The military is a male-dominant organization. When we think of military leadership, we typically think of old, poker-faced, highly decorated men who sit around dictating policy in some boardroom. Recently, we’ve seen a number of female leaders who change that idea of leadership in the military. Women have been serving in the military since the early 19^th century, when congress established the Army Nurse Corp, and opportunities for women to work in other job areas expanded over time. Throughout most of history, women have taken on a majority of administrative and medical roles in the military since there existed restrictions on positions that women were allowed to serve in (Bensahel, Barno, Kidder, & Sayler, 2015). So, that’s still where we see more female leadership when we look at the military as a whole. Recently, many gender-based job restrictions have been lifted and women are able to serve in more positions that were typically seen as male-only positions, such as positions specific to working in submarines, and soon more combat positions will be available as well (Bensahel, Barno, Kidder, & Sayler, 2015). As more jobs open up to women, more leadership opportunities may become available to women as well.

If more women were in leadership positions in other job fields throughout the military, does that mean they’d be more effective? Not exactly. Although female and male leaders approach leadership differently, male and female leaders each bring something unique to the relationship between leaders, followers, and the situations. In terms of the difference between the leadership styles and gender, Northouse points out that a meta-analyses of research examining style differences between women and men found that, contrary to stereotypic expectations, women were not found to lead in a more interpersonally oriented and less task-oriented manner than men in organizational studies (Northouse, 2015, 407). This means that both male and female leaders are able to remain task-oriented, which is how the military generally operates. So, in terms of effectiveness, both male and female leaders are just as effective at accomplishing the mission.

However, there are ways that gender diversity in leadership can be beneficial for the military. One of the more vital benefits is that it could enhance leadership effectiveness by giving people the opportunity to engage in the best leadership practices (Northouse, 2015, pg. 415). Because notions of leadership in the military is often seen as masculine and autocratic, most leaders tend to focus on leadership styles that are more coercive and authoritative.  Introducing more female leaders could change those notions and allow for more variety in leadership approaches to be utilized throughout various situations.

I do have personal experience regarding this topic and seeing how female leaders can bring about changes in the military community. When I arrived at my first command, most junior sailors, especially junior female sailors, did not feel heard and understood by our leadership. This was the norm, and most people accepted it as their reality for the next few years. That norm was changed when higher-ranking women entered the command to lead us. One stark difference was that our opinions were heard, regardless of rank, which brought to light issues that affected lower-ranking service members. The female leaders demonstrated a participative style of leadership that allowed many people to feel heard, which Northouse stated is a robust difference between female and male leaders (Northouse, 2015, pg. 407). They also implemented monthly meetings for service members to address issues and bring forth new ideas for the command. This allowed more programs geared towards volunteering, community outreach, and mentorship to be available to all service-members.

By applying a different leadership approach in the military environment, the female leaders created significant changes that impacted other leaders as well. More leaders in the command were open to discussing various matters with their entire team, rather than just the higher-ranking members. Also, with more mentorship and career development opportunities being available and utilized throughout the command, more low-ranking service members received the attention and guidance they needed to advance to higher ranks much more quickly.

As times change, I believe we’ll see more diversity in higher positions within both the military and the private sector. Each generation brings forth new mindsets that challenge the old, and a more diverse leadership is an idea that many generations that are currently in the workforce, or will soon join the workforce, seem willing to embrace.

References:

Bensahel, N., Barno, D., Kidder, K., & Sayler, K. (2015, January). Battlefield and Boardrooms: Women’s Leadership in the Military and the Private Sector. Retrieved June 27, 2020, from Center for a New American Security: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/187251/CNAS_BattlefieldsVsBoardrooms_BensahelBarnoKidderSayler.pdf

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice 8th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing. Retrieved June 27, 2020

Reynolds, G. M., & Shendruk, A. (2018, April). Demographics of the U.S. Military. Retrieved June 28, 2020, from Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/article/demographics-us-military

 

Steve Jobs, born February 24 of 1955 in San Francisco, is an American business magnate and inventor. We’re all familiar with Apple, a major company that he co-founded in 1976. Jobs also is responsible for launching the beloved animation studio, Pixar, in 1985 (Steve Jobs Biography, 2014). Jobs is a person who lived a life of many successes, but he also had his failures and struggles in his life. From dropping out of college, to being booted from Apple, Jobs dealt with his fair share of struggles that shaped him. We could analyze Jobs’s leadership through many leadership theories, such as skills approach, trait approach, and path-goal theory. However, I’d like to focus on how he exemplified Authentic Leadership.

First, let’s think about what authentic leadership is. Authentic leadership has been a complex approach for leadership scholars to define. The first of three definitions is the interpersonal definition, which states that authentic leadership stems from the relationship between leaders and followers. The second definition is called intrapersonal and has to do with a leader’s true self-knowledge. This is basically expressing that an authentic leader is true to themselves and knows who they really are. The third and currently accepted definition is the developmental definition of authentic leadership, which is that authenticity can be acquired, while also accepting the other prior definitions of authentic leadership (PSU WC, 2016, L. 12).

Application of authentic leadership is tough to describe since it’s still in the early phase of development. The themes revolving authentic leadership are to have the capacity to learn to be authentic, to try to do the “right” thing, to be honest with themselves and others, to work for the common good, and to experience critical life events that act as triggers to growth and greater authenticity (Northouse, 2015, pg. 210). Steve Jobs fits the common themes of authentic leadership in that he was honest to himself and others and truly believed that his work and the goal for Apple was for the common good. Walter Isaacson, from the Harvard Business Review and the biographer of Steve Jobs, described Jobs as famously impatient, petulant, and tough with the people around him. But these traits and behaviors stemmed from a passion for perfection, and even though he was tough on people, they stayed with Apple because they believed in his vision. Even with his personality flaws, Jobs was surrounded by loyal colleagues who had been inspired by him for years and a loving family (Isaacson, 2012). Jobs believed that Apple products should be great. Jobs stated that his passion was to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products (Isaacson, 2012). He was never afraid to tell his staff that their ideas were wrong or dumb and he would refocus them on the true vision for Apple. Isaacson quoted Jobs stating “I don’t think I run roughshod over people, but if something sucks, I tell people to their face. It’s my job to be honest. (Isaacson, 2012)” His strive for perfection of his innovations led to loss of short-term profits because he refused to use another company’s “un-inspired” hardware run with apple software, over fears that unapproved apps and content might “pollute the perfection of an Apple device” (Isaacson, 2012). Jobs focus on product over profits is what inspired his colleagues and led to products that revolutionized the tech industry, and also many other industries. These are the ways that Steve Jobs demonstrated authenticity as a leader. It is through his authenticity that Jobs inspired his colleagues.

Authentic leadership is an approach with a lot of criticisms due to its lack of clarity on whether it results in positive organizational outcomes (Northouse, 2015, pg. 209). Although Jobs and his ability to turn Apple from a company filing for bankruptcy to a Tech Giant does demonstrate that Jobs’s leadership approach was effective, Isaacson noted that CEOs who study Jobs and decide to emulate him without understanding his ability to generate loyalty make a dangerous mistake (Isaacson, 2012). Northouse points out that authentic leadership still leaves questions to be answered on its effectiveness, especially when dealing with millennial workers who value individualism, commitment to work–life balance, and have a preference extrinsic rewards (Northouse, 2015, pg. 209). However, regardless of the criticisms, it’s a leadership approach that many followers can find peace in, since it can offer hope to people who long for stability and true leadership (Northouse, 2015, pg. 222).

 

References:

Biography.com Editors. (2014, April 2). Steve Jobs Biography. Retrieved June 25, 2020, from The Biography.com website: https://www.biography.com/business-figure/steve-jobs

Isaacson, W. (2012, April). The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs. Retrieved June 25, 2020, from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2012/04/the-real-leadership-lessons-of-steve-jobs

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice 8th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing. Retrieved June 4, 2020

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2016). Psych 485: Lesson 12-Authentic Leadership. Retrieved June 25, 2020, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/su20/2205min-5439/content/13_lesson/printlesson.html

 

 

We have all heard before that power comes from “something”. That “something” can be many different sources of power that people claim you can have if you have or demonstrate that thing. Money, position, knowledge, confidence, family, clothing, and so many things are considered to be the source of one’s power. But which is actually true?

In my opinion, having power is to produce an idea of yourself into people’s minds in a manner that you want and benefit from. A person can utilize external factors to create that idea, but power is to ultimately be able to have people view you as you want them to and to act as you want them to. My reasoning for this idea of power is reinforced by the study that Bickman conducted in 1974 where a person dressed in regular clothes or a security guard uniform asked people passing by for change (PSU WC, 2016, L.7). Bickman stated that his previous research on this topic concluded that appearance could affect other people’s honesty, behavior, and political behavior (Bickman, 1974, pg. 48). The results were that more people gave change to the man wearing a uniform rather than plain clothes, likely due to the uniform bringing legitimacy to the person and thus enforcing the social power theory (Bickman, 1974, pp. 57-59).

Bickman used research from John R.P. French Jr. and Bertram Raven regarding the social power theory as part of his study. French and Raven outline the social power theory in their Bases of Social Power research as (French & Raven, 1959, pg. 263):

• Referent Power: based on a person’s identification with a person; their relationship dynamics gives a person power over the other.
• Expert Power: based on the perception that one has some special knowledge or expertness.
• Legitimate Power: the perception by a person that one has a legitimate right to prescribe behavior for them.
• Reward Power: based on a person’s perception that one has the ability to mediate rewards for them.
• Coercive Power: based on a person’s perception that one has the ability to mediate punishments for them.

We have encountered some or all of these types of social power throughout our lives. The research in the bases of social power resonated with me because I have encountered power as they describe at one point in my life. I’ve encountered referent power when I participated in the military’s mentorship program and followed my mentor’s lead. I’ve encountered reward power and legitimate power in my work environment since my bosses had the ability to mediate rewards and I also perceived them as having a legitimate right to dictate my behavior. These examples fall according to the bases of power that French and Raven described. Based on the examples of my life, I believe I gave power to the people who I believed to be powerful because I perceived them as they wanted me to. Perhaps the source of power truly lies with the followers giving into what a leader wants them to believe and acting in a manner that benefits the leader.

References:

Bickman, L (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47-61.

French, J. & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies of Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2016). Psych 485 Lesson 7: Power and Influence. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/su20/2205min-5439/content/08_lesson/printlesson.html

When I worked as a recruiter for a staffing agency in Washington, D.C., I encountered leadership in a way that I did not see before in prior work environments. It was the first time that I worked alongside leaders to resolve obstacles, which helped me feel more competent in my work. I worked remotely, so I was never micromanaged. This was great, but it meant that I did not have a supervisor to rely on to resolve obstacles. I had to solve them on my end, but never on my own. My leaders were based in Chicago and North Carolina, and through video conferencing, they provided instructions or made decisions with me on how to handle various issues. My leaders were able to switch their leadership behaviors in a manner that best helped me. They knew when to ask me “how do you think we should solve this?” and when to tell me “This is what we need to do”. By doing so, I felt stable and confident when resolving issues and was motivated to learn more about how to perform my job as effectively as possible, knowing that I had the support and guidance from my leaders.  What I did not know then was that my leaders were applying behaviors from the path-goal theory of leadership, called Directive and Participative behaviors.

The path-goal theory of leadership discusses how leaders motivate followers to accomplish designated goals. The theory suggests that it’s the leader’s responsibility to help subordinates overcome obstacles by adjusting the leader’s behavior in a way that helps the followers (PSU WC, 2016, L.6). This theory draws heavily from research on motivation and is different from other theories because it focuses on followers’ needs and motivations rather than tasks and relationship dynamics (Northouse, 2015, p. 117).

The path-goal theory is similar to the situational approach in that it encourages leaders to switch their leadership style when they think it’s needed to help attain the goal (PSU WC, 2016, L.5). When we learned about the situational approach, we learned about the behaviors that leaders demonstrate when trying to motivate their followers. Path-goal re-introduces these leader behaviors as part of the theory. To reiterate what those behaviors are, they are:

• Directive Leadership: characterized by a leader that gives followers instructions about their tasks.
• Supportive Leadership: characterized by friendly and approachable leaders that attend to the well-being and needs of their subordinates.
• Participative Leadership: characterized by leaders that involve their followers in the decision-making process.
• Achievement-Oriented Leadership: characterized by leaders that challenge their subordinates to perform work at the highest level possible and they enforce a high standard of excellence to improve their followers.

Like the situational approach, the path-goal theory does rely on the situation, but mainly how the situation is affecting the followers so that leaders can determine what the followers need in order to complete the tasks and overcome obstacles (PSU WC, 2016, L.6). This theory has been labeled as “complex and confusing” because leaders find it difficult to incorporate all the factors of the theory simultaneously when selecting their preferred leadership style (Northouse, 2015, P. 125). However, I do believe that applying it correctly can help many employees feel confident in their own abilities and can eventually lead to employees being autonomous in resolving obstacles in the work environment.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice 8th Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing. Retrieved June 3, 2020

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2016). PSYCH 485 Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches. Retrieved June 3, 2020, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/su20/2205min-5439/content/06_lesson/printlesson.html

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2016). Psych 485 Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories. Retrieved June 3, 2020, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/su20/2205min-5439/content/07_lesson/printlesson.html