Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Authentic Billionaires

by

Authentic leadership is one of the least researched theories in leadership, but one of the most intuitive and attractive theories to those studying the field.  After years of watching immoral and unethical leaders like Kenneth Lay of Enron run companies and consumers’ money into the ground, people wanted more from a leader.  They wanted a leader with a moral compass and a leader that they could unabashedly believe in to follow and invest in.  This explains the surge in authentic leadership and the need for the theory to be studied further.

Authentic leadership finds ties with transformational leadership and begins is base in a strong moral ground and ethical purity.  Authentic leadership can be evaluated from either a practical approach or a theoretical approach (Northouse, 2015, pg. 196).  Bill George defines the practical approach which focuses on the characteristics that define authentic leaders (Purpose, values, relationships, and self-discipline) (Northouse, 2015, pg. 197).  George’s practical approach will be the focus for this post.  George’s theory defines an authentic leader as someone with a sense of purpose who is inspired and motivated to reach their goals (Northouse, 2015, pg. 197).  Authentic leaders also have their own set of values that they refuse to deviate from and have a strong moral compass that they abide by (Northouse, 2015, pg. 198).  Authentic leaders also have strong relationships and connections with those around them through mutual disclosure to develop trust (Northouse, 2015, pg. 199).  Finally, George states that an authentic leader must have self-discipline that allows them to reach their goals and hold all around them accountable (Northouse, 2015, pg. 199).

There are several authentic leaders through the world that can be discussed, but when I think of authentic leadership, Warren Buffett is the first that comes to mind.  Buffett is one of the most successful investors in the world and is worth billions of dollars.  Buffett is also a noted philanthropist who has pledged to give away a vast majority of his fortune to charities and philanthropic causes.  Buffett follows the four characteristics described by George perfectly and epitomizes authentic leadership.  First, he has a purpose and is intrinsically motivated. Buffett tends to invest in stocks and companies that others view as “junk” but Buffett sees value and knows his purposed in the market with these companies (Windust, 2017).  He also believes in his purpose as a philanthropist and has donated millions and encouraged other billionaires to do the same.

Buffett also has a standard of values that he guards passionately.  He has a fervor for conducting business in an ethical manner and is quick to get rid of anyone in his company that will not hold the same set of standards and values.  Northouse states, “When tested in difficult situations, authentic leaders do not compromise their values, but rather use those situations to strengthen their values” (2015, pg. 199).  Even in the 2008 financial crisis, Buffett did not back down from his beliefs and ethical values and chose to weather the storm under his own ethical terms (Windust, 2017).

Buffett is known for his self-discipline and hard work over the years.  With now plans to retire any time soon, Buffett has a reputation for early morning rises and late nights devoted to his work.  Even though is one of the richest men in the world, he still lives in the same house that he purchased in 1958 for $32,500 (Windust, 2017).  If that isn’t self-discipline and motivation, I’m not sure what is.  Finally, Buffett embodies both relationships and heart in his dealings with his employees and multiple charities he works with.  Since 200, Buffett has given away 71% of his $65.5 billion fortune (Frank, 2017).  Buffett believes in relationship building with the people around him and maintaining a compassion so strong for the world that he wishes to give away most of his fortune to help others.

Though Authentic leadership is still a developing theory, it is one of the most intriguing leadership theories at the moment.  It truly deals in the emotions of the follower and their need for a true and ethical leader in the wake of several disasters.  Though it lacks a vast amount of data and lacks descriptions of several of its prescriptions, even in its infancy, the theory is applicable at all levels of leadership (Northouse, 2015, pg. 207).

 

References:

Frank, R. (2017, September 21). Warren Buffett is the most charitable billionaire. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/21/warren-buffet-is-the-most-charitable-billionaire.html

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Introduction to leadership. concepts and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
Windust, J. (2017, April 27). Warren Buffett – Not your average billionaire. Retrieved from https://www.cognology.com.au/warren-buffett/

Leading with a Servant’s Heart

by

Servant leadership may seem oxymoronic in its name but has become one of the modern leadership trends around the world.  I work for a large automotive group in Pittsburgh that has an owner/operator, that I will call Bob, who is the epitome of servant leadership, but to show how he embodies a servant leader, first one must understand what servant leadership is.

The traits of servant leadership are very widely disputed which is a major criticism of the theory (Northouse, 2016, pg. 241), but there are a few unifying characteristics.  The culture of the workspace must provide an avenue for servant leadership (Northouse, 2016, pg. 231).  There are a certain set of leader behaviors (Conceptualizing, Emotional healing, putting followers first, helping followers grow and succeed, behaving ethically, empowering, and creating value for the community) that must be a part of the leader’s repertoire (Northouse, 2016, pg. 234-236).  Finally, there are a set of outcomes that usually come from servant leadership (Northouse, 2016, pg. 236-237).  When all these characteristics come together, you get a broad outline of the Servant Leadership theory that is largely based in service and ethics.

Bob conceptualizes his business and knows what he wants for the long term.  He can conceptualize big topics and make them easy to understand for each employee, so that everyone understands their role in the success of the business goals (Northouse, 2016, 233).  Bob also donates several thousands of dollars to the greater Pittsburgh community, but most recently, donated money to the Tree of Life Synagogue after the horrific mass shooting in 2018.  At our annual Christmas party, he allowed a Tree of Life member to speak on the horrific events and help some in the company mourn those that were lost.  He fostered emotional healing, but also built value for the community in one action (Northouse, 2016, pg. 233-235).

Bob refuses to use the word employee and will only call his workers team members to foster a team spirit and a team mentality.  He always puts his team members first, whether it be a Christmas bonus, or trips to the Bahamas for top performers (Northouse, 2016, 234).  He has an allowance for each team member to gain training and knowledge and provides workshops every month to make sure that his team members can grow and succeed in the way they wish to (Northouse, 2016, pg. 234).

Bob also prides himself in behaving ethically and not doing business the way the rest of the car business does.  He marketed transparent pricing for everyone, and brought no hassle, ethical pricing to the Pittsburgh market.  Bob is focused on his customers and team members and refuses to be anything other than transparent and ethical with them (Northouse, 2016, pg. 235).  When I read, “Servant leaders do not compromise their ethical principles in order to achieve success” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 235), I immediately thought of Bob and his strict moral standards.  Finally, Bob is empowering to his team members.  He allows his management team to make their own decisions if they fall in line with the conceptualization of the company.  Bob is a leader that allows his team members to make their own mistakes and learn from them, which empowers them even further (Northouse, 2016, pg. 235).

Rob asks that we carry a card with us with the company standards of values.  These values are Act with Integrity, Build a Winning Team, Breed Customer Loyalty, Deliver Results, and Always Improve.  Each team member carries this card with them and takes the standards to heart.  These standards of value show the commitment that Bob has to be a Servant leader, and how he wishes to breed more Servant leaders in the future through his leadership.

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership; Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

A New Era in Leadership

by

Team leadership has become a very popular form of leadership and work experience in recent years, especially when examining companies in Silicon Valley.  Many of these companies utilize teams for “maintaining a competitive advantage.  Team-based organizations have faster response capability because of their flatter organizational structure” (Northouse,2015, pg. 363).  A team can be defined as, “a type of organizational group that is composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals” (Northouse, 2015, 363).  One of the most successful at utilizing teams and team leadership has been Google.  Google has taken the team leadership theories and researched them significantly to try to determine what makes the best team.

Google surveyed and researched their own teams within the company to determine what made a team successful, and what made some teams unsuccessful.  Their research very closely matched up to the model of Team leadership discussed in the Northouse textbook (2015, pg. 367).   The textbook claims that the conditions that enable team excellence are clear, elevating goals, results-driven structure, competent team members, unified commitment, collaborative climate, standards of excellence, external support, and principled leadership (Northouse, 2015, pg. 368-372).  Google found that the things that enable successful teams are psychological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning, and impact (Kim, 2017).  When you read into the research done by Google, it bares an eerie likeness to the research discussed in the textbook.

From all the research listed above, it seems that effective teams want team members that they can count on to show up, do their fair share of the work, and have a basic understanding of the goals and expectations.  Groups also need structure, stability, and support provided by the overseeing company to make sure that they know what the end-goal is, and that they have the resources to reach them.  Groups also want their work to produce results and make a visual impact in the field.  When a team has these things, it is almost sure to be successful.  The team leadership model is a very complex model meant to be used in complex situations and allows for different situations and people which is a very big strength of the model (Northouse, 2015, pg. 384).  There are few criticisms of the model other than that due to the fact that the leader of a group may change over time, it requires each individual member to have a diverse skills set including leadership (Northouse, 2015, pg. 384).

Google has taken the research of Hackman, Larson, and Lafasto and made it mainstream.  The interesting thing is that most companies did not even consider team organization until the innovative and flashy companies like Google and Apple decided to do it.  The more interesting thing is that the companies that have really made a push for team-based work, are almost always on the cutting edge and seem to be leading the way in their industries.  When employees understand their goals and roles in the team, and are able to interact with a group of like-minded individuals, the impact is immediately seen.  Teams and team leadership seem to be the way many of these millennial companies are going, and it seems to be working out so far.

 

Kim, L. (2017, November 08). The Results of Google’s Team-Effectiveness Research Will Make You Rethink How You Build Teams. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/larry-kim/the-results-of-googles-team-effectiveness-research-will-make-you-rethink-how-you-build-teams.html

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Introduction to leadership. concepts and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.

Grey Area

by

One of the most popular television dramas on right now is the medical drama, Grey’s Anatomy (Rhimes, 2005).   The drama follows the doctors of Grey-Sloan Memorial Hospital, formally, Seattle Grace, as they navigate through both personal and professional drama.  The show spans 15 seasons and follows several characters from their medical internship through getting their own attending positions.  Through all 15 seasons the viewer sees almost every style of leadership through the many attendings, and in several instances, the situational approach is apparent.

In season 13 of Grey’s Anatomy in an episode titled Why Try to Change Me Now, we are introduced to a new Residency Director, Eliza Minnick (Rhimes, 2016).  Her style and approach are much different from the approach of the prior residency director who followed a static trajectory of learning for all residents.   Minnick seems to practice the situational approach with her residents, and it throws the hospital into upheaval.  The situational approach addresses both the leader and the follower and allows for a flexible leadership approach depending on the situation given.  This approach examines the competency and commitment of the follower and gives a directive for the leader in the given situation (Northouse, 2016, pg. 93).   Prior to Minnick, the residents were to be seen, not heard, and also were not allowed to participate in surgeries (Greys Anatomy, Rhimes, 2007).  Minnick addresses each resident and meets their educational experience wherever they were at.  The residents are all relatively new surgeons, so they lack competency, but have no limit on their commitment and excitement for the medical field.

A majority of the residents at this point are at the D1 level, or low in competence and high in commitment, and Minnick is required to lead at the S1 level, or high directive-low support level according to the SLII model (Northouse, 2016, pg. 94-96).  She begins in a later episode titled It Only Gets Much Worse by gathering information from the residents to gauge their competency and giving them directions on what the goals were for the near future.  The final goal of the program is to develop skilled surgeons prepared for the real world.  She shows the residents how to do simple procedures like doing sutures by explaining the goals and initiatives without a significant amount of support or independence for the residents (Grey’s Anatomy, Rhimes, 2016).  One of the residents, Stephanie, is more advanced that the other residents and falls into the D4, or high competency and high commitment quadrant of the SLII model developed by Hersey and Blanchard (Northouse, 2016, pg. 93-94).  Minnick then moves into the S4 style of leadership, or the low-supportive-low directive style, for Stephanie exclusively and allows Stephanie to perform her own solo surgery for the first time (Northouse, 2016, pg. 95).  Minnick has facilitated Stephanie’s confidence and motivation and has allowed her to independently achieve the goal with less support and goal input from Minnick (Northouse, 2016, pg. 95).

While many of her fellow attendings do not like her, Minnick has given the residents their best opportunity to learn yet and has also adapted her leadership style to the needs of each individual resident (Grey’s Anatomy, Rhimes, 2016).  Though the show is a dramatization of the real world, it does show a real world application of the SLII model and situational leadership as a whole.  Minnick allowed the residents to learn more in a month’s time, than they had learned throughout their entire residency up to that point by using Situational Leadership Theory and meeting her followers where they were at and adapting her leadership style to suit the situation.

 

Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc

Rhimes, S. (2005) Grey’s Anatomy. Seattle, WA. American Broadcasting Company.

Bully Bosses

by

I have worked in the automotive business for three years now and I love it more than I could ever explain.  The fast pace and ever-changing dynamics make every day that I work more and more interesting as I go along.  One of the things that I find most interesting in the car business is the sheer amount of turnover seen every year. The industry average is a whopping 67% turnover rate every year (Employee turnover costs dealers billions).  This turnover rate can be chalked up to long hours, commission-based sales, or a plethora of other things, but in all reality, I think it all comes down to leadership.

For the first few years of my career I worked under a General Manager, who I will call Jim.  Jim was a leader who ruled with an iron fist.  Each employee, including myself, walked on egg shells constantly trying not to make mistakes.  Should we have the misfortune of making a mistake, you would be berated, called stupid, and sworn at, no matter how simple the mistake.  Jim was an all-around bully, that was nearly impossible to be in the same room with.  In his long tenure he had made several enemies through his abusive antics and subjective firings.

In the Harvard Business Review, Sherry Moss talks about “bully bosses” and their impact on the teams they lead.  Moss states, “in organizations where bullying occurs, employees may arrive late, intentionally slow down the work itself, or not follow the boss’s instructions. […] Not surprisingly, bullying also increases turnover” (Why Some Bosses Bully Their Best Employees).  So, based on all of this, it would be logical to anticipate the Jim had a high level of turnover and a toxic work environment, but that wasn’t the case.  Jim maintained most of his employees for long tenures, and maintained less than a 30% turnover ratio, over 30% lower than the industry average.  It also appeared at most times that the loyalty was to Jim, not to the company we worked for.

Jim was recently fired, and I received many phone calls from people that just didn’t know how to feel.  Several of us joked that we might have Stockholm Syndrome from the years of abuse, because we all felt a sadness and a guilt with his dismissal.  All of this to say, how can we really know what traits make the best bosses?  Jim’s years of abuse seemed to only draw employees closer to him.  How could Jim retain his best employees through his abuse, when all the research shows that he should have the highest rate of turnover?  I’m not sure what the answer is, but Jim’s leadership shows that leadership is not a black and white personality, and that leadership is something that is not easily nailed down.  Research cannot answer every question, you will always find the anomaly, like Jim.

 

Moss, S. (2016, June 07). Why Some Bosses Bully Their Best Employees. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/06/why-some-bosses-bully-their-best-employees

Wilson, A. (2017, January 20). Employee turnover costs dealers billions. Retrieved from https://www.autonews.com/article/20170123/RETAIL06/301239850/employee-turnover-costs-dealers-billions

Skip to toolbar