Since I am a woman I understand the barriers that have to be overcome in order to rise in the ranks.  The biggest for me is also having a family.  There is a very great and demanding responsibility to care for a family and much of that falls on the mother.  At any given time you can be called to the school to pick up your sick child or need to stay at home to care for your sick child. 

I think we can all agree that to be a head of a large company would take up most of your time.  I recently watched a program on Erin Callan, former CFO of Lehman Brothers.  Although she rode a very fast track to the position of CFO she now, at the age of 47, wished she had taken a different path and had a family (Daily Mail Reporter, 2013).

Personal barriers, such as work-home conflict, often produce career gaps and have a negative connotation (PSU, 2013).  On the other side, Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg  believes that women should break the barriers and “lean in” and take charge of their careers before having families (Daily Mail Reporter, 2013).  Sandberg also believes that the barriers between men and women are due to women “self-imposing limits” on themselves (Daily Mail Reporter, 2013). 

I can’t help to think these limits are also imposed by the men in the workforce.  If women need to “lean in” then the men also need to open a door so that we can lean in. 

Personally speaking I agree with Sandberg, but also can understand Callan’s point of view.  I’m a mother of 3 and can’t see how anyone could juggle both full-time jobs.  Taking care of children is endless; it starts at sunup and ends at…well, it never ends.  

I have regrets too, as most due, but I can happily say that having a family is not one of them.  Although I don’t have a dime to spare I would not trade my family for the world, much less an executive position that would punish me for having a work-home conflict. 

 

References

Daily Mail Reporter. Mail Online. March 10, 2013.Retrieved from  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-       2291316/Former-Lehman-Brothers-CFO-Erin-Callan-regrets-putting-career-ahead-hopes-mother.html

 

Pennsylvania State University. (2013). Leadership and Diversity. [si lecture].  Retrieved from

                https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/psych485/001/content/13_lesson/01_page.html.

 

I’ve been watching a new program found on Fox TV called The Following.  In this show there is a cult, or following, that has formed around a serial killer named Joe Carroll.  Joe, before he was caught, was a literature professor who specialized in the works of Edger Allan Poe.  The show allows you to see how each of the followers came to be “followers”.  In each case, Joe was able to “Personalize” his leadership skills to form a personal bond with his soon-to-be follower (PSU, 2013).  The definition of personalized leadership is “transformational leaders that are able to share a strong, personal bond with a follower.  They are sensitive to the emotional states of followers and are adept at picking up social cues” (PSU, 2013).  These particular followers are all looking to belong and to for their lives to have meaning.  Joe is able to pick up on these “cues” and have each person believe that they can belong to him and his group.  The followers have the defined characteristics as described by PSU, such as:  Identification with leader and vision, heightened emotional levels, willing subordination to the leader, and feelings of empowerment. 

Each characteristic is defined below, in greater depth, by PSU, 2013, and are as follows (no pun intended):

 Identification with leader and vision: followers bond with the leader because they see the implementation of the vision as a solution to all of their problems. Followers’ self-concepts also become defined in terms of the leader.

Heightened emotional levels: transformational leaders stir followers’ feelings, and this heightened emotional level results in increased effort and performance.

Willing subordination to the leader: followers defer to the authority of transformational leaders. Followers suspend their own thinking skills and follow the leader.

Feelings of empowerment: followers of transformational leaders expect more of themselves and work harder to achieve these higher goals.

All of these characteristics are clearly visible in each of the follower characters of the show.   The show describes how Joe recruits his followers and is copied below: 

He has recruited from all walks of life–housewives, teachers, accountants, military, law enforcement.  All of whom fit the personality types associated with cult susceptibility:  empty, lost, maladjusted to full-blown psychopath.  The acolytes that we’ve encountered have run the gamut from visionary to hedonistic one-time killers, mission-oriented killers, fans of killers–killers, killers…

They are all looking to belong and identify with the leader, Joe Carroll.  Joe is able to use his charisma to help them see that they belong to his cause, and they each go willingly.  Joe uses his ability as a Transformational Leader to, and as described by PSU, “change and transform people, move followers to do things that they would not usually do” (PSU, 2013).  Transformational Leaders are also described as ones who are concerned with “emotions, values, ethics, standard, and long-term goals.  They are passionate, driven, able to paint a compelling vision of the future and are able to generate high levels of excitement among followers and build strong emotional attachments with them” (PSU, 2013).

Although Joe uses these characteristics to engage in horrible acts, they are still ones that you are able to pick up on quickly and identify him as a Transformational Leader as defined by PSU. 

If you are interested in watching The Following the show can be found on Mondays at 9PM on Fox or read more about the show at www.fox.com/the-following/.  Joe says “come follow me”.

 

References

Pennsylvania State University. (2013). Transformational Leadership. [Online lecture].  Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/psych485/001/content/10_lesson/01_page.html.

Fox Broadcasting Company. The Following.  www.fox.com/the-following/

There is quite a big possibility that the “In-Group” is completely unfair.  In my last job the in-group was also called the boys club.  The in-group is a simple concept and is much like the pecking order most of us became acquainted with in high school (PSU, 2013).  This concept is based on the study of the Leader Member Exchange Theory, and is part of the vertical relationship between the leader and the follower (PSU, 2013).  The in-group consists of employees who have a good relationship with the leader and who are willing to do more work than is found in their current job descriptions (PSU, 2013). Northouse adds to this description and states that in order to become part of the in-group, one would need to complete “certain activities” that go above and beyond the normal job description (Northouse, 2010).

The group that I refer to as the boys club was comprised of men, and some were in high positions within the company, and if they were not they soon would be.  Northouse claims that the interaction of personalities between the leader and follower play a large role in the follower eventually becoming a part of the in-group (Northouse, 2010). This group would have lunch together, take smoke breaks together, go out on Friday after work, and two of the members rented a house together.   I have to wonder if Northouse was speaking of the above mentioned activities within the boys club when he was speaking of “certain activities” (Northouse, 2010).  The higher ranking individuals would somehow get the others promoted over more qualified individuals.  One person who held a manager’s position lost every account that he oversaw.  He was not let go, nor was he demoted. He just got new accounts. 

Northouse states that when an employee has a quality relationship with the leader he will receive special treatment (Northouse, 2010).  The above example also agrees with what Northouse was speaking to with regards to the special benefits for the employees who have a good relationship with the leader.  In this case they would get promoted over more qualified employees, and would be able to keep their jobs over others even when their performance was not up to par.  I found out from this experience that if you want to make it in your job or receive a promotion you need to become part of the in-group. 

 

Resource:

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leader-Member Exchange. (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pennsylvania State University. (2013). Leader-Member Exchange Theory. [Online lecture].  Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/01_page.html.

In the business world, using reward power can cause problems within a company.  I have had experience using this type of power so I can attest to the statement in Lesson 7 that a reward might seem valuable to a superior, but not so to the follower (PSU, 2013).

In the company that I’m speaking of, we would have a monthly meeting within the operations department.  As a supervisor I would have to pull types of data on all the accounts and in the end come up with the MVP of the month.  However, they were all so busy with their work that they could ill-afford the hour out of their time that these meetings took up.  What’s more, the reward was a $10 Dunkin Donuts gift card, which was simply too small to have a demonstrably positive impact on the employees.  To most the meetings were a joke, to some they were a form of embarrassment, and to others they felt unappreciated if they were not chosen as the monthly MVP. One woman who did not receive the MVP award went into the department head’s office and began screaming and crying.  I’m sure you can guess who was chosen as the next month’s MVP.

 

 

The incentive was just not there to make anyone perform any better than they already were, and they did not leave feeling appreciated or honored in the least.  Most of the months I was asked by my employees to give the reward to the person who made such a scene the month before, ranting and raving for hours afterwards about not winning.  The reward was so insignificant to most that they felt the true reward was not hearing her complain. I could and would agree to do this because there were no rules dictating which person I had to give the MVP award to.  I tried to give the award to the person who performed the best that month by the data I collected. 

As explained in Lesson 7:

Leaders can influence others based on reward power if they:

�         Determine what rewards are available.

�         Determine what rewards are valued by followers, and

�         Establish clear policies for the fair administration of rewards for good performance.

None of these outlines were established and in the end this reward power was ineffective (PSU, 2013). 

It’s tough for an employee who comes in daily and gives it their all and watches the big bosses drive to work in their expensive cars and walk around in their expensive suits knowing that your good work puts them in that position, and all you get is a $10 gift card once every few months.  It does not leave a good taste in one’s mouth. 

What if the reward had been something that would spark a bit of excitement, something that would add a little fuel to the fire?  I’m not saying the company needed to give out a new car every month, but just a little something that would spark some well-needed attention, such as an extra personal day, tickets to a play, dinner and a movie for 2. With a little creative thought and a less patronizing attitude, which my former company sorely lacked, the possibilities were endless. 

When you up the ante the rules for winning must be made clear so that no one will have the ability to complain about fairness (PSU,2013).

In the end it is the little things that mean so much when you put your heart into your job and never get a thank you worthy of your time and effort.  Had this company opened their eyes and looked around and listened they would have caught on very fast to the unhappiness of this reward power, or perhaps I should say reward power failure. 

 

Pennsylvania State University. (2013). Power and Influence. [Online lecture].  Retrieved from

 https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp13/psych485/001/content/07_lesson/01_page.html.

While pondering this blog entry I can’t help but to talk about my former VP of Operations.  I was a supervisor in his department for about a year.  While it was a short time working for him, he left a very strong impression on me in a very bad way. 

I would have to categorize his leadership style as “Authority-Compliance” (Northouse, 2010).  He held very true to the definition that Northouse (2010) provides, of “leadership that places a heavy emphasis on task and job requirements, and less emphasis on people, except to the extent that people are tools for getting the job done.  Often seen as controlling, demanding, hard driving, and overpowering” (Nothhouse, 2010).   

I can speak from personal experience of the effect this style of leadership has on employees.  I was forced, as a supervisor, to threaten my employees with write-ups if they did not perform to his liking.  I have been employed for 40 years in some kind of capacity and have never been written-up or had to produce a write-up until I started working for this VP.      

In meetings with the Ops Dept. he came across as a fun loving, compassionate person, but in one-on-one dealings or meetings with other supervisors and managers his true personality came out.  This is not the type of leadership style that I wanted to have but yet was forced to adopt.  I cared personally about my employees and wanted to have, if possible, a relationship with each of them.  The example that Northouse gives of “Team Management”, which focuses on “interpersonal relationships and tasks” fits my style better than the one that was forced upon me (Northouse, 2010).   

I really disliked treating my employees the way I was forced to, and one day someone said to me that she did not like to be threatened.  It stopped me in my tracks, as I realized she was right to feel this way. That was the day that I changed my ways and would no longer be an “Authority-Compliance” leader (Northouse, 2010).  I knew that by doing this I would be making my VP unhappy, but I was done trying to be someone that I was not and I was tired of being unhappy and stressed.

I was tired of being so stressed at work, which also carried over to my home.  I was short-tempered with my kids, was not sleeping well, and when I did sleep I would have horrible nightmares.  I would wake up in the morning and wonder what hell was waiting for me today.  After changing my style of leadership my job was soon eliminated.  However, this was the best thing that could have happened. 

 To have endured this as my first leadership experience has since left me wondering if I would ever want to be in a leadership roll again.  It was, in many ways, a very damaging experience, one that I often think about and reflect upon. 

I’m currently looking for a new place of employment, and when I come across a job posting that reminds me of the position that I once had I get a mild panic attack.  I will still apply for that position, with the hope that the culture at this company will be better than the one that I left behind. 

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA,               Sage Publications, Inc.