Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Gender and Leadership in the Workplace

by

Over the past several years in the U.S., social movements like Me Too and Time’s Up have reinvigorated discussions about the roles women play in our nation. These social movements have spotlighted the sexual abuse women encounter in the workplace, and they have also forced us to further look into the gender gap existing in leadership today. I have had the opportunity and privilege to work for two amazing women in leadership roles throughout my career. After recently reading Northouse’s (2019) chapter on “Gender and Leadership,” I have come to realize that my former managers faced many of the challenges highlighted within this chapter. My former managers, whom I will refer to as Carla and Jane, achieved much success in their roles. However, their professional growth and development, leadership styles, and behaviors were significantly affected by genderism in their workplace environments.

Northouse (2019) revealed that much of the hindrances women face in the workplace are attributed to factors that make up what he called the “Leadership Labyrinth.” These factors fall under three categories called “Human Capital,” “Gender Differences,” and “Prejudice” (Northouse, 2019). Human capital relates to professional growth and development, the gender differences category is linked to leadership styles, and prejudice concentrates on the perceptions and behaviors from the workplace culture (Northouse, 2019). Interestingly, Carla and Jane worked in two different types of work environments, yet they still experienced many of the same obstacles within each of these three categories. These obstacles would become barriers in their lives, as they were only able to hold what Northouse (2019) described as “lower-level and lower authority leadership positions” (p. 404).

Who are Carla and Jane?

Before examining the challenges that my former managers experienced from the three categories previously described, I feel it is necessary to describe their roles and the type of work experience they brought to their respective fields. Carla and Jane both worked in office environments, and each of them held the title of a manager. Carla was a manager in a debt collections department for a finance company, and Jane was a manager for a retail company’s governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) team. They both indeed exhibited strong work skills. Although Carla did not have a degree, she had a plethora of knowledge regarding the finance company’s operations, making her a go-to person for many other managers in the department. In Jane’s case, she had a degree and more than a decade of experience in the GRC field. My former managers were driven and always open to learning and growing because they sought to climb the corporate ladder within their organizations.

Gender Impacts on Carla’s Professional Growth and Development

One of the major setbacks for Carla was that she did not have a degree. As seen by upper management as a missing qualification (Northouse, 2019), this lack of achievement on her resume was a major reason she was passed over for several assistant vice president roles. At least, that is what upper management shared with her, even though a few men could obtain those titles historically without a degree. It seemed that there were exceptions for those men that no longer existed and were not afforded to Carla despite her tenure and extensive knowledge in her field, which Northouse (2019) referred to as the double standard existing between the two genders in leadership. Since the finance company did not invest in human capital, this would mean that Carla would need to spend years going to school and excelling in her work while juggling a family to break through this barrier or “glass ceiling” (Northouse, 2019, p. 403).

Gender Impacts on Jane’s Professional Growth and Development

The retailer that Jane worked for presented her with similar issues as those faced by Carla. However, unlike Carla, Jane did have a degree and found herself to be the only woman on a management team dominated by men. This introduced many challenges for Jane. Her career development was limited due to the small amount of work entrusted to her by her leadership (Northouse, 2019). Also, because her colleagues were all men, they quickly developed a camaraderie (i.e., a strong network) between them but not with Jane (Northouse, 2019). Jane found herself unable to relate to much of the topics discussed by the other men, which intervened with her success since the relationships developed with others in the workplace could help with career advancement (Northouse, 2019). Despite Jane’s exceptional leadership, she could not move into a higher-level leadership role at the retailer’s corporate office.

Carla’s Leadership Style

Due to gender stereotypes, Carla’s leadership style was not very effective (Northouse, 2019). Carla’s leadership style approach included controlling and micro-managing others. Researchers found that women were minimized in their leadership roles when they conducted themselves in a more masculine way (Northouse, 2019). Due to Carla’s leadership style, she struggled to win her leadership’s favor because her leadership style was not what they considered congruent with her gender (Northouse, 2019). It was difficult for her to develop strong relationships with her leadership team because she was direct and opinionated. Her leadership style was not well accepted by her leaders even though much of her leadership team’s roles were filled by women, an ironic “glass ceiling” dilemma that women still face today (Northouse, 2019).

Jane’s Leadership Style

Jane employed a transformational leadership approach, which researchers deemed the most effective for women in leadership (Northouse, 2019). Her leadership style included a genuine and sincere concern for the growth and success of our team, which are supportive elements for effective leadership (Northouse, 2019). Jane understood the proverbial phrase that “you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.” Therefore, she strived to remain diplomatic in an environment where her colleagues could be very opinionated about specific work procedures (Northouse, 2019). Jane was exceptional in using a peaceful natured approach when negotiating with others, which became a shortcoming since many of the men who surrounded her expected this due to her gender (Northouse, 2019).

Carla’s Response to Genderism in the Workplace

The debt collections department that Carla worked for was a very competitive and cutthroat environment. I remembered first joining the debt collection department and was informed that I would need to have some thick skin if I wanted to survive in that environment. This explained why Carla had to exhibit the stereotypical masculine characteristics to imitate a strong leader (Northouse, 2019). However, because Carla was forcing these behaviors, they came off more aggressive and dominating than usual. To most of Carla’s upper management, she acted too confident, and it came off as arrogant (Northouse, 2019). When Carla attempted to be assertive, she appeared pushy and had a more forceful attitude (Northouse, 2019). She could not help it, as she was a product of her environment, which her upper management saw did not agree with her gender (Northouse, 2019).

Jane’s Response to Genderism in the Workplace

As Jane was the only female manager within her team, she was very aware of the scrutiny she was under to perform within her gender characteristics. Women who function in male-dominated organizations are generally seen as a representation of their gender as a whole (Northouse, 2019). Despite the extra pressures put on her to perform within her gender role, Jane maintained a calm and warm presence in the workplace (Northouse, 2019). As a leader, she was sensitive and reassuring to her employees. To her managers, she was eager to help and find solutions to any issues that developed. It was necessary for Jane to continually prove to her male superiors that she could handle her position while remaining modest in her approach (Northouse, 2019). Jane assimilated to the stereotype that women are much more sensitive and nurturing (Northouse, 2019). Although these behaviors were essential to the effective leadership she demonstrated, they were not effective enough to overcome the prejudices of a male dominant management team.

Carla’s and Jane’s experiences show that antiquated issues continue to exist with gender differences in leadership (Northouse, 2019). Furthermore, these issues have pervaded women’s professional growth and development, leadership styles, and behaviors. Genderism in the workplace has inhibited the investment in women’s career developments that lead to higher leadership roles (Northouse, 2019). It has forced women to resort to leadership styles that are dictated and judged by outdated ideologies that continue to uphold distinctions between gender roles in the workplace (Northouse, 2019). Sadly, it has instigated leadership behaviors in women that almost seem necessary to circumvent the prejudices they face at work because of their gender (Northouse, 2019). Fortunately for these two great leaders, they both found higher leadership roles in other companies that hold diversity, inclusion, and equality in high regard, which I hope becomes more prevalent for years to come.

 

Reference:

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Servant Leadership Taught by an Information Security Manager

by

Out of all the theories that I have read about, servant leadership has greatly impacted me. I must confess, though, that I might have some bias towards this specific leadership approach over the others due to moments I can recall from my past where various leaders taught me about the importance of serving others. For example, church leaders taught me to uphold the principles of serving those in need. I remember as a kid being directed to a passage in the bible, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45, New International Version). Additionally, I was often reminded of a famous phrase that stated, “Jesus served with the heart of a king but ruled with the heart of a servant” (Johnson, 2013, p. 6). As a kid, hearing this phrase became a conundrum for me, as I had a hard time wrapping my head around how one individual could hold two roles simultaneously (Northouse, 2019). However, while I thought that this phrase was just about the assignment of holding two roles, I learned it was more about performing the actions associated with these roles (Northouse, 2019). Although the preceding sentences in this paragraph reveal how I came to learn about servant leadership through my religious upbringing, the most significant lessons passed down to me about how to effectively employ servant leadership occurred in a corporate environment and came from my very first information security manager.

Northouse (2019) noted that servant leadership is accomplished when a leader is receptive to their follower’s necessities and desires. A “servant leader” is not a self-serving individual but someone that is self-giving to others (Northouse, 2019). This type of leadership process works in favor of the follower, as the leader places the follower first and recognizes the value of the follower’s role in the leader-follower relationship established between them (Northouse, 2019). Even though there is a concentrated focus on the follower, a leader also benefits from servant leadership. Northouse (2019) developed a servant leadership model (incorporating data from several servant leadership researchers) that described servant leaders as demonstrating behaviors such as “conceptualizing,” “emotional healing,” “putting followers first,” “helping followers grow and succeed,” “behaving ethically,” “empowering,” and “creating value for the community” (p. 235). When exercised by leaders, these types of behaviors give rise to ethical conduct that leadership researchers have discovered leads to better responses from followers (Northouse, 2019). In addition to the supportive following resulting from the behaviors previously mentioned, leaders also have a guide for improving their leadership skills (Northouse, 2019). This means that a leader who seeks to fulfill a servant leadership role will continually evaluate their behaviors to meet the expectations of that role. As a result, this continuous self-assessment produces positive results not just for the follower but also for the leader (Northouse, 2019).

When I reflect on my first information security manager’s leadership, I can see how his attitude and behavior toward helping his followers were fundamental for much of the success our team achieved in the organization and our careers. Northouse (2019) highlighted Robert K. Greenleaf’s (founder of servant leadership studies) claim that communities will experience the effects of servant leadership. I remember my manager telling me that he was helping me develop and grow and that it was my responsibility to pay it forward to those that surrounded me, reverberating Greenleaf’s claim. He also mentioned that he was feeding into my life in the event that he ever found himself working for me. What sounded like a comical proclamation was really his servant leadership in action. He was bolstering my confidence, supporting my career aspirations, strengthening my work ethic, helping improve my skills, and overall shaping me up to be a better person (Northouse, 2019). My manager understood that it was not primarily about being at the top and above everyone else; it was about helping others become more successful and better than him. What resulted from this was a ripple effect. Our team also projected this ideology and made great efforts to help others (Northouse, 2019). We did not expect recognition or awards; my manager taught us that we help others because it is the right thing to do as a servant leader (Northouse, 2019).

My first information security manager was extremely intelligent and very knowledgeable in multiple areas of study, but most of all, incredibly humble. I believe this is why he was so effective at improving his servant leadership role in our organization because he was willing to continually work on his “seven servant leader behaviors” (Northouse, 2019, p. 235). Beginning with “conceptualizing,” my manager knew that if he was going to be successful at building strong relationships with other departments in the organization, he would need to align himself with the organization’s overall vision and other departments (Northouse, 2019). Therefore, he scheduled time to meet with other teams (contributing to our processes) to learn how they operated and how our team could help them accomplish their goals (Northouse, 2019). His “emotional healing” behavior supported this type of awareness. My manager was great at actively listening to others and empathizing with their situations, which allowed him to respond with the appropriate solutions for problems, especially those faced by his followers (Northouse, 2019). I cannot recall a time when my manager failed at “putting others first.” He looked out for his followers’ well-being, and above all, he strived to elevate his followers’ roles in the organization by often recognizing them in front of his own leadership (Northouse, 2019). His love for “helping followers grow and succeed” was why many followers held him in high regard and considered him a great mentor (Northouse, 2019). He taught us that you should never stop learning and showed us how, allocating 4 hours of his Saturday mornings to complete study, because as Will Durant once said: “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” My manager sure lived up to that quote. “Behaving ethically” was no stranger to him, as he maintained transparency with his followers, showed no favoritism to any team members, and always had justifiable reasons for his decisions (Northouse, 2019). As a follower, I appreciated my manager’s “empowering” behavior. I was just beginning my career in information security, and my manager was willing to take on the risk of assigning major projects to me. This experience taught me about failure and how to overcome it, but most of all strengthened by confidence and work ethic (Northouse, 2019). I am proud to say that my manager is now heavily involved in “creating value for the community.” Currently, he is a vice president for a non-profit organization that helps military veterans and underprivileged youth obtain jobs in the technology field. A student from his non-profit organization was hired during my employment with former company, and she delivered some of the best work I had ever seen. Witnessing this event was another lesson learned from my manager about the importance of linking “the purposes and goals of an organization with the broader purposes of the community” (Northouse, 2019, p. 237).

My first information security manager instilled many principles in me, aligned to what has been described in the preceding paragraphs. I have seen how exhibiting servant leadership behaviors have generated some of the best work in an organization, boosted employee morale, and uplifted teams’ spirits (Northouse, 2019). I will forever be indebted to my first information security manager. Not only did he take a chance on bringing in a new candidate (me) without any experience in the information security field, but he taught me the value of being a servant leader. He showed me that by thinking about others and putting their priorities first, one could build solid and lasting relationships with individuals that will show up in a time of need for solutions (Northouse, 2019). He educated me on why empathizing with others could help identify the root cause of their issues and find solutions for alleviating their stress levels (Northouse, 2019). He reminded me that you never know where someone may end up in the future; therefore, you should always be willing to put them first and contribute to their personal growth and achievements (Northouse, 2019). He challenged me to remain just in all my actions, making sure to never compromise my integrity (Northouse, 2019). He encouraged me to have faith in others’ abilities and practice patience with their failures, as this leads to strengthening confidence in others (Northouse, 2019). Finally, he has continued to prove that what I have learned has no limitations and can cause a lasting impact in our communities (Northouse, 2019). I am sincerely thankful to this gentleman for helping me excel in my field, motivating me to put my best effort into everything I do, and inspiring me to pass on my lessons learned to others so they can achieve greater successes than me (Northouse, 2019). In the end, these strong leadership principles passed down by strong leaders will persist. As a leader, it is one’s duty, it is one’s responsibility, and it is just the right thing to do.

 

References:

Johnson, B. (2006). Dreaming with God: Secrets to Redesigning Your World Through God’s Creative Flow. Shippenburg, PA: Destiny Image.

New International Version Bible. (2011). The NIV Bible. https://www.thenivbible.com (Original work published 1978)

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

The Independent Contractor Role in LMX Theory

by

Until the last two years, I have held a traditional role as a direct employee to a company. After transitioning into an independent contractor role, I discovered that many benefits were being rewarded to employees that independent contractors were missing out on, most importantly the benefits from strong leadership. It seems that a huge gap exists in the interactions occurring between leaders and employees versus those between leaders and independent contractors. Much of these interactions, when further examined under the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, explain why such disconnected leader-follower relationships involving independent contractors continue to survive in corporate environments and are reinforced by the cultures developed from an antiquated view of leadership (e.g., trait approach) (Northouse, 2019). Fortunately, leaders can curb this type of dismissive mindset towards independent contractors. To achieve this, leaders must understand the types of groups (or dyads) residing in their work environments (Northouse, 2019), the effects that come from developing “high- and low-quality LMX relationships” (Northouse, 2019), and the LMX theory principles available to apply in the interactions occurring with independent contractors (Northouse, 2019).

Before describing and analyzing how leaders can strengthen a leadership process that involves independent contractors as followers, the LMX theory approach must first be explained. Northouse (2019) noted that the LMX theory focuses on the engagement process that a leader and follower establish. This means that the relationship that both the leader and follower decide to commit to will determine the strength of the leadership process (Northouse, 2019). Whereas other leadership theories focus on either the leader, follower, or situation in the leadership process, the LMX theory emphasizes the leader’s and follower’s chemistry (Northouse, 2019). With this fundamental knowledge, a leader can further examine the relationships they develop with followers, in this case, independent contractors.

LMX theory reveals that there are two different types of groups that form in an organizational environment: the “in-group” and the “out-group” (Northouse, 2019). The distinctions between these groups are not subtle (Northouse, 2019). The in-group will consist of followers considered to be the leader’s closest confidants (Northouse, 2019). This exclusive group will go above and beyond for the leader, winning their leader’s favor and approval (Northouse, 2019). In contrast, the out-group is considered to be a crew of outcasts when compared to the in-group. These individuals are meant to fulfill one purpose: to complete the task requirement they were appointed for (Northouse, 2019). Services performed by the out-group do not receive recognition or adulation but confirmation. Therefore, the out-group and leader merely participate in a transaction (Northouse, 2019). In other words, the follower provides a service, and the leader acknowledges that the work was completed and approves the compensation that is to be distributed to the follower.

This interaction between a leader and the out-group is a perfect example of how leaders interact with independent contractors. Independent contractors are contracted to provide a specific set of services and nothing else. Since independent contractors either work for themselves or a different company, corporate cultures have limited their scope and resources to only what is required to complete the task they are hired for (Northouse, 2019). Anything outside their work contract is irrelevant. That means any opportunity for professional growth is inaccessible to them, mentoring by a leader is non-existent, and communication is concentrated solely on the job requirements (Northouse, 2019). As a result, these constraints affect the quality of relationships developed between these leaders and independent contractors (Northouse, 2019).

According to the LMX theory, there are two types of quality LMX relationships: high-quality and low-quality (Northouse, 2019). The high-quality LMX relationship is most common in the exchanges between leaders and in-groups (Northouse, 2019). These LMX relationships lead to much more enriched work environments where followers thrive and effectively accomplish their goals (Northouse, 2019). Likewise, leaders demonstrate strong leadership due to their followers’ motivation and dedication to the harmonious relationship developed between them (Northouse, 2019). On the opposite end of the LMX relationship spectrum are low-quality LMX relationships. These types of relationships disclose the incompatibility between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2019). As researchers Harris, Wheeler, and Kacmar discovered, low-quality LMX relationships espouse mistrust, disengagement, and reticence (as cited in Northouse, 2019). Thus, out-groups will experience these types of LMX relationships the most since their only objective is to complete work based on their job roles’ expectations. Any benefits outside of these expectations are not offered to out-groups, which discourages any opportunity of strengthening the exchanges between leaders and followers as they are unnecessary.

Low-quality LMX relationships are common between leaders and independent contractors hired to work on specific projects. Since the contract is temporary or short-lived, a leader will scrutinize each phase of the project to ensure that the independent contractor is fulfilling the objectives. This is indicative of the lack of trust that exists within the low-quality LMX relationships (Northouse, 2019). One would think that this thorough examination into a project would lead to a persistent engagement between independent contractors and leaders. However, leaders will generally withdraw from providing further direction on a project and follow up only for a status update when working with independent contractors. Because independent contractors are considered the subject matter experts on the assigned tasks, leaders also forgo collaborating with independent contractors. Regardless, this type of low-quality LMX relationship hampers the overall effectiveness of the leadership process between leaders and independent contractors.

As Northouse (2019) pointed out, the LMX theory provides areas of opportunity for leaders to analyze their interactions with followers and make appropriate adjustments in order to improve these relationships. Since independent contractors align closer to the low-quality LMX relationships that exist with out-groups, the following suggestions can help reform these types of interactions that are prevalent between leaders and independent contractors.

Leaders must understand that an organization’s restrictions on providing tangible benefits (e.g., insurance benefits, time off, company discounts, employee stock) does not mean that leaders are restricted from providing intangible benefits (e.g., positive work environment, job satisfaction, career growth advice). LMX theory teaches that positive outcomes follow strong collaborations between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2019). So, leaders should seek to increase their interactions with independent contractors and determine the best way to supply those intangible benefits. Satisfying this desire or need (which I have personally experienced) can set a solid ground for developing strong partnerships, which benefits the leader, independent contractor, and the organization as a whole (Northouse, 2019). Additionally, these partnerships help counter the shortcomings of low-quality LMX relationships and transform them into high-quality LMX relationships (Northouse, 2019). Above all, the most important element that must not go unnoticed in the LMX theory is communication (Northouse, 2019). Every interaction or engaged process requires some form of communication between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2019). Therefore, leaders should always make an effort to keep an open line of communication with independent contractors, as this benefits all those involved in the leadership process working towards a goal. As Northouse (2019) stated, strong communication develops the most effective interactions between leaders and followers.

The LMX theory provides guidance for strengthening the interactions between leaders and independent contractors by recognizing the types of groups and relationships present in a work environment (Northouse, 2019). High-quality LMX relationships are generally found in the interactions between leaders and in-groups (Northouse, 2019). Meanwhile, low-quality LMX relationships are experienced by leaders and out-groups, resulting in minimal interactions that leave much to be desired in the leadership process that involve followers such as independent contractors. It is up to leaders to establish strong communication levels with independent contractors, so they feel valued and accepted as part of the organizational team (Northouse, 2019). Maintaining an open communication line and establishing an environment of collaboration are a few ways to turn these low-quality LMX relationships into high-quality LMX relationships. Lack of employing these suggestions from the LMX theory will only result in stunted productivity and poor progress towards organizational goals. Thus, a positive level of engagement provides an incentive for the independent contractor to put their best effort into their work to produce top results for the leader and organization (Northouse, 2019), providing a win-win situation for all participating individuals in the leadership process.

Reference:

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Spilling the Beans on Howard Schultz’s Leadership Style Approach: Relational Behavior

by

As a college student working into the wee hours of the night has become a common theme for me and for many other students who decide to put themselves through the torture of hardcore studying. We, college students, have found many ways to keep ourselves awake, from toothpicks in our eyes (okay, that is a bit exaggerated!) to energy drinks or even brewing and drinking tubs of ground coffee. There is never a short supply of ideas or methods that have been used to keep us hammering away through the night. One beverage that has helped keep me wired during the night has been a sugar-packed and greatly caffeinated drink from Starbucks called the white chocolate mocha. This particular drink already comes with 2 shots of espresso, but its full effect (in my case) cannot be felt unless that third extra shot of espresso is added to the drink. That is right; my $5 coffee needs to come with that extra kick! Unfortunately, that extra kick is full of regret when it wears off and when I can no longer greet Abraham Lincoln as I open my wallet.

White Chocolate Mocha in Starbucks. Image Credit: Ericka – flickr

So, I find myself wondering why I and many others remain entrapped in this relationship with Starbucks? That is, why do I always keep coming back for more? I believe that it could because of the welcoming environment and positive interactions I experience each time I step into a Starbucks shop. Much credit for this environment existing in these coffee shops can be given to the type of transformational leadership that Howard Schultz modeled during his tenure as Starbucks’ CEO from 1986 to 2000 and 2008 to 2017.

Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz Talks to the Media. Image Credit: Richard Eriksson – flickr

Early on, Schultz understood the importance of recognizing his followers as “partners” (Loudenback, 2015). This understanding helped Schultz skillfully develop relationships with his followers and strengthen the engagement processes between his role as a leader and his “partners'” role as followers (Northouse, 2019). Furthermore, he believed that empowering his followers (i.e., partners) helped foster an environment where they were free to share ideas and concerns without chastisement from leadership. This display of leadership behavior is indicative of the relationship behavior Schultz chose to exhibit through his leadership style approach as Starbucks’ CEO (Northouse, 2019).

The leadership approach called “Style Approach” (or “Behavioral Approach”) comprises two types of behaviors known as “task approach” and “relationship behaviors” (Northouse, 2019). Although both behaviors are important when examining the Style Approach, Schultz has placed much of his leadership focus on this particular approach’s relationship behavior.    

The relationship behavior that drives Schultz’s leadership style approach is attributed to a personal life experience that impacted him at a young age. Schultz’s father was injured when Schultz was a kid. As a result, Schultz’s father lost his job, financially impacting Schutz’s family (Biel, 2018). The hardships that followed from this event compelled Schultz to remain cognizant of Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid® factor of “concern for people” and motivated him to put his followers’ needs first (Northouse, 2019). As Soni (2020) noted, “Schultz maintained the pecking order: partners, customers, and shareholders” (para. 3). Schultz’s hierarchy of importance, although quite unorthodox (in that customer always comes first), emphasized the significant value that Schultz placed on his followers (Northouse, 2019).

Supporting his followers’ ambitions and desires was a primary priority of Schultz’s, which is another component that fulfills the “concern for people” factor (Northouse, 2019). He advocated for and established several financial assistance programs (e.g., college pay, health insurance, stock purchase programs) for all his partners or employees (Biel, 2018). He supported the hiring of veterans and refugees, and he participated in open forums held for Starbucks employees that allowed them to share their views on race relations and further discuss this particular topic with Schultz (Weisul, 2015). Again, this active engagement with his employees that Shultz adopted was an example of his effort to promote effective social interactions through the relationship behavior he demonstrated in his leadership (Northouse, 2019).

Another relationship behavior that Shultz did not shy away from was his complete honesty and candor with problems faced by Starbucks (Northouse, 2019). During the Great Recession of 2008, Starbucks took a major hit on its sales, and Schultz responded with changes that impacted many stores and employees. He was advised against being transparent about the company’s health and sharing details about store closures, as this would most likely harm employee morale for those still employed (Valet, 2019). Despite the pushback he received from his management teams, he remained faithful to his obligations as a 9,9 leader (focused on team relationships) and recognized that he had an obligation to disclose the obstacles faced by the company, provide direction for the company’s future, and preserve his employees’ trust that the decisions made by leadership in response to the circumstances would benefit the entire organization (Northouse, 2019).

“How could I ask something of them if they didn’t have the total picture, the total understanding of what the situation was and how dire it was? I knew instinctively that I needed to share with them 100% of the truth.” – Howard Schultz, Howard Schultz Teaches You How To Be A Leader In A Crisis

Howard Schultz’s leadership behavior has continued to make news even after stepping down as Starbucks’ CEO. In 2020, Schultz and other chefs and foundations took action by providing some funds to families in the restaurant business facing financial distress from COVID-19 (Guarente, 2020). Even though much of the relationship behavior components examined by researchers cover the interactions that occur within an organization (Northouse, 2019), Schultz has proven that these same behaviors surpass the workplace’s boundaries. Part of meeting Blake and Mouton’s “concern for people” requires special attention to individuals’ needs (Northouse, 2019). Schultz’s initiative to provide monetary support for other restaurant workers in his community showed his effort to alleviate the stresses that came with the situation everyone was experiencing (Northouse, 2019).

Since 1986, Schultz has exemplified great leadership with his leadership style approach, specifically with his relationship behavior. He has treated his employees with respect, listened to their concerns, and tried to respond to their needs. This is not to say that he has always achieved meeting his partners’ or employees’ expectations. However, he has always tried to empathize with their situations and foster an environment where employees can feel acknowledged (Valet, 2019). There may be other elements or leadership approaches that have contributed to his success as a leader. However, his relationship behavior has shown to be monumental when further examining his leadership style.

References:

Biel, J. (2018). 2 Leadership Traits Howard Schultz Used To Grow His Brand. In Grow Wire. Retrieved from https://www.growwire.com/howard-schultz-leadership-style

Ericka. (2013). White Chocolate Mocha in Starbucks [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/dlovesfuni2/8849437477/in/photolist-etZFse-PuXPC4-fPLEEy-7JWLsK-dpm7NW-9Afcjt-57krwG-zSQUc-4me7mo-Am3oih-nYosFr-6yTCxK-6PLtGp-63uGMg-97D5n4-aENZvk-9wkcEo-aTa5SF-21xqpDk-5KXo9G-9gMcsN-zPjRPt-farBgx-daxan4-7eDdoJ-aEjFZG-63TodK-farBrv-5BtSNa-ejPSt-iG99pZ-ejPHj-bUeSoG-dc7rmx-iaa1Z3-884mUK-4EcQo1-ak9BMX-8cteUM-7wCwk4-5N4T1u-pESKg4-azMZxn-btqzUK-riDxsp-wcS3X-aTa6hv-5FG2c3-8UXXXp-8c44Zv

Eriksson, R. (2007). Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz Talks to the Media [Photograph]. In flickr. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/sillygwailo/407257955/in/photolist-BZiAT-23U3mNR-2evsR9i-2d7Ge7R-23U3CZD-QKb3dn-rMApQo-2eqRsPy-SnmeKN-SnmGVQ-2d7G7qe-SnkAVL-2dpr1P1-C1hYz-2evsTrV-2eqRpXw-9GmHb6-2d7GoMn-2evt6Kx-2evtadz-2dprhh5-23U3G8x-2evtcNK-23U3H2r-2dprrgs-2eqREku-2dprnYf-QKbhp8-23U3QGr-Snm9gm-2eqRYsG-23U3Zd4-23U3XFg-2eqRZuS-SnmfBC-2d7GWqT-SnmFSh-2d7GX4g-2eqS9iy-2d7GXDz-QKbNDg-2eqS5Mf-2dpsaFC-2dprZLh-QKbFF8-23U4nak-2dpsbxY-2d7H7UP-2d7H5Pr-2dprXAW

Guarente, G. (2020). Howard Schultz and Seattle Nonprofits Launch Fund to Give Immediate Cash to Laid Off Restaurant Workers. In Eater Seattle. Retrieved from https://seattle.eater.com/2020/4/6/21209333/the-plate-fund-500-dollars-cash-to-restaurant-workers-seattle-king-county

Loudenback, T. (2015). The incredible rags-to-riches story of Starbucks billionaire Howard Schultz. In Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/howard-schultz-profile-2015-10

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Soni, P. (2020). Entrepreneurial Lessons From Howard Schultz and Starbucks: How To Tide Over Recession With Reinvigoration. In Entrepreneur India. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/351856

Valet, V. (2019). Howard Schultz Teaches You How To Be A Leader In A Crisis. In Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/vickyvalet/2019/01/24/howard-schultz-teaches-you-how-to-be-a-leader-in-a-crisis/?sh=7826ae033da7

Weisul, K. (2015). Starbucks’s Howard Schultz Goes Where CEOs Fear to Tread: Race Relations. In Inc. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/kimberly-weisul/starbucks-ceo-howard-schultz-race-relations.html

Leader or Follower: Who is Really in Control of this Relationship?

by

Reflecting on Northouse’s “Followership” chapter, I feel that I have suddenly been slapped in the face with a revelation: the power and control we thought to be managed by a leader has actually been governed by the follower all along. As I try to make sense of this new realization, I am quickly reminded of Sally Field’s iconic Mrs. Doubtfire dinner scene where she responds to a surprising discovery with the following: “the whole time? The whole time, you were – THE WHOLE TIME?!” (Columbus, 1993). Northouse (2019) noted that we are groomed to believe that leadership requires specific skills and qualities either innately within us or capable of being developed during our childhoods. This type of upbringing rings true, especially in my personal life. I cannot remember a moment from my upbringing where the spotlight was removed away from the characteristics of a leader and placed on the typology of the individuals allowing the leader to guide, direct, and influence them.

Could it be true that followers have always possessed the power to regulate the role a leader plays in their lives? Based on the trait approach, one may surmise that the skills and qualities of a leader not only affect but dictate how followers will respond to a leader’s directive. This concept seems to imply that a leader will ultimately determine and establish the types of relationships, boundaries, and behaviors complied with by their followers (Northouse, 2019). However, Northouse pointed out that even if a leader measures up to their role, checking off every leadership quality considered most prominent based on the trait approach, these leadership qualities’ values diminish if weak interactions exist with their followers. As a result, this has now created a shift in the role of leadership.

A leader’s role is not primarily dependent on the personalities, characteristics, or qualities of the individual occupying the leader role; it is contingent on whether the followers permit them even to lead. This approach of “reversing the lens” has now empowered followers to effect change in their leadership (Northouse, 2019). The shaping of a leader not only rests on those personality traits they were born with but on the traits and qualities followers expect them to develop and exhibit. Surprisingly, it seems there is now a swapping of roles; leaders find themselves responding to their followers by adapting to their followers’ expectations. Furthermore, this role exchange indicates that the power of influence is shared between the leader and the follower.

There is no question that leadership requires influence, which is the ability to persuade others to achieve a unified and desired outcome (Northouse, 2019). Although influence is ordinarily linked to a leader’s ability to persuade followers, extending that influential power to followers produces what Northouse referred to as “the leadership co-created process.” This process creates an environment where negotiations occur between the leader and the follower. The follower now has a voice at the table that forces both the leader and follower to recognize and accept their positions, which allows the follower to reject an individual’s position as a leader (Northouse, 2019). Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as followers tend to conform to various roles exuding behaviors that suppress the power of influence they potentially could have on their leaders.

Passive or ineffective followers can cause leadership to go unchecked and create a path for leaders to become toxic and pernicious. Without a proper challenge to their authority, leaders with bad intentions can become powerful, leading to coercion or intimidation tactics by leaders to exert their control. According to Northouse (2019), coercive leaders like Adolph Hitler, the Taliban, Jim Jones, and Rodrigo Duterte used threats and punishment to force followers to participate in harmful activities. The key to these types of leaders is how the power they exerted over their followers was tolerated. Northouse (2019) observed the different roles a follower can take on that might not feel the need to protest a leader’s decisions including, passive, conformist, resource, and bystander. These types of followers are usually withdrawn, apathetic, indifferent yes men, and ineffectual in maintaining a balanced relationship with their leaders. In order for a leader to be productive, they need the participation and engagement of their followers to guide them.

Effective leaders only exist when effective followers are present; therefore, it is imperative that followers uphold the types of roles that challenge their leaders (Northouse, 2019). As leaders have expectations of their followers, so should followers of their leaders. That means that followers need to exercise voicing their opinions and confronting any unethical practices performed by their leaders (Northouse, 2019). Leaders must be held accountable for their actions, and followers must understand that their active engagement with leaders will help govern and ensure this is maintained. Of course, this is easier said than done, but the reality is that followers have more influential power than they may think to urge leaders to live up to their own leadership roles. Therefore, control is no longer managed solely by leaders but is now a shared responsibility with followers.

Considering the contributions researchers have made to the study of the type of leader-follower relationship shared in the preceding paragraphs, this knowledge resonates with me on a personal level. As mentioned before, my upbringing was tailored around the office of leadership. The role of being an effective follower was never a priority. It was always about honing the skills and qualities, which aligned to Stogdill’s eight traits: (a) intelligence, (b) alertness, (c) insight, (d) responsibility, (e) initiative, (f) persistence, (g) self-confidence, and (h) sociability (Northouse, 2019). Additionally, I was taught to respect the office of leadership regardless of who held that role. This instruction meant that I was to do as I was told without question and be what leaders like to repeatedly refer to as a “team player.” This ingrained ideology is why I blindly followed managers without much dispute early in my career.

Unfortunately, there came a time in my career where this ideology shifted out of necessity. I found myself challenging a leader who was performing unethical practices with the company’s reporting. I was constantly questioning the type of retaliation I would face by exposing this act. It is in moments like these where morals are tested, and as Jean Lipman-Blumen claimed, there is a natural desire for security over the possibility of being outcasted (Northouse, 2019). Regardless, I knew that I had an obligation to do what was right, and I reported the issue, accepting any backlash coming my way. To my surprise, what I did was the start of an investigation that came with support from other followers. My willingness to come forward encouraged these followers to do the same. In the end, this leader was terminated. It seemed that I, as a follower, had more power than I initially thought.

As Northouse (2019) wrote, the type of relational-based interaction between leaders and followers described above still requires more research. However, it serves as an insight into how followers heavily influence the process of leadership. For too long, followers have mostly been dismissed and pushed off to the side. Now, leadership is no longer leader-centric but focused on the exchange that occurs with followers. It seems followers may perhaps retain more control of their relationships with their leaders than previously thought.

 

References:

Columbus, C. (1993). Mrs. Doubtfire. Twentieth Century Fox.

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Skip to toolbar