Jason Perrin

The Makings of a Servant Leader

April 14, 2014 by Jason Perrin

As this class has progressed, I have been thinking of various times I’ve had to act as leader. I’ve also thought of people who have made an impact on me. Much of my thoughts did not have names until certain lessons made me see some experiences differently. For example, before this semester, if one were to ask me what servant leadership was, I would have been completely wrong. The word “servant” painted a negative picture in my mind. What I learned, is that I have been a product of servant leadership which really shaped how I initially acted in a leadership role. When I was stationed in Germany, I had a direct supervisor. I had a shift boss and an overall flight chief (middle management type level). But I also had a trainer who took on a leadership role. This trainer, named Keith, exhibited many qualities from servant leadership which shaped the way I initially acted in leadership roles.

“Servant leaders place the good of followers over their own self-interests and emphasize follower development. They demonstrate strong moral behavior towards followers, the organization, and other stakeholders” (Northouse, 2013, p. 220). Servant leaders develop followers into leaders in order to get the work done and focus on other things. Keith demonstrated this every night on shift. I was treated as an equal and partner in work…not as the usual trainee in the jobs. Instead of being forced to hold flashlights, read technical orders, and hand off tools (which was the norm at the time for trainees), I was looked at to do most of the work and have an input on repairs. Often times Keith would stay late with me to work on something I needed training on. It’s because of him that I developed a strong attachment to our shift and out unit.

According to Northouse (2013) there are ten characteristics of a servant leader. Instead of going into all ten, I chose the top 3 that reminded me of the interaction I had with Keith. The first characteristic is listening. Servant leaders listen first. By doing so, they acknowledge and validate what the followers say. The next characteristic is empathy. Empathy refers to seeing something from other’s point of view. Servant leaders demonstrate this to show that they understand what the follower is going through. Lastly, servant leaders develop a community. Leaders develop a sense of community to allow followers to feel as if they are a part of something bigger than themselves; to give them a sense of identity while still being able to individually express themselves.

Keith embodied these characteristics. First was listening. In both situations where I excelled and during times when I made a mistake, Keith would always listen to what happened first. He wanted to get my view on what happened and validate what I was thinking. Next was empathy. Keith always said that he never forgot his time in my shoes. Whenever I felt that things were rough, he told me a story about how he dealt with it. He then would also see how my situation might be different so he can help me directly. Lastly, Keith helped build a community. Most nights he would invite the shift to eat together at the dining facility on base for the midnight meal. This meal would allow us all to feel like we were a part of the unit rather than a worker who happens to be in the unit. During these meals we would socialize, eat, and just enjoy the company of the entire shift.

Most of my life, I did not consider Keith to be a servant leader. I just considered him to be doing the morally right thing. It was only after reviewing the lesson that I saw how much faith in put in his followers, I saw the characteristics he exhibited, and I saw how he shaped us that I realized Keith was the perfect example for servant leadership.

References

Heroic Journey. (2014). [image]. Retrieved on April 14, 2014 from http://www.heroicjourney.com/graphics/page_graphics/servant_leader_traits.GIF

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (6^th Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishing.

Expediter

April 13, 2014 by Jason Perrin

For many years, I performed the role know as Expediter in my career. It was my job to take a team of aircraft maintainers and lead them effectively in order to accomplish the mission at hand. It took some time to learn the in’s and out’s of the job and a few mistakes were made, but eventually I got the hang of it. When at my best in this role, Ginnett’s Team Effectiveness Leadership Model (TELM) approach to team leadership described what I did to help the team succeed.

The TELM is designed to help teams work more efficiently. It helps a leader determine what a team needs and how to take care of those needs. The TELM states that the first thing a leader can do to improve effectiveness is to ensure the team has a clear sense of purpose and to know what the expectations are (PSU WC, 2014, L. 9. p. 8). This allows a team to not only know what the goal is, but how it will be measured. It makes it so there is little to no “guess work” involved in what needs to be done. As the expediter, I began each shift telling all my maintainers what they needed to do for the day. On top of telling them what had to be done, I let them know my expectations and what I considered quality work compared to what I saw as substandard work. This allowed all of my team members to know what was expected and what they had to do.

The second TELM step to increase team effectiveness is to design various inputs at the individual, team, and organizational levels. An input is what is available for a team in order for the team to work. These inputs can be psychological in nature or can even be the aptitude or ability of the team member (PSU WC, 2014, L. 9 p. 8). I would make inputs at the individual level by assigning the right people to the right jobs. I knew who my workers were and I knew who was stronger in one aircraft system compared to another. I would take this knowledge of abilities and create smaller teams in order to get a job done correctly. I would also create a team input by assigning a team with a spread of knowledge. I would ensure each team has a qualified maintainer along with an experienced one. If my manning would allow I would also add a trainee in the team to allow for proper training on the task.

The final step in the TELM model for team effectiveness is “Improving team performance through ongoing coaching at various stages, but particularly while the team is actually performing its task” (PSU WC, 2014, L. 9 p. 8). This would allow the team to work while at the same time learn and stay motivated to the task at hand. I would do this by checking in often on the team and getting progress reports. If the team was struggling with a particular job, I would tell them my inputs and motivate them to completing the task. Finally, I always left on a positive note to further my attempt to coach and motivate them further in the job.

As I said, I did not do all of this right away. It took a few years for me to develop this particular style. But once I did, I noticed an increase in motivation and efficiency in my teams. The Team Effectiveness Leadership Model helped show what I was doing and how it helped to make my team more effective.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2014). PSYCH 485. Lesson 9: Team Leadership. Retreived from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/09_lesson/01_page.html

Sheehan, R. (2013). Build High Performing Teams. [image]. Retrieved on April 13, 2014 from http://strategyleadershipmissionimpact.blogspot.com/2013/04/build-high-performing-teams.html

The Chief

March 30, 2014 by Jason Perrin

Throughout my career, I have been in various leadership classes. In each of these classes, we were always told to start by naming someone in our personal or professional lives that we feel exemplifies a leader. I have always chosen the same person. I, although now retired after 30 years of active duty service to the United States Air Force, will always refer to this person, as Chief. For years, I have thought of Chief as my mentor. Only until recently have I thought of Chief as the purest example of a transformational leader.

Shockley-Zalabak (2012) describes transformational leadership as leaders that “motivate followers by personal example, through appeals to higher-level needs, and by the establishment of vision” (p. 222). Furthermore, Northouse (2013) describes transformational leadership as “a process that changes and transforms people. It is concerned with emotion, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals. It includes assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full human beings” (p. 185). Transformational leadership is about charisma of the leader and includes factors such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

Idealized influence, or charisma, describes leaders who act as role models. They have high standards of conduct and followers try to emulate this behavior. When I first met Chief, I thought of him as a very approachable person. He knew the right thing to do and would always do it. He knew his job and expected everyone else to do the right thing at all times. The first thing I noticed was the respect he had from everyone in the room. It was something I clearly wanted to emulate.

Along with Chief’s charisma, he was also motivational. Inspirational motivation is described as communicated standards to followers and inspiring them to become committed to the shared vision of the organization. Chief did this repeatedly with everyone he could. What shocked me most is how he motivated those individuals who did not always meet the standard. When someone would slip and fall below standard, he would always comment that mistakes are made…but it is how we recover from those mistakes—not the mistake itself, that defines us. This not only motivated those who made the mistake, but also inspired those trying to keep up with the high standards of our job.

Intellectual stimulation is when leaders allow followers to be creative and innovative. Leaders who promote intellectual stimulation allow new approaches and new practices to try in an organization. Chief was always an “outside of the box” thinker. To this day, I use and teach some of his aircraft troubleshooting methods. Lastly, Chief emulated individualized consideration. Those who do provide a climate of support in which they listen to each follower and act as a coach or mentor. On a normal day, Chief could be seen sitting with individuals asking how their day has been and learning of their off duty activities. Everyone had good rapport with Chief and it is because of this that everyone tried his or her best when working for him.

Throughout my years, I have worked for many people. However, it was only after working with Chief that my style and approach had changed. Chief had a way to empower everyone around him and truly transform them (and himself to a certain extent) into being better followers and leaders. He did this by using the four factors of transformational leadership. It is for these reasons and many more that I will always call him Chief. Thank you Chief!

Adams, S. (Artist). (2007). Dilbert. [Image]. Retrieved on March 30, 2014 from http://blogs.brad.ac.uk/management/experts/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cartoon-24.jpg

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (6^th Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2012). Fundamentals of Organizational Communication. (8^th Ed.) Glenview: Pearson Education, Inc.

The Exchange

March 9, 2014 by Jason Perrin

Throughout my adult life, I have found that different leaders expected more from me than others. The amount expected was sometimes linked to my relationship with the leader. Sometimes I received more influence and concern from leaders. Other times, I was just another employee. What did I receive from those leaders who showed concern and what did they receive from me? How was my treatment from those who did not show the same concern? The answers can be explained via the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory.

First and foremost, what is the LMX theory? According to Northouse (2013), “LMX theory makes the dyadic relationship between leaders and followers the focal point of the leadership process” (p. 161). This dyadic relationship determines whether a follower is placed in the in-group or out-group. The in-group is that group which the leader bestows expanded responsibilities and the out-group is those which are follower based on employment or contract only. Personality and other characteristics also play a role on whether an employee is part of the in-group or the out-group. Early in my career, I was known to be very motivated to work. This placed me in the in-group of many of my superiors. I was given more jobs to do and trusted more than some of my peers to do more complex tasks. I learned many things from my supervisors and in turn, I gave them all the work I was able to do. I looked forward to coming into work and doing my best.

“…studies found that high-quality leader-member exchanges (which are probably exchanges between people in some kind of in-group) produced less turnover, higher performance evaluations, higher amount of promotions, greater organizational commitment, better work assignments, better job attitudes, more support from the leader, and faster career progress” (PSU WC, 2014, L.8 p. 4). As my career progressed and I started to lead, I found improving relationships with my subordinates to be an effective method of leadership. In and out-groups were less important to me as I strived to develop a relationship where everyone could be part of the in-group. My workers put forth extra effort in their jobs (which made my job easier) and in turn, I was able to offer rewards such as time off and company wide recognition. People wanted to work for me and I was able to reward their efforts.

But what of the out-group? Do they still receive the same benefits? Some criticisms of LMX theory state an issue of fairness. Those in the out-group often do not receive the same attention as the in-group. They often come into work, work, and then go home. Often times, this can appear to show favoritism for the in-group. Whenever I was part of the out-group, I did what I was told, but deep down I could tell that I was not receiving the same amount of attention or given the same amount of time as those in the in-group. If anything, it taught me to always pull those who find themselves in the out-group toward the in-group…or at the very least do my best to keep everything fair.

So in the end, my adult life I have seen various groups form and what effects those groups can have on the relationships between leaders and followers. I have seen great exchanges between both parties when relationships are high and have seen what could be perceived as unfairness when relationships are not as close. In the end, through LMX theory, I have learned to strive for equality while at the same time strive for high quality leader-member exchanges. In the future I will be filling both leader and follower roles. I need to learn from previous exchanges and hopefully be influenced to take on more roles and responsibilities all the while influencing my own followers. The exchange between all parties can lead to great things.

References

Adams, S. (Artist). (2007). Dilbert. [Image]. Retrieved on March 9, 2014 from http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/10 0/600 1607/1607.strip.gif

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (6^th Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2014). PSYCH 485. Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX.). Retrieved on March 9, 2014 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/01_page.ht ml

What the Air Force Showed Me

February 9, 2014 by Jason Perrin

There are different positions of leadership in the Air Force. After 11 years (and counting) of service, I have been making my way up the chain. When I first joined 11 years ago, I assumed that leadership was something you were born into…something innate. However, after 11 years, I have come to realize that this is not the case. One can learn leadership skills. The skills approach, namely the three-skill approach, can be used to assess various leadership scenarios (and how they are learned) in the United States Air Force and the military.

My first taste of leadership came when I promoted to the rank of Staff Sergeant. I was told that my new role was that of a “front line supervisor”. I was to have the technical knowhow to complete the job whilst supporting my subordinates in regards to their training and physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. Northouse (2013) defined the technical aspect of the three-skill approach as “knowledge about and proficiency in a specific type of work or activity” (p. 44). The activity in question was the maintenance and repair of fighter jet avionics systems. I was never mechanically inclined growing up. I was also never interested in aviation. This technical skill was something that I learned. My behaviors were changed. I learned the technical knowledge needed to lead.

Before you can promote to Staff Sergeant, an Airman must first complete Airman Leadership School (ALS). ALS teaches a new supervisor how to write evaluations, promote discipline, and sharpens interpersonal skills. The interpersonal skill is where I was lacking. I was never one who could easily read others’ emotions and work well with others. ALS taught me to sharpen those skills and enhance my interpersonal communication, which was lacking. The human skill is the second of the three-skill approach and is defined as the ability to work with others. The ability to work with peers, subordinates, and management. At this level of my career, I was now high with technical skill and human skill. This is something very common to those in supervisory management (Northouse, 2013).

About 7 years into my career, I was promoted to the rank of Technical Sergeant (TSgt). A TSgt needs to not only be technically proficient, but needs to start acting in a middle management role. Again, this was something I was not accustomed to doing. Again, I was able to learn these skills and start designed shift schedules and job priorities. I needed to balance leave requests, training, school requests, and off-base incidences. My conceptual skills have become to emerge. Conceptual skills are needed for a company to create a plan or mission and carry it through. It is outside-the-box thinking. It is working with ideas and concepts (Northouse, 2013).

Throughout my career so far, I have grown to realize that leadership skills are not innate like I once thought so long ago. The Air Force has given me the tools needed to learn to be an effective leader in the situations presented to me. The theory behind the three-skills approach also backs up what I have been learning and why it is important to know and utilize these skills. I have learned the knowledge, human, and conceptual skills needed to be effective as an Air Force enlisted leader.

References

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (6^th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.