Diversity is not just a brick, but a cornerstone of the wall that sets the foundation for one of the world’s most well-known multinational institutions. I have accumulated 5 years of experience working with the Model United Nations; an educational simulation modeled after the international organization that fosters political and economic cooperation across the globe. Since 1945, members from 193 sovereign states have had to utilize their inter-cultural skills in order to cooperate and develop resolutions to issues that plague the world. The United Nations accomplishes effective collaboration because its members accept that “global leaders need to be skilled in creating transcultural visions” (Northouse, 2016, p. 428).

One of the ways which the members of the United Nations work with diversity is by recognizing a common history. Nizami, the Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies, asserts that, “Culture and civilization are universal heritage to which all people have contributed and to which all people can benefit” (Peace and development, 2012). He goes on to explain how everyone accepts that the stories of others must be listened to because they fit into the greater picture of the general narrative (Peace and development, 2012). Just as countries have a common history, they also seek to have a common future, and effective collaboration on international issues such as the eradication of hunger, poverty and disease emphasize the recognition of equality. The member nations all have equal representation in the UN General Assembly, which helps to combat ethnocentrism, or “the perception that one’s own culture is better or more natural than the culture of others” (Northouse, 2016, p. 429).

Leaders in the United Nations work hard to communicate in light of the similarities and differences between cultural groups. The GLOBE studies, or the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness research program, “divided the data from the 62 countries they studied into regional clusters” (Northouse, 2016, p. 434). Turkey, a country that fits into the Middle East cluster, is characterized by a great pride that its people show in their families and organizations. “They are devoted and loyal to their own people” (Northouse, 2016, p. 438). Kalin, the Chief Adviser to the Prime Minister of Turkey, states that what works for peace and development is that the point of intercultural collaboration is not to overcome one’s own identity, “but rather to recognize the reality of different cultural, religious and political identities and not to allow them to be an obstacle to reaching out to others” (Peace and development, 2012). In a country that generally minds its own people, Kalin sees diversity not as a barrier to intercultural peace, but as a bridge of understanding.

These leaders also encompass shared values that make it easier to look past their differences. Finding common ground helps members transcend difficult obstacles like the collision of faith and secularism. One shared value was human dignity, which “was based on respect for justice, irrespective of religion, and on respect for human rights as a derivative of human dignity” (Peace and development, 2012). Regardless of divergent perspectives on religion, or appropriate leadership, member states unite through common values and in pursuit of a shared vision.

 

References:

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

Peace and development – What works. (2012). United Nations. Retrieved April 16, 2018, from https://www.un.org/press/en/2012/ga11216.doc.htm

When I was 20 years old, I ran a small summer sales office where I was responsible for interviewing, hiring and training an active sales force to demonstrate and sell Cutco Cutlery products to their friends and family. One sales representative that I hired, Brian, became so enamored with the way I led and the mission of the company that he was inspired to open his own office the following summer. Brian helped me realize that I am a servant leader because according to Northouse (2016), “servant leaders place the good of followers over their own self-interests and emphasize follower development” (p. 226). It was Brian who made me realize that inspiring, motivating and empowering people to become the best versions of themselves was my personal life mission. Furthermore, in hindsight, an analysis of my relationship with Brian (in particular) and my relationships with my other followers fits cleanly into the facets of the Servant Leadership Model.

The three antecedent conditions to servant leadership are context and culture, leader attributes, and follower receptivity (Northouse, 2016, p. 232). Some of my values that I emphasized in my office were a positive culture, continuous growth and development, and open and honest communication. I wanted my followers to understand that I was once a sales representative like them, and to trust that they could be open with me. The incorporation of these values set the stage for the development of strong relationships. Northouse (2016) explains that “some may feel a deep desire to serve or are strongly motivated to lead” (p. 232). My intentions within the organization were to put my people first, so that no matter how long they stayed with the company (the average sales rep stayed for two weeks) that they took something valuable home with them that they could apply in different positions throughout their lives. Not all of my followers were strongly motivated by the company vision and mission, and were simply looking to maximize their profits, but Brian demonstrated receptivity to what the organization and I had to offer.

Nevertheless, I emphasized the servant leader behaviors that streamlined the process of servant leadership. I put my followers first, helped my followers succeed, and created value for the community. I was able to give Brian much of my attention because he was always curious and asking questions to aid his personal development. He called me every single day so that I could keep him accountable and on top of his goals and objectives. In this company, the lines between work and personal life were often blurred, so a friendship developed between Brian and I, and I began to share my story of how I came to be with the company with Brian. This, in turn, contributed to the positive outcomes of the Servant Leadership Model.

The outcomes of the model are follower performance and growth, organizational performance, and societal impact (Northouse, 2016, p. 232). Brian was my most successful sales representative, and contributed nearly $13,000 in cutlery sales to the organization. Northouse (2016) also states that several studies have found a positive relationship between servant leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors (p. 237). Brian was committed to the organization beyond his personal vendetta, and did so by helping out around the office, and even practicing interviewing applicants. The societal impact developed from Brian’s eventual decision to open his own office. He gave other individuals the opportunity to demonstrate their value, earn money, meet new friends, and so on. As a servant leader, I helped train Brian to become a servant leader in his own right. This was the most rewarding part of working with this organization.

After the following summer had passed, I learned Brian did slightly better than I did when I ran my own office. That feeling of being simultaneously jealous and incredibly prideful is a powerful feeling that resulted from being a servant leader. Working as a sales manager for this company was the best decision I ever made, and although I have moved on to new ventures, I believe the legacy of my leadership will live on through Brian and the various representatives he and I have employed and inspired to become better people.

 

References:

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

Warren Bennis, an American scholar and organizational consultant, once said, “The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.” Several months after starting a new sales job with a marketing communications agency, I knew I was working with a manager and not a leader. A transactional leader develops from a type of exchange relationship in order to meet certain needs, but a transformational leader attempts to change the status quo through strong values and a sense of higher purpose (Northouse, 2016). When things were not going well and change was not an option, I had a feeling I hit a dead end.

Transformational leaders are more adept at driving organizational change and getting results than transactional leaders (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012 as cited by Northouse, 2016). According to Lewin (1951), there are four phases of organizational change: diagnosing the problem, unfreezing current commitments, implementing new changes (movement), and institutionalizing the new changes (refreezing) (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016). The organization was not doing well; the previous salesperson had not made a single sale in the eight months that he worked there, so I had entered this new position with the mindset that new changes were necessary for an effective sales strategy. At the end of one of our sales meetings, I brought some new ideas to the table, and I was instantly shut down and berated. I was told by my manager, “I have been doing this for 20 years; you should trust that I know what I’m doing.” The problem had been diagnosed, but my manager was unwilling to unfreeze his current commitments to implement new changes. So change did not happen, nor did the results.

Without change, there is no progress. Transactional leaders “exchange things of value with subordinates to advance their own and followers’ agendas” and to preserve the status quo (Kuhnert, 1994, as cited by Northouse, 2016). I thought that my manager, who is also my uncle, had given me this position because he trusted my previous sales expertise, but I believe he was really looking for someone to build a leads database and make cold calls. In return, he paid me generously for it, but in the end the work environment became too hostile to bear. He was just looking for someone to follow his command, and there was no wiggle room for change. At first, I found his charisma empowering; he was dominant, had a strong desire to influence others, and a high level of self-confidence, which are all characteristics of charismatic leaders (Northouse, 2016). But transformational leaders are positive charismatic leaders, and not all charismatic leaders are transformational.

An inability to be sensitive to emotional states and pick up on social cues leaves the transactional leader several steps behind the transformational leader. My manager was the archetype of emotionally unintelligent; he was unaware of the effect that his negative emotionality had on others, and he took out his anger on his employees. Northouse (2016) explains how “transformational leadership requires that leaders be aware of how their own behavior relates to the needs of their followers” (p. 180). Personally, I needed to be a part of a positive work environment to be productive and motivated, and my manager’s behaviors created this tension that lingered throughout the office. I couldn’t focus on simple tasks because all I would be able to think about is the last time he was short with me, or made me or another employee feel incompetent.

Transformational leaders take the lead over transactional leaders because they drive organizational change, use their charisma in a positive manner, and understand the needs of their followers. I had to leave the organization because even the financial incentives could not offset working under a transactional leader. As the world changes and the status quo evolves, transactional leaders will be left in the dust.

 

References:

Muchinsky, P.M. & Culbertson, S.S. (2016). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press.

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

                When the desire for power is overcome by the desire to solve problems, the concept of sharing leadership rather than being led by a single individual will re-define what leadership means in modern society. Subtle differences in the two conceptualizations of leadership can be seen in the picture above; “the rectangular meeting table signifies that those at the ends have power, while a circular table signifies that everyone has equal power” (Northouse, 2016). We are living in an age where leaders emerge in many different ways; some teams have members that specialize in specific departments, such as finance, special projects, marketing, web design, and so on. We are moving away from the Industrial Revolution where one individual can be seen directing a group of employees working on an assembly line; individual contributions are gaining value and people are recognized as more than just gears in a well-oiled machine.

It is becoming important for Industrial/Organizational psychologists to study teams because organizations are becoming flatter and more team based; we are now faced with learning how to appraise teams instead of individuals (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016). As an Organizational Leadership major, when I am working with members of a group for a school project, I am often collaborating with other individuals studying the same or similar disciplines. The concept of shared leadership comes more naturally to leadership-oriented groups because we all recognize the responsibilities of making decisions, solving problems, adapting to changes, achieving goals, developing a positive climate, and solving interpersonal problems (Northouse, 2016). The question for us is not concerning who will take the reins of the project; rather it is how will we utilize each other’s strengths to accomplish our goals and objectives?

The concept of shared leadership helps to re-shape group roles for a business or a project. Dividing power more evenly among group members can allow for diverse perspectives and valuable input that would not be possible if group members are only expected to do what they’re told. Pearce and Sims (2000) found that “shared leadership contributed to team effectiveness beyond traditional leadership,” relative to the groups that did not engage in shared leadership (Northouse, 2016). Consider the scenario of a new start-up; if an individual recruited a bunch of people and assumed the leadership position because he/she started the business, and then allocated responsibilities to the recruited members, it is likely that these individuals will feel that they are feeding this leader’s vision. However, if there is greater buy-in and the group members’ personal visions and ideas are implemented into the greater organization, they will feel that they are all creating the vision together. According to Northouse (2016), “all of the members of the group can contribute to the process of leadership. In fact, when all members have some kind of leadership role, the groups actually perform better.”

But why should we focus on shared leadership instead of traditional leadership? Wouldn’t there be clashes or competition for power? It depends on how underlying power dynamics contribute to the team culture. I worked for a small marketing organization in a team of 10 people, where one person dictated when and how everything was completed. When I presented new ideas for conducting sales and marketing strategies, they were instantly shut down because they weren’t “how things have been done”, even though sales and marketing was supposed to be my department as a Sales Account Executive. I can attest that the structure of a management team, in which direction is coordinated and provided to subunits under the discretion of an individual, is becoming outdated (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2016). Northouse (2016) notes that two of the components of team leadership are competent team members and unified commitment; when these two conditions exist in a group setting, traditional leadership can stifle creativity and diversity by pushing an individual agenda on followers. The shift to a circle-table mentality will allow shared leadership to blossom, which will consequently result in greater buy-in and commitment from team leaders.

 

References:

Foley, H. (2015). The 10 commandments of team meetings. Callcentrehelper.com. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from https://www.callcentrehelper.com/the-10-commandments-of-team-meetings-71058.htm

Muchinsky, P. M. & Culbertson, S. S. (2016). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. Summerfield, NC: Hypergraphic Press.

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

Phillpott, S. (2018). 7 easy ways to make your team meetings more effective. Career Addict. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from https://www.careeraddict.com/team-meeting-ideas

                In the 21^st century, asserting that leaders are born, not made, would discredit an entire curriculum dedicated to teaching about leadership. Although the trait approach has over a century of research and appears to be intuitively appealing, it is only one piece of the puzzle. Studies that were derived from the initial research were responsible for identifying traits that differentiate leaders and non-leaders, which serves as a strong background as to what to look for in aspiring leadership, but the trait approach cannot be the only answer to what constitutes a good leader. If this approach were valid, not only could there be a stringent application process for applying to the Organizational Leadership program at Penn State, but aspiring leaders would be discredited on account of their innate personalities.

According to Skattebo (2017), extroversion is a trait that is strongly related to leadership effectiveness. Many hiring managers look for extroversion in face-to-face interviews because it has been positively related to job performance. In fact, of the Big Five leadership traits, extroversion has also been positively related to salary levels, promotions and career satisfaction (Skattebo, 2017). Thus, if the trait approach were still valid, introverts would be discredited as less favorable to extroverts in leadership positions. However, there are now many more approaches to leadership, so there is now contrary evidence to the century-old trait approach. Grant, Gino and Hofmann (2010) note that “introverted leaders tend to listen more carefully and show greater receptivity to suggestions, making them more effective leaders of vocal teams (para. 2). So if you were the doctor in the cartoon above, would you call the man about an extrovert or an introvert being the next generation leader?

One of the ironic downfalls of the trait approach is that it has failed to provide a definite list of leadership traits (Northouse, 2016). How can there be validity in an approach that emphasizes seeking out specific traits that leaders are born with, when we can’t be sure what those traits even are? The above example clearly exhibits this conflict. Furthermore, with all of this different research on traits that are positively correlated with effective leadership, how do we know which research is the most accurate or well supported? For instance, Stogdill (1974) identified 10 traits positively associated with leadership, Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) identified 6 traits, and then the “Big Five” are popular for identifying 5 traits (Northouse, 2016). A lack of an agreed upon framework demonstrates the contradictions that refute the trait approach.

Lastly, the trait approach places no importance on the relationship between the leader and his/her followers. Without followership there would be no leadership, since leadership involves influence and occurs within a group context. If the trait approach were valid, how could a situation where an individual who exhibits extroversion, open mindedness, and conscientiousness (Big Five traits) that is disliked by his/her followers be explained? Or vice versa; why would a group of people strongly support an individual that displays a multitude of traits that are commonly believed to be negatively related to leadership?

I am pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree in Organizational Leadership. If the trait approach were valid in the modern day, this degree would be irrelevant if I did not possess the traits that are commonly associated as related to strong leadership. I tend toward introversion, although I can wear the façade of an extrovert, but I have been in many leadership positions throughout my life. I was the Student Council President for three years of high school, a District Manager of a sales office, and the lead role of many theater productions. But I was not discredited by my introversion. In the 21^st century, the trait approach may provide the foundation for supplementary leadership theories, but its validity is decreasing considerably as more research reveals that you can turn average people into champions.

 

References:

Anderson, M. (n.d.) Baby Cartoon #6018. Andertoons. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from https://www.andertoons.com/baby/cartoon/6018/you-see-any-next-generation-leadership-you-call-me

Grant, A., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2010). The hidden advantages of quiet bosses. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from https://hbr.org/2010/12/the-hidden-advantages-of-quiet-bosses

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

Skattebo, A.L. (2017). Personality. Lecture presented at Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.