Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Unintentional favoritism: Diversity in the workplace

by

As a woman in a STEM field, I have seen first hand the diversity problems for other women in math, science, technology and engineering. Some of it is more casual, where in any in-major classes I’m in are usually about 90% men. This is the same for events, interviews, and workshops. It can be intimidating and I have never noticed anything done at events for the female minority there specifically, but I have been to events just for women in STEM. I have been in group projects multiple times where I am the only female, putting me in the position of being the voice not only of women, but a lot of other minority groups as well. One time for a project, I discussed how our use of technology may be an issue because we would be working with the Amish Community, who typically don’t use technology. Most of the situations I’ve been put into I have the same resources as everyone else, but certain days it feels like I have to do so much more in terms of consideration. 

 

While this can be frustrating, it becomes harmful when men get preferential treatment. One example is when I worked for Ferguson Enterprise as a software engineering intern. I worked with two other white men the same age as myself, and I noticed that a lot of the time they would seek out each other’s advice but not mine.  This was okay with me, I am not always the loudest and wouldn’t push to contribute, I just assumed they were both more outspoken. Sometimes I would chip in if I thought I knew the solution, although they never went with it. This was okay with me too; there’s a lot of different ways to solve a problem in programming, and as long as the code worked that is what is important.

 

I didn’t take it for more than face value until one day one of the other interns was having a problem with the program where he used a portion of my code. I wrote this code 100% myself, and solved the same issue he was having currently a few weeks beforehand. I mentioned to him what it was, but the two other interns basically annoyed me. I explained to them again what the issue was, and they told me that wasn’t it. It took me telling them three times before they even actively listened to me, and then I had to explain what was going on all over again. By the end it was furious, felt so disrespected and realized the whole time I was working there that they did not value my opinion as much as they would had I been male. I don’t think they even recognized it themselves, and I don’t think it was intentional.

 

They were unconsciously participating in in-group favoritism, where members of someone’s own group are given preferential treatment (Hamel, 2021). As a woman in stem, I have always had to work with people who don’t match with my personal identity. People with different gender identities, religions, races and ethnicities, and more. I’ve learned to focus on what we do have in common- whether a common goal, shared knowledge, even a silly opinion. It helps build connections and is constructive. But for people who have not had much interactions with people who they don’t identify with, in this case women in a professional setting, they will only focus on the differences, and it can be incredibly destructive. 

 

References 

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 13: Leadership and Diversity

 

Leadership of Queen Elizabeth II

by

The current Queen of England has always intrigued me personally, like any great historical figure. But she has never been a great personality, like the Kennedy’s, or revolutionary, like Nelson Mandela. Her intelligence isn’t noteworthy like Edison or Tyson. Most famous women are known for either hyperfeminine personalities, like Marilyn Monroe, or hypermasculine personalities, like Margaret Thatcher. As a part of my american culture I want a leader to have expert power, where they got their position at least partially because of a skillset or knowledge they possess, but Queen Elizabeth became ruler at the young age of 27 without a formal education. What is it about her that is so beloved and noteworthy that her relevance exceeds England into the rest of the world?

Before I get started analyzing her leadership, I would like to also identify that I believe there are multiple sources of Queen Elizabeth II’s notability, including the historical imperialism of Great Britain as well as the global reach of the Catholic church. For the purpose of this essay I want to focus on solely the Queen, from a psychological perspective.  

First, I want to talk about the source of the Queen’s power. As like any monarchy, her power is not expert power. Since the creation of the English Parliament, who are now voted upon by the people, the role of the queen is highly symbolic. So where does she get her power? A lot of it is Legitimate Power. Basically she was born a princess and became a queen and it is accepted. Traditionally monarchy was seen in many cases appointed by god, but it can also be seen as a representative of the Church. While this is still true, I would argue the power she possesses that makes the crown functional is her referent power, and if it was just legitimate power the Queen’s reach would be lessened greatly. When she became a Queen it was acknowledged that the country would be her greatest priority, and her personal life of herself and her family has suffered because of that. It is still traditional for women and children to take a man’s family name, but as a part of the royal family they took the Windsor name. Historically many members of the family couldn’t marry for love, and the Queen’s own uncle abdicated the crown to marry a divorcee. The Royal family always had to reflect the opinions of a country, or they would lose the support of the country that their leadership relied on.

The Queen is also an excellent Authentic leader. While there is no standard definition of an authentic leader, we are going to use the 2003 Approach version. This involves 5 topics: purpose, self-discipline, values, relationship, and heart(Hamel, 2021). There is no need for perfection in each category, instead they are seen as opportunities for improvement. As the monarch of Great Britain, she is going to have one major purpose- the prosperity of the Country. This role has so many perks but Country above all can be a set back too, and not a sacrifice every citizen can make. The fact that the Queen upholds this ideal for the rest of the country cements her as a leader. As the Matriarch of the royal family, she above everyone else has shown the self-discipline needed for the prosperity of this role. The values of the general public in England is on the end of more reserved compared to other cultures globally, and the Queen presents a reserved as well as other traits held by Great Britain not only currently but historically. 

As far as the relationship between the Queen and her people, it is the second greatest trait that makes her a great leader. Her father was ruler during World War II and both her parents were incredibly involved with both the soldiers and the factory workers back home, raising morale. This extended to the Queen herself, as she gave radio speeches as young as 14 and has had a history of volunteering for her country. She came into power after her father’s death when she was 27, and next year will be her 70th year reigning. The relationship between her and England has not always been perfect, but it has been reliable. Since WWII and all the change to come after, Queen Elizabeth II is a comfortable constant. Finally, what I think gives the Queen the global notoriety she has now, is her heart. I wouldn’t say that it is something the Queen is known for, and most of the time she presents as reserved and serious. This was highlighted when she met with the charismatic Kennedy’s, and something the Queen has faced criticism for in the past. But the best moments of the Queen is when she is more human than monarch- a product of WWII, a proud mother and grandmother, a lover of horse racing. The crown forced her into a very important role which she dutifully fulfills for her people but her moments of humanity, that shows that no matter how power she becomes at the very core she is just a person who is trying her best for her country, makes her the most endearing and earnest. This authenticity is something that inspires others and gives power behind an otherwise superfluous role.

Queen Elizabeth is intriguingly mundane. While most public figures with her notoriety appear larger than life, she is astoundingly human. Even her reserved personality is relatable, as Queen she leads for England and the role comes with the spotlight, but most people will understand not wanting to be so vulnerable to the world. She is authentic even in her class distance from her subjects, and gets her power from her relationship to the people of Great Britain and across the globe. Her being a Queen was not an act of greatness, she isn’t larger than life. On the contrary many times she comes across just as she is- a woman doing her best for her country. And because of this, she is a great leader.

References 

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 7: Power and Influence

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 12: Authentic Leadership

How Barack Obama’s Absence made way for Donald Trump

by

I was young when Barack Obama first came into office. I remember in fourth or fifth grade as a learning opportunity, our teacher sorted us into groups and we each acted as members of either McCain or Obama’s election campaign. We made slogans, researched their beliefs on topics, wrote speeches, and made posters. And the entire class knew that Obama was going to win because of one simple reason- John McCain was so old that if he got voted into office he would die and then we would have no president! Looking back now the concept was comical and juvenile, and also highlights how much I didn’t understand the election. But to the credit of younger me, it also acknowledges something I did understand- elections aren’t only about policy. Two people could have identical policies, and vastly different outcomes. It’s about the individual, their personality, their leadership. 

Obama was a leader. Just watching interviews of him it’s clear. He is well spoken and articulate when he speaks, and the way he talks makes it apparent that he is well educated. Interpersonally he is friendly and charismatic, and even if you don’t agree with his policies it is harder to have a problem with the man. He was a model husband and father, and seemed like he got along with everyone. It is clear that Obama was a fantastic leader, but a key identifier of his leadership was his followership. Election season is always analyzed in the United States, and broken down by demographic, and while Obama had the demographics common with his party he also had African Americans supporting him in waves. He fought stereotypes, and he and his wife both were powerful influences during their time in office. He got reelected and his charm never wavered. 

Then Donald Trump was elected. Trump seemed to highlight everything Obama was not. Obama has a traditional nuclear family, while Donald Trump is on his 3rd wedding. Obama is polite and charming, Trump is outgoing and does not follow social rules. Where Obama speaks eloquently, Trump is inarticulate. But he was elected, and for the same reason Obama did- followership. Partly because of the hole left by Obama, and partly by his own follower-base.  

As stated early Obama was a force. Besides his traditional credentials, he was a candidate who was young, cool, and energetic. And for African American voters, he brought hope and created faith in a system that wasn’t created to benefit them and often victimized them. It would be hard for anyone to replace him, but the fact that he was replaced by a more serious middle-aged white woman who was constantly criticized for her inability to seem ‘hip’ made the already growing deficit even deeper.

Donald Trump, in turn, was everything for the white lower class that Obama was for African Americans. For elections because of the electoral system, political parties tend to focus on highly-populated urban areas, and the rural lower-class got overlooked. Hot topics for urban areas like terrorism, immigration, sustainability, and social rights weren’t issues that often oversected with more isolated rural areas. Trump focused on this, giving a voice to those who felt overlooked. His less than educated speaking style worked well for a population of people who on average were less educated. He focused on the fact that he was an outsider in politics and instead knew how to run a business, which was appealing to those who felt taken advantage of and unrepresented by the more-than-wealthy governing class. He created a follower base that rivaled that of obama’s, and the Democrats didn’t have an answer. He took the presidency in 2016, and almost took the presidency in 2020, this time beated not by the followers of an opponent but in protest of himself.

While morality should always be the first thing considered, lessons can be learned from both of these men. Namely, that while leaders are a special type of people, functional leaders are only the product of their followers. There have been leaders that are Kings who have no followership that very quickly lose their crown. The relationship between a leader and their followers are invaluable, and while the flip from Barack Obama to Donald Trump in 2016 seems bizarre, the theories of their leadership and in turn the followership were actually more similar than you would think. 

 

References 

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 3: Followership

Leader-Member Exchange Theory in Practice

by

In my first internship, I was working with a very cool boss. He was incredible; We were in the innovation department so we had one big project due at the end of our internship, and he gave us general autonomy throughout the entire thing. He led us in making our own decisions, guiding us, but after we reported back to him with our research and findings he allowed us to make our own opinion just as long as we were able to justify it. He even allowed us to learn about the other projects the team was working on and made us feel a part of the group, not just extras. 

At the time I was just grateful to be involved with the innovation team and did not think too much of the semantics of it, but after the lesson learned in this course I realized he was applying methods from the Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) to the situation. 

The way the internship was set up through the company was that each department had its own interns, and departments were separated into subgroups- like marketing, business, IT, sales, etc. the innovation department was weird, because we were grouped with the marketing group but housed in the IT building, so we went to meetings for both. This only enhanced the LMX dynamic. We interacted with fellow IT interns and other marketing interns, and it was clear that by far we had the best experience. 

One thing that I remember our boss doing is treating us like a fellow software engineer. The department was implementing Agile thinking processes, which included meetings bi-weekly brainstorm for status updates and brainstorming sessions. Compared to the other interns, who had menial work and were treated like computers with no input on what they were working on, our work had meetings and we had a sense of our own importance. In LMX one of the benefits of being in the in-group is that you receive more support and opportunity(Hamel, 2021). While I knew that I could not change departments, if my boss didn’t like the effort I was putting in or what I produced he could easily have excluded me from meetings, or degraded the level of decision making I had and this made me work harder to impress him. 

Further, a full time software engineer organized work sessions for the interns in the IT department where we learned about new coding techniques and applied them. These meetings were at the end of the day Thursday, and whatever spare time we had before the end of the day we were allowed to play Mariokart and spend time with one another. In LMX theory another benefit of the in-group in a sense of community almost like a clique (Hamel, 2021), and this time spent with fellow programmers relaxing and building relationships definitely created a small community between us. It felt like a secret the members of the group and our boss shared, but it was understood that if we did not complete what needed to be completed by the time the meeting came around, our privileges and the meeting would be re-evaluated. This made us work harder, come in earlier, and on most Wednesday’s I would even take time out of my evening to make a snack for Thursday’s meetings.

I look back on my first internship fondly, I was given more privileges and freedom than most other interns were allowed, and I had a great relationship with my boss and team. In response, I came in early, worked hard to impress the company, and tried to foresee my boss’s needs to impress him. I met with other interns and was incredibly aware of my luck, a lot of them had less than interesting jobs with no freedom or discretion. After learning about Leader-Mentor Exchange theory this dynamic makes sense. I was a part of the in-group, and in exchange for hard work, I received benefits from my boss. Other interns weren’t a part of the in-group, instead treated as a tool to be used, not a member of a group, and witnessing this made me cherish the privilege I had.

References:

Hamel, R. (n.d.). Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), 2021

Filed Under: LMX

Legitimate vs. Expert Power in a workplace

by

While the concept of power seems black and white, it is very gray. Not only does everyone have certain degrees of power, but there are different types of power a person can hold as well. Expert power is the power that comes with knowledge, like being an expert in a field. Referent power is gained through an individual’s character and personality, through being liked by their followers. Legitimate power is the power you have through a role you fill. Reward or Coercive Power is power you have over others by either giving them rewards or punishing them according to their actions or performance.  

When learning about the different types of power a person can hold, I attached immediately to Legitimate and Expert power; It reminded me of my second internship. It was through Penn State working with virtual reality, and I was equal parts excited and nervous as I didn’t have a lot of applicable experience.  I also didn’t understand different forms of power. I remember talking to one of my teammates who was full time and had a background in animation. I was intimidated because while he wasn’t my manager, he had a more official job than me that was a level up in my mind. He asked about my background and I explained my background in computer science and experience, and he was floored. He said he had no technical experience at all, and didn’t understand how I understood everything that was going on. Not only was I flattered but it was enlightening.

Approaching the job I really only had one concept of power: the person with the most power is the one in the higher position, the person who knows more, whose been there the longest. Through this experience and further research, I realize that while these are all valid sources of power, one does not necessarily imply the other. My coworker had Legitimate power over me, since he was in a more senior position. In regards to programming though, I had expert power. They needed someone with a more technical background in computer science, and that’s why they hired me. On the opposite sign of the coin, my coworker also had expert power in reference to animation. There are all sorts of power and each person can have different types, and the more aware of the power you and others have, the easier you can work in a team or business.

 

Reference

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 8: Leadership-Member Exchange Theory

Northouse, P.G. (2019).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Skip to toolbar