Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Servant Leadership in Teachers.

by

            We have all seen servant leadership in school. If we think about what is taught in elementary school, and then compare it to what is taught in high school, there is a clear difference. Teachers are an excellent example of the leaders in Servant Leadership. 

Servant Leadership emphasizes a leader who has the desire to serve others so that they can then develop themselves, and eventually develop others (PSU WC, 2013, L.11, p. 3). When a teacher helps a child develop, these children can then think for themselves, take care of themselves, and then help take care of others. Each grade that a student moves up, this becomes more and more obvious. A teachers job changes from grade to grade as children no longer need to be taught the essentials, such as, proper etiquette. In elementary school, teachers set the foundations for learning basic subjects and acceptable behavior (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012-2013). When high school teachers receive students, they assume and expect that students have built a strong foundation in these areas. At my high school, we had several programs for students to work with younger kids. An example of this would be the after school tutoring program. This tutoring program was for kids of all ages who needed extra help in a certain subject. If you were a high school student who was advanced in a certain subject, you could volunteer some of your time to help younger kids. Here we see the cycle of servant leadership. It all started with a teacher that aided in a student’s ability to flourish in a given subject, and now this student is able share their knowledge and help another student.

            Lesson 11 also talks about the ten characteristics of a servant leader: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (PSU WC, 2013, L.11, p. 3). The following is how each of these relates to a teacher: based on the definitions that Northouse (2013) give us.

–Listening is important for teachers to understand the best way to communicate with their students.

-Empathy is essential in understanding where their students come from. It may be difficult to reach students of  much younger ages.

-Healing for a teacher would be for them to take into account students school life and home life. If a student is not performing well in an area, they should be able to identify if it is a “learning problem” or maybe a personal problem (Northouse, 2013, p.222).

-Awareness may be hard for a teacher at times as they are expecting to make an impact on their students who are at a much younger age from them. They must work to provide information in their students “age context”.

-Persuasion is probably the easiest for a teacher as students trust their teachers and are easily convinced when told to change something.

-Conceptualization is a main characteristic for teaching, students must always have a set schedule on things that need to be learned to take students from grade to grade.

-Foresight tells the students what they should expect to learn upfront from the class and how it will help them in the future.

-Stewardship is the teachers’ oath about taking care of their students in both well-being and academics.

–Commitment to the growth of people is how teachers must treat each student as an individual. Each student has their own strengths and weaknesses which must be addressed.

–Building community is for a teacher to build a classroom atmosphere where their students will work together to, feel safe, and feel connected (Northouse, 2013, p.223).

As we can see, all of these servant leadership characteristics exist in good teachers. Teachers use them all because they want their students to grow into functional members of society. Members of society- that can then help others!

 

References

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012-2013). What kindergarten and elementary school teachers do.
          Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Education-Training-and-Library/Kindergarten-and-
          elementary-school-teachers.htm

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
          Sage Publications.

Penn State World Campus (2013). PSYCH 485 Lesson 11: Servant Leadership. Retrieved
          on June 21, 2013, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su13/psych485
        /001/content/11_lesson/01_page.html

Authentic Leadership on the TV Show ‘How I Met Your Mother’.

by

            To be “authentic” one must be original, the same goes for authentic leadership. There are three ways to define authentic leadership: interpersonal, intrapersonal, and developmental (PSU WC, 2013, L.12, p. 3). Interpersonal authentic leadership uses the relationship between the leader’s actions and the follower’s response to those actions. It is the strength of their relationship. Intrapersonal authentic leadership focuses on what is going on inside the leader’s head. This accounts for a leader’s self-knowledge, behavior, and self-identity. The leader in this definition is being “who they are” and not acting like someone else for approval (PSU WC, 2013, L.12, p. 3). Developmental authentic leadership says that this leadership can be learned and changed through experiences (Northouse, 2013, p.254).

            An authentic character is Marshall Eriksen from “How I met Your Mother” (Fryman, 2005-2013).  He is well known for his kindness and compassion not only about his friends and family, but also his job.  As a career, Eriksen always wanted to become a lawyer for environmental protection laws. He left his corporate law firm to make a difference with environmental law. The reason Eriksen is a great example of “authentic leadership” is because his leadership stems from being and the person that he is and wants to be. He can best be described as intrapersonal authentic leadership as he focuses on what is going on inside his head, and bases what he does on his knowledge and values.

When Eriksen shows leadership on the show, he is always being “true to himself”(PSU WC, 2013, L.12, p. 3). He does not work to please others. He even let’s down job offers when they interfere with his personal values. People feel they can trust him because they know what to expect, and that his personality and self-identity will not change easily. He switched from his high paying “corporate” lawyer job to a low paying job lawyer for environmental protection laws. The corporate firm gave him no sense of purpose and clashed with his identity. His new environmental lawyer job parallels to his values and he is now convinced he is working for the common good (Northouse, 2013, p.270).


References

Fryman, P. (Director) (2005-2013).  How I Met Your Mother. CBS Retrieved from
        http://www.cbs.com/shows/how_i_met_your_mother/

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
         CA: Sage Publications.

Penn State World Campus (2013). PSYCH 485 Lesson 12: Authentic Leadership.
         Retrieved on June 20, 2013, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su13/
         psych485/001/content/12_lesson/01_page.html

Leader-Member Exchange Theory on a Cross Country Team

by

                Leader-Member Exchange Theory emphasizes the interactions and relationships between the leader and the follower (PSU WC, 2013, L.8, p. 1).  Within this theory there are “in-groups” and “out-group’s”. In-groups were negotiated roles and responsibilities whereas out-group’s were based on a more formal role (PSU WC, 2013, L.8, p. 3). When looking directly at making leadership, this theory describes leadership as well as prescribes leadership letting us know how to have good relationships with our leader, or as a follower (PSU WC, 2013, L.8, p. 5).  

                The beginning of the commentary asks us to “think back to a time where we have been a leader or a follower. How did we act? How did the leader or follower act? What was the relationship between you and the leader or followers?”  A time I was a leader of a team with followers was back in high school, as I was one of three captains for my Cross Country team. That particular year the team was the largest size it has ever been with approximately 42 other athletes. There was a Varsity team and a Junior Varsity team. The top 7 runners on the team made Varsity. The way our coach determined Varsity lineup for the race was based on previous performance in races, performance during practice, and team spirit. With so many people, it was hard to interact with everyone on the team. The two other captains and I had to become creative in how we encouraged, and reached out to everyone one. We had rules and responsibilities such as arriving early to practice, and races, and leaving after everyone else. We were also in charge of organizing of practice get-togethers. We wrote “good luck letters” and held “spaghetti dinners” before each race, as well as, held “pep talks” before and after each race. As the captains, we were voted in and the leaders in charge of both the out-groups and in-groups on the team.

                For the team, I would also say that the whole team was part of the out-group,  varsity team was the in-group  and the captains were the leaders. Varsity members had earned their spots and had extra-role responsibilities.  These individuals “counted” when it came to competing against the other team. They also had formal roles to help the captains coordinate events and organizing the team practices.  The Junior Varsity team had a lot less responsibilities and a more relaxed role when it came to the races of, “finish” and “try to beat your last time”. 

                It is true that the in-group receives a lot more information and influence from their leaders than the out-group  (PSU WC, 2013, L.8, p. 7).  I think in part this had to do with size of the team as well. The varsity team was 7 runners versus the Junior Varsity team which, on a good day, was the other 35 team members. The Junior Varsity runners ranged on scale of “commitment” to the team, but the majority of these out-group members were there to do the bare minimum of what was required from them (PSU WC, 2013, L.8, p. 5). 

                It is interesting to think back at a time where I was in a leadership position. It was very hard to influence, interact, and motivate all the team members, while maintaining a good relationship. There was also a noticeable difference being the leader of the “in-group” and the leader of the “out-group” team members. More effort was required for engaging in a relationship with the out-group. This goes back to the level of commitment to the team, the out-group had in comparison to the in-group. At times members in the out-group expressed that they felt as if they were not “needed” or “important” because they did not have any extra roles. There were others in the out-group that felt they were very “important” to the team as a whole. This continuum really made me think about the lesson, and what it was saying in Leader-Member Exchange Theory about the interactions and relationships between the follower for both the in-group and out-group, and how your leadership approach may need to differ.

 

References

 

Penn State World Campus (2013). PSYCH 485 Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). Retrieved on June 8, 2013, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su13/psych485/001/content/08_lesson/printlesson.html.

 

 

Fiedler’s “Contingency Model” for the Workplace, Fiedler’s “Contingency Model” for Addiction Treatment.

by

             While reading this week’s lesson, I was brought back to my “Psychology of Addiction” class. For addiction treatment we spent a few days going over “Contingency Management” which is one of the largest effect sizes of all the mental health interventions. Contingency Management is a behavioral treatment where desired behaviors are reinforced and rewarded (Higgins & Petry, 1999). This means that a major component of treatment is “incentives”. The incentives approach is where individual receive prizes or vouchers for abstaining from drug usage.  This approach has been primarily used with cocaine and other “harder drugs” but can be used with any drug addiction, and seen a lot with alcohol addiction. The reason this is used is because studies have shown it has a much better outcome for retention and results when compared to other 12- step programs (Higgins & Petry, 1999). The reason it is not used more is because of the lack of funding. Public policy and public opinion are also problems. Individuals who are not using this rehabilitation program do not see the benefits in “rewarding” addicts with prizes to stay clean. They believe it is more of a temporary fix versus a long term one.

             Contingency Management is also used as a “Community Reinforcement Approach” this creates contingencies across different areas of an addicted individual’s life such as vocational, social, and familial. This approach is very involved with significant others as support and motivation to stay clean by decreasing positive reinforcements for drinking and increasing positive reinforcement for sobriety (Miller, Meyers, & Hiller-Sturmh�fe, 1999). It is also highly effective in combination with the incentive approach.

                I found a video that does a very nice job depicting the incentives approach to treating drug addiction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlsqMW6euJA

So, how does this all relate to Fiedler’s Contingency Model?

              In treatment for addiction there is always a support system and leader in that support system. Fiedler’s Contingency Model says that “leaders are consistent in their behavior and that their effectiveness is determined by selecting the right leader for a specific situation or altering the situation to fit the leader” (PSU WC, 2013, L.6, p.6).  This is very similar to what happens when an addict enrolls in a treatment program. Many times a family member “steps up” to become a leader based on the situation or the addict changes their treatment program to fit the availability of the leader. For example, my close friend’s dad was an alcoholic, who was finally convinced to receive treatment. He had several options for treatment programs but picked the one that would allow his wife to be “the leader”, with the most “control”.  He believed that only she could fit this role of support. 
             Any addiction counselor or family member must always show a certain amount of control.  Looking at Situational favorability, or the amount of control that an individual actually has on another in Fiedler’s Contingency Model, we can also forecast how successful these appointed leader will be with the addict (PSU WC, 2013, L.6, p.6). Leader-member relations meaning the strength of the relationship between the leader and in this case addict. This is the leader and the addict’s general feelings toward one another, good or bad. A strong solid relationship will be best for an addict going through rehab. The leader using task structure in treatment would mean how well they could sets milestones for the addict, indicating clear tasks, and goals after a certain amount of treatment. Telling the addict that they should be “sober” after a week would not be a realistic or helpful goal. Having a leader set a very specific goal with means of achieving it, such as, “If you attend every group this week and are actively participating, you will get visit home” would be much more beneficial. The leader would need to be able to use position power in treatment meaning, that they would be able to give rewards and punishments fairly (PSU WC, 2013, L.6, p.6).

          As you can see these rewards and punishments are clearly seen in “Contingency Management” for addiction, as well as in Fiedler’s Contingency Model for corporate offices to motivate workers. Fiedler’s Contingency Model in general can be used for both the workplace and an addiction treatment center as it is a means of selecting the right leader for the situation, or fitting the situation to the leader based upon their strengths.

 

 

 

 

References:

Danya Institute’s channel. (2012). Promoting awareness of motivational incentives. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlsqMW6euJA

Higgins , S. T., & Petry, N. M. (1999). Contingency management incentives for sobriety. Alcohol Research & Health, 23(2), Retrieved from http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh23-2/122-127.pdf

Miller, W., Meyers, R., & Hiller-Sturmh�fe, S. (1999). The community reinforcement approach. Alcohol Research & Health, 23(2), Retrieved from http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh23-2/116-121.pdf

Penn State World Campus (2013). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Contingency and Path Theories. Retrieved on May 31 2013, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su13/psych485/001/content/06_lesson/01_page.html

Mumford et al (2000) “Skills Model” vs. Katz’s (1955) “Three Skills Model”

by

Mumford et al (2000) “Skills Model” vs. Katz’s (1955) “Three Skills Model”

Skills Approaches 

                The skills approach shows that leaders have certain behaviors that allow them to act as a leader in specific situations that they come across. Up until this time, I have been giving a lot of attention to Katz’s (1955) “Three Skills Model”  where the basic skills you need to be a leader are “technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills” (PSU WC, 2013, L. 4, p.4). Using these three skills, it is easy to fit an individual into these skills categories based on whether or not they have them. I was wondering if Mumford et al. (2000) “Skills Model” would work in the same way.

                 In my discussion forum post where I was to give an example of where I saw “leadership skills in action”, I focused on an RN that I work with who had greatly excelled in all three of these areas. Since I am working a new job, alongside of taking this course PSYCH 485, in has given me a good insight on how to determine “good leaders”. These leaders can be born with leadership traits or learn behaviors through experience.

Mini Experiment

                Just out of curiosity, I watched my co-workers for a few days last week to look at the Skills Approach by  Mumford et al. (2000) in comparison to the Skills Approach by Katz (1955). I wanted to know if I would find the same leaders “fitting both skill approaches”.  For example, would the RN I fit perfectly to Katz’s “Three Skills Model” fit Mumford et al’s skills model just as perfectly? Mumford et al (2000) skills approach has the three skills, “individual attributes, competencies, and leadership outcomes”(PSU WC, 2013, L. 4, p.5). Since this skill model is much more specific than the basic skills of Katz I was unsure if I would find the same “leaders” looking at them with both skill approaches. I was also curious to see which parts of  Mumford et al’s (2000) skills approach seemed to be most beneficial to my “workplace Mental Health Unit”. 

Findings

                I found that the leaders I had picked out originally for Katz’s (1955) “Three Skills Model” were the same as the leaders I found for Mumford et al’s (2000) “Skills Approach  Model”. The specific piece of Mumford et al’s Skills Approach that was most beneficial to my workplace was “problem-solving skills”. Problem-solving skills according to the lesson 4 commentary is, ” the capability to solve problems that may arise with creative solutions”(PSU WC, 2013, L. 4, p.5).  I was able to eliminate a lot of people of people in my office based on this. Many of my co-workers were able to identify problems that were arising, but not able to “solve them”. For instance, a co-worker asked me what I would do if an inmate snapped while not handcuffed at group. For a little background on my job, inmates are treated on a reward system. If they have good behaviors for an extended period of time, we increase their level. A level 2 inmate has to come out for group by themselves with handcuffs. A level 3 inmate can come out for group with other level 3 inmates without handcuffs. The problem she was bringing up was “what happens if an inmate snaps during a level 3 group? How would the group leader and other inmates be safe with only one correction officer?” She realized that it could be a potentially dangerous situation to have inmates out with staff  and other inmates without handcuffs, but could not develop any solutions to this problem. Working in a “Mental Health Unit” there are many problems that come up just like this one. This is why I believe that “problem-solving skills” is the most beneficial aspect of Mumford et al’s (2000) “Skills Approach  Model”.

 

 

 

R    References

Penn State World Campus (2013). PSYCH 485 Lesson 4: Skills Approach. Retrieved on May 12, 2013, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su13/psych485/001/content/04_lesson/printlesson.html

 

Skip to toolbar