identify where new skills need to be developed.

There are many concepts that link the research of parenting with leadership styles. One repeating concept is the idea that the relationship between the parent and child is dyadic (Ferguson et al., 2006). We have seen this concept applied before within the leader-member exchange theory. Through LMX, a dyadic leader-follower relationship is the center of the leadership process. This is appropriate, as the theory focuses the growth of the interpersonal relationship, similarly to how a parent-child relationship grows through different phases. According to Ferguson (et al, 2006) families are social groups, and group interactions can effect long-term personality development. We can apply in-group/out-group dynamics to explain these relationships and why it would be beneficial to a parent to encourage in-group behaviors with their children. We can see examples of out-group relationships between parents and children, where the dyadic relationship is broken, and either the parent or child shows disinterest in the social bond. Out group members sometimes choose to not strongly identify with the group (PSU WC, 2021). This is reflected by parenting research, specifically the results of a autocratic leadership where children are awarded little freedom and initiative. This style resulted in conflict amongst the group (Ferguson et al., 2006). A incorporation of participating decision making and sharing of responsibilities resulted in friendly, helpful relationships (Ferguson et al., 2006). LMX theory similarly advises that a focus on healthy interpersonal relationships results in more support, greater participation, greater commitment and better attitudes (Northouse, 2019).

If we change the context slightly, the growing parent-child relationship follows the LMX phases of interpersonal relationships as the child grows. In the first phase, the leader-follower relationship is rule-bound with each remaining in their hierarchical lane, with the leader in control (Northouse, 2019). During the first years, parenting is generally the same as one attempts to instill boundaries, rules and expectations of their young children. In phase 2, geater trust and respect is developed, and the follower begins to contribute to the goals of the group (Northouse, 2019). When a child is old enough to gain some independence and individuality in the preteen years, they understand what contributions are expected of them and they have the ability to begin to see their parents as influencers. In phase 3, mutual trust, respect and obligation develops between the leader and follower, and these qualities are passed back and forth (Northouse, 2019). If the pursuit to a good relationship is successful between a parent and child, in their years of cognitive maturity these mutual positive attitudes towards the relationship will develop. Eventually, an adult child and parent will function under a mature partnership with both supporting each other.

Ferguson’s (et al, 2006) examination of parenting and leadership focuses on three major styles; autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. Autocratic leaders function through offering little freedom and high order. Democratic leaders encourage freedom with order. Laissez-faire leaders incorporate full freedom without order (Ferguson et al, 2006). Without directly applying these concepts, we can already imagine parents who we know who practice these different types of parenting styles. Autocratic parents are regimented, managing their households through strictly enforced rules, and the children’s activities are closely controlled. Democratic parents fall in the middle by incorporating rules but also allowing a child grow into their own identity. Laissez-faire parents might appear to have no control over what goes on in their house or their children’s lives. We see these three concepts repeated throughout the many theories and approaches of leadership, especially laissez-faire. Laissez-faire is discussed heavily within the transformational leadership theory and describes the approach as a “hands-off, let-things-ride” ideal, where there is no exchange being made to help the follower grow (Northouse, 2019). This concept supports the use of LMX theory in parenting, which suggests that mutual positive exchanges results in a positive, motivational, influential relationship. Without an exchange, according to Laissez-faire, there is little effort to satisfy needs (Northouse, 2019). Between a parent and child, a lack of connection and need-fulfillment can be damaging.

While we could argue for the value of transformational leadership in parenting further, I believe that the three main concepts here relate better to Balek and Mouton’s Managerial Grid, which examines different balances of concern for production (task management) and concern for people (Northouse, 2019). While the styles on the leadership grid may individually be beneficial in certain situations, studies on the three aforementioned concepts determine that a democratic parenting style resulted in the most positive group qualities (Ferguson et al, 2006). Group members showed cooperation, participation and they functioned well independently (Ferguson et al, 2006). Democratic parenting involves teaching mutual respect, peaceful negotiation and being mutually supportive and cooperative (Ferguson et al, 2006). Here we see a link with successful parenting behaviors and mutual leader-member exchanges. We also see another interesting link between these behaviors and the paternalism/maternalism section of the leadership grid, which incorporates both country club-style leadership and authoritative leadership (Northouse, 2019). If we put these concepts together, we can determine that an ideal parenting approach contains both a high concern for interpersonal relationship and social needs (LMX) as well as a high concern for control and task compliance. An overwhelmingly autocratic parent is only concerned with the authority-compliance, which can result in children who are not encouraged to grow into individuals, and who struggle to meet the demands of an overpowering, controlling parent. If a parent is too laisse-faire, they participate in impoverished management, resulting in a relationship that is uninvolved, indifferent and withdrawn (Northouse, 2019).

Any experienced parent can relate to the reality of how these concepts apply to our lives. Examining parenting from this perspective can help a parent thoughtfully approach family management. Our family goals can help us determine what behaviors we need to focus on to be successful. While I cannot speak for all parents, I feel confident in saying that most of us would aim to be a democratic parent, to have control of boundaries and rules to curb bad behavior, but to also allow our children to have experiences where they can practice decision-making and grow into functioning independent adults. One of the many things that I take from this content of leadership is that leadership can be found in so many walks of life, and that successful application of it is more important than we realize. Some leaders are responsible for organizational goals and to raise the next generations of leaders through their career path. Parents are responsible for the next generation of the entire population, starting from day one.

 

 

 

References:

Ferguson, E. D., Hagaman, J., Grice, J. W., & Peng, K. (2006). From leadership to parenthood: The applicability of leadership styles to parenting styles. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.10.1.43

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (Eighth Edition). SAGE Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485 | Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2137573/modules/items/32271437

The recent lesson on servant leadership has caused an epiphany in me. Ethical behavior and integrity are not heavily discussed in most of the theories and approaches that we have learned so far, but it seems to be a necessary component of the functionality of any successful leadership. According to our lesson, servant leadership is the only theory that emphasizes ethical behavior as a crucial component (PSU WC, 2021). Even those that seemingly rely on a leader’s overall intentions do not include ethicality as a major component of the theory. This bit of information made me think of my own opinions of integrity. Before digging into this information, I was under the impression that integrity is a trait. Either you have it or you don’t. In my workplace we have quarterly performance ratings. Among the many items being rated, integrity is included and rated on a number scale. I always question my supervisors, how does one rate integrity on a number scale? How can someone be somewhat integrous? If one behaves in a way that reduces their integrity, doesn’t that mean that they no loner have integrity? Similarly, I felt similarly about ethical behavior. While learning about traits compared to behaviors and skills, I am more open to the possibility that these attributes can be learned, and that one can learn the importance of ethical behavior after being educated to its benefits. I do still believe, however, that it is a committed attribute. Servant leadership, as well as other leadership theories, seem to suggest that the qualities that make a leader successful are not limited to the workplace. Leaders are not awarded the luxury of escaping from their leadership behaviors, because values are qualities that we instill in ourselves. Leaders are required to uphold their ethical behavior that reflects on them both inside and outside of the organization in which they lead. In fact, some leadership approaches are specifically more appropriately applied in settings that are not workplaces, such as transformational leadership. I use the terms of integrity and ethicality interchangeably, as both relate to one’s moral principles. Ethics is specifically defined as “relating to moral principles” while integrity is “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles” (Oxford University Press, 2021). Upon considering leadership attributes such as ethical behavior, I wonder if a leader can only become their most successful when they ‘practice what they preach’, when they integrate their leadership qualities into every other aspect of their lives.

Servant leadership stresses that in order to effectively elevate and empower their followers, leaders must be strong in their ethical standards (Northouse, 2019). They do not sacrifice their integrity for their own benefit, but rather maintain it in the face of opportunity to do otherwise. This is a practice that should be maintained in a leader’s social life, for violations of ethical behavior can reflect on the overall perception of a leader. President Clinton is notable for making this mistake when he lied about his involvement with Monica Lewinski. While he may have been an ethical leader in his role as president, his reputation was tarnished anyway by the discovery of infidelity (which he worsened by attempting to lie about the scandal, thus losing his job). There are many other qualities that encompass a servant leader; listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth and building community (Northouse, 2019). In order to maintain uncorrupted principles, one would have to integrate most of these qualities into their lives outside of the organization. Empathy relates to the ability to see the world from someone else’s point of view, healing involves caring about the wellbeing of others, and stewardship advises that one takes responsibility for the leadership role (Northouse, 2019). Additionally, commitment to growth specifically suggests that leaders are committed to both the personal and professional growth of followers (Northouse, 2019). In order to perform these behaviors, a servant leader must adopt these qualities into their personality. Like ethical behavior and integrity, I do not believe that a leader could successfully be empathetic, caring and committed during organizational operating hours only. Northouse (2019) advises that servant leadership is altruistic, and one cannot be altruistic only half of the time. Lumpkin and Achen (2018) advise that within servant leadership theory, values are important for building trust and personal strengths including integrity and authenticity are qualities that define a good servant leader. This is a consistent emotional exchange between followership and leader.

Let’s imagine that we have a leader at work who engages in servant leadership qualities. We grow to believe that this leader has our best interests in mind and we trust our personal and professional wellbeing with this person. One day, this leader is arrested after being busted in a sting operation for participating in underage human trafficking. We find out that he has frequented underground massage parlors where young women under the age of 18 are providing sexual services. As the case progresses, we find out that the girls working at this establishment are victims of trafficking. This would be a violation of our opinion of this leader, even though at work he never engaged in any kind of unethical behavior. Trust and respect would be lost and the leader’s behaviors, both present and future, would be questioned. This is an extreme example but not one that is entirely unlikely to happen in the real world. The point I want to convey is that these values and qualities that uphold leadership are a full-time job.

Transformational leadership, like servant leadership, is concerned with values and ethics (Northouse, 2019). What separates transformational leaders from servant leaders is the leadership goal. Servant leaders focus on the individual goals of their followers, while transformational leaders focus on uplifting followers to better reach the organizational goal (Northouse, 2019). The value of ethics and integrity in transformational leadership is not hard to find. Transformational leadership’s cousin, pseudotransformational leadership, involves the leadership without the ethics. Qualities that include strong moral values, inspirational motivation and intellectual situation are replaced with self-consumption, exploitation and ‘warped’ moral values (Northouse, 2019). Poor transformational leaders build followership through their charismatic behaviors, with the ultimate intention of using the followership to eventually fulfill a goal that would otherwise be impossible without the leader-followership dynamic. According to Mills and Boardley (2017) transformational leaders must commit to follower development, are required to transcend their own egoistic desires and also must consider the values of their followers. Northouse (2019) credits pesudotransformational leadership for the success of Adolf Hitler. Had he acted on his own, there is no way that he would be successful in implementing the genocide of the Jewish population in Germany. His personal values, to eliminate an entire population through murder, is not one that would otherwise be consistent with his followership. The only way to accomplish this goal would be to do so through a powerful, authoritative position with a silent followership. The only way that he would attain a followership is to first build trust through his charismatic qualities. Hitler initially displayed strong moral values (we find out later that they were strong, but warped), self-confidence, and a desire to influence (Northouse, 2019). Due to a lack of ethical leadership behaviors, Hitler was able to transform his leadership into one that was used to commit international crimes. Ethical behavior and integrity are arguably the foundation of transformational leadership. Authentic transformational leaders are morally virtuous, empowering and of integrity (Mill & Boardley, 2017) Pseudotransformational leaders, on the other hand, have an inherent need for power, promote dependency and generally lack integrity (Mill & Boardley, 2017).

Failure to be consistent in one’s leadership qualities can lead to the uncovering of self-destructive behaviors that cause a leader to fall from grace. Billy Graham, a subject whose leadership journey I studied for a group assignment, is a good example of what can happen when one doesn’t fully integrate their own moral principles. Graham sacrificed his ethicality to a degree in his desire to become a spiritual advisor and an influence in the political realm. When the President Nixon Watergate tapes were released, he was discovered to have made harsh, derogatory statements towards the Jewish population in private phone calls with the President (Colt, 2021). This sparked a downward spiral for Graham’s reputation, after which he receded out of the limelight. Arguments could be made for Graham as a servant leader and as a transformational leader, which is interesting, considering both rely on the consistent maintenance of ethical behavior in one’s life. As a servant leader, Graham certainly committed his life to influencing his followers to be the best version of his organization’s idea of a Christian. He participated in many of the qualities that make a servant leader, such as healing, listening and persuasion (Northouse, 2019). As a transformational leader, he developed new leadership goals and consistently nurtured his followership so that these goals could be met. During the Nixon scandal, Graham faltered in his applications of empathy and altruism. He failed to incorporate these behaviors into his personal life, behind closed doors, at the opportunity to keep favor of a fellow leader in a power role. This violation of his integrity, his own personal values, resulted in a leadership failure. This exposure was particularly harmful, given that Graham was one of the first notable pastors to desegregate his sermons. He built his credibility on inclusivity, and then violated that value through his statements about the Jewish population (Colt, 2021). Weather one believes that Graham is servant or transformational, or maybe a combination of both, ultimately both theories rely on the existence of strong values and ethics.

What is ethical and what is not is generally decided by societal norms on moral appropriateness (Northouse, 2019). The aforementioned behaviors of Graham and Hitler are perceived as unethical because society generally believes that murder and communicating prejudice are harmful behaviors. Should ethics be taken more seriously within leadership roles? There may be some organizational settings were the leadership role is more authoritative, and followers do not generally seek inspiration in the workplace. For example; a low-paying job that attracts young students looking for part-time work, such as a local restaurant, expects high turnover and puts their focus on task completion rather than long-term processes of career-building through interpersonal relationships. Ethics and integrity won’t make as much of an impact here, as there is low stakes for the employees involved. In organizations where followers put stake and emotional involvement into the organizational goal, a leader becomes responsible for how their leadership effect’s followers’ lives (Northouse, 2019). Approaches that emphasize influence, such as transformational and servant leadership, require incorporation of utilitarianism or altruism (Northouse, 2019). A commitment to ethics and integrity in leadership is important due to the possibility of destructive leadership developing and having catastrophic affects. Destructive leaders find cultural opportunities, such as instability and shifting cultural values, to gain and exploit followership (Northouse, 2019). In its worst form, we get Hitler. In slightly less serious cases of a failure to maintain one’s own values for personal gain, we get Graham. Ultimately, in some capacity leaders are obligated to serve their followers. A supervisor can supervise, a manager can manage, and their task-oriented behaviors help to reach organization goals. A true leader in a leadership role must be prepared to accept that their overall behaviors must be tailored to provide the outcomes for the followership. The idea of a leader functioning as a steward to the followership is relatively new in the world of leadership research. Most research on this theory comes from the 1990’s (Northouse, 2019). There is a need to develop the ethical leadership approach as it applies to all other theories and approaches. The idea of leadership ethics should blanket the subject. Northouse (2019) advises that there is not a large amount of training and development revolving around ethical leadership, even though we now understand that one cannot be a successful leader without being concerned with values. Hopefully, along with our progressive society and our concern for inclusivity and wellness, leadership experts will focus on ethics and integrity, resulting in a new generation of exceptional leaders.

 

 

 

 

References:

Colt, S. (Director) & Dobrowski, H. (Producer) (2021). Billy Graham; Prayer, Politics, Power.                  American Experience. United States; A Sarah Colt Productions Film for American            Experience. https://www.pbs.org/video/billy-graham-tp3vqn/

Lumpkin, A., & Achen, R. M. (2018). Explicating the Synergies of Self-Determination Theory, Ethical Leadership, Servant Leadership, and Emotional Intelligence. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21554

Mills, J. P., & Boardley, I. D. (2017). Development and initial validation of an indirect measure of transformational leadership integrity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 32, 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.05.005

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (Eighth Edition). SAGE Publications.

Oxford University Press. (2021). Please wait… Oxford English Dictionary. https://www-oed-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/view/Entry/97366?redirectedFrom=integrity#eid.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021a). PSYCH 485 | Lesson 11: Servant Leadership https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2137573/modules/items/32271473

What happens to followership when power and influence are being presented from two different angles, with differing values and common goals? Both sources of leadership offer benefits and meaning to the followership in different ways. Both leaders want to influence the same group of people and leaders can potentially influence follower behaviors and attitudes (Hughes, 1993). When this influence arrives upon the same followership from two leaders within the same organizational setting, who both have substantial impacts on a member’s livelihood, it can create confusion and conflict among the group. Whose side are you on? An examination on influence and how it relates to followership behaviors may be able to help navigate this complex leadership situation. An examination of various concepts may help build a strategy for each leadership as they compete for influence. The struggle for influence could result in confusion and contention among the followership. It is important for leaders in this situation to understand how to achieve their own personal goals while respecting each other’s roles in the group.

At my job, a small local police department, we have two entities of power and influence. Leadership, at its core, is ability to communicate with the group to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2019). One leadership entity is our boss, our police chief. The police chief is an assigned leader who has an ability to influence through a position of authority. An assigned leader in one who is given a leadership position before they have proven to, or been identified by, the group that they are an effective leader (Northouse, 2019). He has the legitimate power upon which to build his leadership, as legitimate power roles are not always necessarily viewed to be effective leaders (Hughes, 1993). The other entity is our collective bargaining agreement, the Police Benevolent Association (the PBA). The president and the board are elected by the body of members, and thus are emergent leaders. These emergent leaders were identified by the group, while not in a position of authority, as members who have leadership potential (Northouse, 2019). These leaders function through expert power, in that they are highly trusted to have the knowledge to navigate the many functions of the PBA, most importantly, our working contract. Hughes (1993) advises that leaders who influence through expert power are depended on for their skill and judgement despite possibly having no true authority over the members. While our Chief has the ability to elevate our career path and give special assignments, the PBA makes decisions that affect our everyday livelihood such as our income, our PTO and our benefits. These two things are arguably equally important. Working under this dynamic where two leaders are continuously applying influence over the group, but who also sometimes have opposing goals, creates a unique challenge. The police chief must work that much harder to be an effective leader when the PBA leadership maintains some control and limits the police chief’s power. The PBA provides the followership the opportunity to resist the chief’s influence (Hughes, 1993), but the chief also has the ability to apply various leadership styles, such as reward power, to enhance their leader-member exchange. Reward power covers a leader’s ability to elevate a member’s career through promotions, special assignments and resources (Hughes, 1993).

Are the chief’s influence tactics executed well enough that he is building strong enough relationships to combat the safe space of the PBA? Until recently, this wasn’t the case. The members of the police department overwhelmingly staked their faith in the PBA protections and echoed the criticisms of our former chief. Our former chief presented a leadership style that was complacent and detached. While effective influence is displayed through group cohesiveness and motivation (Hughes, 1993) during his years with the department morale was plummeting and people mostly scoffed at doing anything but the bare minimum. Rather than develop a relationship with the former chief, people appeared to walk on eggshells around him. He did not involve himself in major incidents, stuck primarily to administrative duties and only seemed to appear when there was a disciplinary issue to attend to. According to Hughes (1993) an absence during a crisis can negatively affect a follower’s perception of influence from a leader. Because of his position and experience, our former chief got by on legitimate and coercive power alone. He actually verbally criticized any use of reward power, stating that we should just do our job without expecting any recognition in return.  The chief’s legitimate power over us, to order compliance and uphold procedural rules was one that was removed from a leadership attempt (Hughes, 1993).  Our old chief built a reputation for being punishment happy, using cohesive power too frivolously as a means to keep people in line. This lack of positive influence left us in an impoverished management situation. Our chief was going through the motions but was ultimately withdrawn and uninvolved (Northouse, 2019).

Because of this experience, naturally the group gravitated towards their other option for influence, the PBA. The PBA meetings provided an outlet for frustrations in the workplace and the board was open to addressing any concerns if they held any power to effect change on that particular issue. The PBA holds the power to file grievances and often did so when serious punishment was issued by the chief and command staff. They invited opportunities to file grievances. One particular serious incident where an officer was eventually fired was drawn out through legal proceedings for over a year before it was concluded. Because of the impoverished nature of our chief’s management style, the body of the PBA was happy to support these endeavors, which were funded through our collective dues. According to Hughes (1993) leaders who apply reward and punishment have good influence, but the potential to influence can be hindered by an active union. Because we were just seeing punishment, the PBA was easily given even more room to influence members over the Chief. The board won over members with their expert power and used this situation to build their referent power. They were trusted with their knowledge and understanding of patrol function issues and they spent a considerable amount of time learning how to effectively negotiate a working contract. Even though our board members are also part of the followership in the workplace, they possessed this expert knowledge that directly benefits the members of the group. Thus they became board members as followers who have more expert power than our leader (Hughes, 1993). The PBA combats their limitations of legitimate power at work by building interpersonal relationships with the body. They apply referent power by taking on the extra effort to fight for our benefits. Because they do not have to be concerned about discipline, they are free to develop interpersonal relationships without worrying about being reluctant to discipline (Hughes, 1993). According to the leader-member exchange theory, interpersonal relationships can create a positive dyadic relationship. These relationships can result in greater organizational commitment, better attitudes and greater participation (Northouse, 2019). Additionally, Northouse (2019) suggests that interpersonal relationships between the group and the leader empower the group. The PBA certainly empowers its members with protections so that they feel safe to stand up to the Chief. Interestingly, LMX mentions that good leader relationships can compensate for the drawbacks of not feeling empowered. Though we are considering two different leaders for the same group, where one leader is failing at empowering, the PBA is creating the atmosphere of empowerment and good relationships to make up for it. Considering the dynamic of the two leadership situations at this time, the PBA was giving and receiving a high amount of support for their efforts, and the Chief was not altering his style in a way that could effectively build more support for his leadership. This reflected in the group’s overall attitudes towards the chief, and he was heavily criticized until he left the agency.

Our new chief has been with us for several months now and I am noticing his efforts to, either inadvertently or on purpose, confront this problem of leadership and influence. This chief’s leadership style approach is near opposite and I am noticing the behaviors that he is taking to ‘win over’ influence of the group. This chief, unlike the last, does seem motivated to use his legitimate power to influence the group and does not appear to be resistant to the groups influence over the leader (Hughes, 1993). So far he has projected a matter-of-fact understanding of the efforts of the PBA. He seems to communicate not distain for, but respect for their efforts as he works to understand our contract. Even though our chief is in a challenging position to support our group, but also act as a liaison for the township’s demands (which isn’t always received well by us, an example of this is the rotating shift push that I discussed in previous post), he is making efforts to tailor his leadership style to combat that setback. The first most noticeable change I saw when our chief started was that he implemented reward power into his leadership style almost immediately. He rewards in the only way he can where he isn’t limited by bureaucracy. Therefore, his rewards are intrinsic, providing the member with a feeling of accomplishment (Hughes, 1993). He does this by sending out group-wide emails to notify when an officer receives a verbal, email or letter commendation from a citizen. He then responds to the positive praise by sending a thank-you letter back to the citizen. He then posts a copy of his letter on our big bulletin board and puts another copy into our personnel file. This is intrinsic, as it allows the officer to see how their everyday work is leaving an impact on someone. Conducting recognition in this way avoids the possible downsides of extrinsic rewards, such as decreasing the motivation to work hard simply for the satisfaction of accomplishment (Hughes, 1993).

Our chief also has displayed efforts into building interpersonal relationships. It is too early to tell if these relationships will become an in-group and out-group situation, however these relationships may develop organically. Some LMX research suggests that a leader should try to build in-group style relationships with all of their followers, however some folks are simply not interested in performing beyond their job description and are more interested in building relationships under their social identity outside of work (Northouse, 2019). When our chief was hired, he spent the first several weeks having one-on-one meetings with us, to get to know about our personal lives, our career goals and any work concerns we might have. It seems as though that the chief is working through the LMX phases of relationship building, where the last chief was mostly uninterested in us. He is currently in phase 2, the acquaintance phase. While at first he fulfilled his duties as chief, performing under hierarchical status in phase 1, now he is showing himself to be approachable with concerns, agreeable to special training requests and he spends much of his morning catching up with members of the group (Northouse, 2019). He always asks me how my days off went, and recently he allowed me to juggle my work hours so that I could attend a training class that I really wanted to take, because he knew that it pertained specifically to my long-term career goals.

I believe, given the evidence of his behaviors so far, that our Chief is working towards a comfortable middle of the road management style of leadership. This works best for his position, as he has to address task concerns as a representative to the township, but he also is putting an emphasis on the people (Northouse, 2019). He attempts to be accommodating but he is firm when his answer is unfavorable. He has not engaged in any sort of conflict and attempts to be fair to both the township’s demands and the needs of the group. I have not yet experienced him in a situation where he would have to adapt his leadership style situationally.

So what does this mean for the PBA? If our chief is successful in creating a vast in-group of interpersonal relationships with the members, they may be more reluctant to support the PBA through employment grievances. Members may be more hesitant to address any criticisms about the chief. According to LMX, an effective leader can create a relationship where there is an exchange of trust, respect and obligation (Northouse, 2019). With this quality of a relationship, members put more trust in the chief’s decisions. Perhaps, if the officer who was fired was disciplined under this chief’s oversight, the PBA body would respect his judgement and decision rather than use a large amount of PBA legal fees to attempt to save the man’s job. The PBA could lose this influence over the body and they may find that negative opinions about the workplace are met with backlash. While our chief will always be limited in what he can do due to our contract, he can successfully maintain influence over our actions in other ways. This is not really a power struggle, as the two’s individual powers are defined. Power and influence are related, but are not necessarily connected (Hughes, 1993). It is an influence struggle, and the chief is using the powers that he does have to increase his influence every day. His successful influence could award him more control over his followers’ behaviors and attitudes (Hughes, 1993), making them more agreeable to his efforts. It will be interesting to see how, from a leadership theory perspective, this dynamic will change over the next few years.

 

 

References:

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (1993). Chapter 5: Power and Influence. In Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. Irwin.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (Eighth Edition). SAGE Publications.

This week I have decided to address a personal anomaly. To do this I have to explain a bit of background. This leadership course, its concepts and theories, have lead me to analyze myself deeply. As some of you already know, I work in a profession that heavily revolves around leadership and leadership experiences permeate my life almost daily. This got me thinking about myself and how I got here. When I decided to pursue law enforcement, I got a lot of puzzled looks in return. “You? Really?” I was a musical theatre kid who loved to sing, got mediocre grades at best and nothing did would ever fall under the definition of ‘structure’. I never stuck to anything for too long and certainly didn’t take myself or much else seriously. On the other hand, my older sister (by 2 years) was quite the opposite. She was a straight A student, a double major with a 4.0 who had the confidence and motivation to travel on her own to different countries as a young woman. She always worked hard and excelled at whatever job she tried and eventually she moved herself across the country where she became a business owner. In a nutshell, I was always a misdirected mess, and she was a goal-oriented achiever.

Fast forward to present day. Both now in our 30’s the field has not only evened out, it has tilted in the other direction. I noticed this shift when my sister started making some very questionable decisions and started leaning on me for emotional support. Somehow I had become her rock. I am now stable, happy, a hard worker and goal oriented. I have a high GPA and I effectively balance my family demands with my professional demands. I think about my professional goals in long terms, I even go to the dentist every 6 months! While her small business is consistent and successful, my sister is unstable and discontented in her personal and professional life. This has resulted in a tumultuous couple of years for her.

This shift in the both of us began me thinking about traits, behaviors, skills and everything in between. I once viewed my sister as one who possesses many leadership skills and myself, definitely a follower. AS I learn the differences between leadership approaches, the innate traits and the capabilities that one can acquire, I realize that this in itself is the biggest difference between us. My sister has a lot of great traits that she can rely on to be successful, but her application of leadership skills and behaviors has faltered. I, on the other hand, do not have a strong amount of leadership traits, but my capabilities to learn new skills has helped me come this far. I believe that the case of her and I provides an interesting comparison of leadership theories.

How do I describe my sister? Simply put, she is an emergent leader. Certain personality traits can build leadership emergence, and emergent leaders become influential within a group without being formally assigned that role (Northouse, 2109). She was consistently viewed by others as being reliable for certain things, especially academically. She showed maturity early through her ability to problem-solve and face new situations head-on. For this, she was usually a teacher’s favorite. In reference to bases of power, as a teenager and young adult I can already identify that my sister showed signs of expert power and referent power (Northouse, 2019) She was likable and an academic role model, and she was analytically bright. What she didn’t know off-hand, she had the ability to figure it out quickly. Other students with like-minded academic goals saw my sister as a successful, competent person and she often took on leadership roles within extracurricular activities. Interestingly, despite her recent setbacks, she still displays these qualities to a degree, as for many years she has been asked to be involved on the board for community events and local politics in her small town. From a personality perspective approach, my sister has it all.

I would not consider myself to be an emergent leader. As previously discussed, I had no capacity of any of the bases of power from a young age. In regards to information, coercive, reward, legitimate, expert or referent (Northouse, 2019) I had little to offer anyone and I didn’t have any motivation or goals in mind to change that. I was perfectly fine flying under the radar. Even though I am not in a leadership position within my department, as an officer I believe I am a kind of assigned leader in my role as a person of authority. I am working to build my leadership skills to eventually become an assigned leader with legitimate power. As assigned leader references those who are appointed to a position that has leadership potential, during which they can develop skills to become a real leader or otherwise be ineffective (Northouse 2019). I believe that while I am not in a position of power within the department, being an effective officer requires the ability to control situations and groups. I have decided to educate myself so that if I am assigned a leader, I can develop the skills to also display expert and referent social power. As an assigned leader, my goal is to be identified as a leader and thought of as approachable and fair. I would like to be reliable in my expertise, so that those who follow me feel comfortable with my competency. This leads us to skills vs. traits.

Northouse (2019) advises that trait theory suggests that leadership traits are what causes groups to identify who had leadership potential. My sister’s peers and supporters are perceiving her leadership role and offering the opportunities for her to fill them. Stogdill, a noted trait approach researcher, specified that while leaders generally possess certain traits, they are not necessarily applicable to all leadership situations (Northouse, 2019). This could explain why my sister can keep leadership momentum in certain situations and not in others. Her business is consistently successful, however she often complains that it is no longer a challenge. She tells me that besides performing her everyday tasks, ordering product, scheduling, promoting the business, the business’s good reputation in her small town allows it to otherwise run smoothly. She chose to stop creating new career goals. Once a motivated and inspired woman has fallen into a bit of a daily grind. My sister, once strong and confident, does not apply leadership behaviors in her personal life. She is now easily intimidated and controlled by others actions and opinions. I know that her leadership traits are still somewhere in there, however, because she is still actively sought out by the community and, as previously mentioned, is often recruited to participate in charity and other social events. This shows that, for some reason, my sister’s leadership traits are not performing as strong in the situation she is in now. It is true that those who possess similar traits consistent with leadership does not mean that they are a shoe-in, the traits should be relevant it the situation (Northouse, 2019). Based on the traits I see, I am coming to the conclusion that my sister, because of her combination of attributes, thrived in structured, academic situations and falters in gray, open ended situations for which there may not be a right or wrong answer.

If we examine the most recent trait-based research, there are many traits listed that can apply to my sister. She has cognitive abilities, she is extraverted, motivated, self-monitoring intelligent, and she is problem-solving (Northouse, 2019). She shows some forms of conscientiousness in her professional life, but not her personal life. Even at work her moments of inspiring a followership are fleeting. My sister is very social, controlled and decisive in her work, but with her personal relationships she tends to be very judgmental and does not always give positive energy. The inconsistency between my sister’s traits and her actual leadership may be best explained by her high neuroticism. Low neuroticism is associated with leadership (Northouse, 2019). When we look at what traits make up neuroticism, we could practically put a picture of my sister over the past few years next to it. She has been extremely depressed, anxious, insecure, vulnerable and hostile. Some leadership researchers point out the importance that emotional intelligence plays in leadership. One requires emotional intelligence to meet life challenges. In order to lead, one must have a presence of confidence, self-regulation and self-awareness (Northouse, 2019). My sister lets emotional hurdles get the best of her, during which she seemingly cannot gather the strength to overcome these hurdles for weeks, months and even years. Because her community is very small, my sister doesn’t have much of a choice for blending her personal life with her professional life. The capacity at which her friends, staff and associates intermingle doesn’t leave much room for privacy. She has expressed to me that she cannot seem to escape the aftermath of a dramatic relationship termination, a large reason for parts of her recent neuroticism. This has spiraled into several years of neurotic traits and emotional instability permeating her life, possibly causing her to be an ineffective leader.

While I thought I had traits consistent with leadership, we have also learned that traits are inate. If this theory has merit, then as previously discussed, I did not display any leadership qualities until well into my late 20’s. At best, I was a problem-solver, a trait distinguished by researchers Zaccaro, Kemp and Bader (Northouse, 2019). Even at my most misguided moments I was resourceful and I worked through new challenges mostly on my own. I got by. According to what we have learned so far, this makes me not an emergent leader but an assigned leader, who learns leadership through skill development. Even assigned leaders need to possess the traits required to develop skills, and we know that some traits and skills overlap. Northouse (2019) specifically advises that openness, ambiguity and curiosity are traits upon which skills can be built. These traits I do have. These traits, combined with my problem-solving abilities, which is both a trait and a skill that I can improve upon, have created a pathway to success. As I matured and created new academic goals I first began to build my cognitive abilities of information processing, reasoning, creative thinking and memory skills (Northouse, 2019). This helped me develop my capabilities for problem-solving and social judgement. These two skills especially have helped me be successful at work. In law enforcement we navigate problems every day, especially using cause-goal analysis, planning, constraint analysis and forecasting. Social perceptiveness and perspective-taking allows me to understand how my contacts and my coworkers, so that I can properly apply solutions based on goals and need (Northouse, 2019).

Our each unique combinations of traits and skills effects our leadership styles which could further explain our unexpected paths. My sister, based on her aforementioned limitations of stalled work goals and neuroticism, advises that she doesn’t have to be involved in her business like she used to be, expect to keep it stable. She often expresses frustration with non-committal and unskilled employees which leads me to believe that her leadership style is borderline impoverished, but in between impoverished and middle-of-the-road. She seems indifferent and apathetic to her staff (Northouse, 2019). She still shows glimmers of balance in her style, sometimes showing interest in staff. She performs lower-level job tasks when they are short staffed, sometimes she shows special interest in those staff members who show motivation to improve. While I would like to think that, especially after taking this class, I have the awareness to develop the skills necessary for team management, the ideal leadership style that shows a concern for people and a concern for results, I believe I fall between it and country-club management (Northouse, 2019). If I were to apply leadership roles to my personal life management and to my work with the public, I believe that I am especially thoughtful in considering people’s needs.  I do have a high concern for interpersonal relationships. I recently evaluated myself using the Fielder LPC measure (Northouse, 2007) and was very much a high LPC individual. I tend to default to agreeableness and neutrality in the face of confrontation. I intent to build on my skills so that I can incorporate for firm behaviors into my leadership style. This way, I can be trusted by followers to recognize and resolve issues, and be decisive and confident. Being aware that I need to make these changes shows that I can attain leadership from an opportunism approach. I can shift my behaviors in an adaptable and strategic way to reach my goals (Northouse, 2019). My sister, however, seems to have stagnated in her development.

A lot more could be said as I compare the two of us, but I believe that would extend into theories and psychology that extends beyond the parameters of leadership. Ultimately, I believe that this compare and contrast between us, our personality types and our journeys shows that leadership opportunities are available to someone, no matter what stage of life they are in. We may unexpectedly find ourselves in situations where we view ourselves as having leadership potential, and in situations where what worked before no longer works. The challenge is the ability to be able to adapt one’s style (Northouse, 2019). Where I need to work on my directive leadership, my sister needs to focus on her supportive approach. This evolution in our relationship made me think about a lot of things, how someone who I aspired to be like, and never thought I could be, is now heavily leaning on me for support. When thinking about leadership and what this means to me, and what happened along my sisters journey, I hope that I can offer her even better support to turn things around and be the strong, inspiring woman that I know she can be. Because her example is a large part of why I found the strength to be where I am today.

 

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Contingency Theory. In Leadership: Theory and Practice (pp. 113–126). Sage Publications.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (Eighth Edition). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.