Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

A Pink Makeover

by

CheerleaderHaving just attended the one and a half day Mary Kay Career Conference last weekend, the speeches given and workshops taught by the top ranking regional and national leaders were primarily focused on achieving a make over, or transformation in ourselves and in our business in order to reach our goals. As a former cheerleader, I like to call them “rah-rah” meetings since their aim, as with any sales meeting is to excite, ignite, uplift and cheer on the sales force. Think high school pep rally, where the leaders shared how we are all part of the team and play an important role in the success of the company (Northouse, 2013, p. 193).

The methods for accomplishing this may very well have come from the Transformational Leadership handbook or more specifically, the five fundamental practices from the model of Kouzes and Posner (Northouse, 2013, p. 198). Although she passed away nearly 15 years ago, Mary Kay Ash is still touted as the ultimate role model. We are constantly reminded of her struggles as a single mother and her dream and vision to create a company that would help to transform women’s lives. All while being guided by the Golden Rule. Highly spiritual, Mary Kay felt each sales consultant should place God first, family second and career third. All strong ideals she articulated throughout her time as leader of the company and still shared today (Northouse, 2013, p. 200).

Inspiration was the major theme of the conference. Each speaker started with her “I” story as they call them, what inspired or led them to join Mary Kay. Often they involve dead end jobs, personal life changes, or the need to have more control over their destiny. Challenges to stepping out of our comfort zone and dream big were constant. We were reminded that by sharing the Mary Kay opportunity with other women, we are “transcend[ing] the status quo and doing something for others” (Northouse, 2013, p. 198).

One speaker told us she knew it was scary, and may feel uncomfortable, but we had to push ourselves and face the unknown in order to meet our goals. We were reminded of the risk Mary Kay took, as well as the risks that each and every current leader has taken to get where they are. A National level speaker shared with us how she had joined and left Mary Kay three times before finally admitting that she had not had the focus necessary nor had she challenged the process but instead expected immediate gratification. Realizing that she would have to take one step at a time and yes, she would make mistakes but could and did use those mistakes as learning opportunities (Northouse, 2013, p. 198).

Accomplishments were rewarded throughout the weekend with stage calls for top sales, top team builders, and car and trip earners. One consultant was surprised and given keys to a new car right on the spot! Rituals for celebrating and recognizing achievements go back to the very early days of Mary Kay. What you wear designates whether you are the leader of a team and at what level. And who hasn’t heard of the Mary Kay pink Cadillac?   Recognizing and celebrating the achievement of the sales force, enhances the feeling of “collective identity and community spirit” (Northouse, 2013, p. 199).

Pink Cadillac

After being reminded that we are each valued and appreciated for our contributions to our teams no matter how big or small, and that we are respected for our own unique “I” story, members of our group left the conference feeling uplifted and excited to take the steps required to tackle the new challenges we were given. The final step that Kouzes and Posner call enabling others to act. Through application of this Transformational Leadership model, we went home made over in pink.

 

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Who Has Time for This?

by

 

With pressures to focus on activities that lead to profit optimization, leaders in organizations are left with little time to give attention to peripheral activities, such as developing relationships with their staff beyond the traditional boss/employee contract. The scenario looks like this: leader directs and treats each employee the same and in turn, most employees do only what is necessary to get the job done to earn money for that work, and go home with little emotional connection to their leader or the organization. A few employees will make the initiative to take on more responsibilities by going above and beyond what is expected (Northouse, 2013, pg. 163). In turn, the leader will reciprocate by sharing more information and showing more consideration and concern for those employees. The key here is that this occurs through the employee’s initiative.

However, studies in Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) have proven that leaders need to go beyond the basic exchange explained above, in order to develop employees who are dedicated to the organization, perform at higher levels, achieve promotions, and are given better work assignments (PSU WC, 2015, L. 8, p. 3). According to the LMX Theory this occurs through the one-on-one  interactions between the leader and follower in which a reciprocal relationship is developed. In the end, these relationships can lead to content, motivated and dedicated employees. The key however, is the shift of initiative from the employee, to the leader.

How is this achieved? Through relationship building. According to PSU WC (2015, L. 8, p. 6), “leaders should have high-quality relationships with most followers, not just a few.” In order to achieve this, the leader must engage with each employee individually with the goal of making the employee feel like an integral and valued part of the team and greater organization. This happens in steps. Initially, the leader and new employee will start out as strangers. Through offers of “career-oriented social exchanges” (Northouse, 2013, p. 167) by either party, they enter the acquaintance phase. Through relationship testing, when both leader and employee find they can trust each other, they have reached the final phase, mature partnership. It is important to know, attempts at relationship building will not work for every employee. Some employees will be happy to remain in the stranger phase; they do not have the need for connection and only wish to do their job and go home.

When considering the use of this strategy, most leaders will ask, who has time for this? And, while it is a valid concern, when considering the alternative, it will begin to emerge as a necessary strategy. Without a relationship focus, job dissatisfaction and high employee turnover results. In their paper, Jordan and Troth (2011), cited meta-analyses of LMX in which Gerstner and Day “found significant relationships between LMX and job performance, and other variables related to satisfaction and turnover intention.” Considerations for the indirect costs of employee turnover, according to Croucher, Wood, Brewster, and Brookes (2011) are lost production, reduced team performance, the need for remaining team members to work over-time and, the potential loss of team morale. In addition, Iverson, as cited by Croucher et al. (2011) points out the costs and time required to recruit new employees as well as the costs of training in order to bring a new employee to job proficiency.

As a leader who is pressured to constantly be cognizant of the bottom line, from the LMX Theory perspective, it is evident that the time and energy spent focusing attention toward developing mature partnerships with each employee can fend off the monetary costs incurred recruiting and training a replacement employee, as well as losses suffered through failed performance of the team. All costs which would be incurred through the loss of unengaged and uninspired employees.

References:

Croucher, R., Wood, G., Brewster, C., & Brookes, M. (2011) Employee Turnover, HRM and Institutional Contexts. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 33(4), 605–620. doi: 10.1177/0143831X11424768 eid.sagepub.com

Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. (2011). Emotional intelligence and leader member exchange. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(3), 260-280. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731111123915

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015). PSYCH 485 Lesson 8: Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1486679/modules/items/15963858

Filed Under: LMX

The Ying and The Yang of the Office

by

Since as long as I can remember I’ve been a list maker, feeling a great sense of accomplishment when those to-do items got crossed off of the list. This trait has followed me throughout life. And, for the most part has served me well. In work and volunteer functions, I’ve been described as well organized, efficient, resourceful and capable. It wasn’t until I met Iris, that I truly began to appreciate the importance of people skills.

Iris is the woman I shared a job with as the receptionist in the administration office of a public school district for five years. I worked mornings and Iris worked afternoons. When greeting visitors, I smiled and was friendly but immediately focused on why they were there and whom they were there to see, connected the parties and moved on to the next task. Not Iris. When visitors arrived she treated them all like they had entered her home. Did they want to hang up their coats and could she get them a beverage. She treated frequent visitors like close friends, asking them about their families, their recent vacation or if were they feeling better after being sick. She was a pro.

Within a short period of time of working together, I became the person to delegate special projects to. I did everything from gathering student data for our published district profile, helped maintain the district’s website, created financial spreadsheets for the business office and so on. Iris continued to focus mainly on the people side of the job. She maintained the district phone lists, employee directories, and the birthday list along with reminders so no ones birthday would go uncelebrated. In essence, Iris was a people person and I was a taskmaster.

When considered from the leadership style approach, three different studies although using different descriptors, all concluded that there are two basic behaviors or actions a leader uses toward subordinates. A concern for people, the relationship and consideration for others are what I refer to as the softer side of leadership. When a leader shows concern for people, they use relationship behaviors that can help followers feel comfortable with themselves, with others and the situation (Northouse, 2013, p. 75). According to The Ohio State study these behaviors help to “build camaraderie, respect [and] trust” (Northouse, 2013, p. 76). When showing concern for production, tasks or initiation structure, a leader uses task behaviors that help their followers meet work objectives, the harder side of leadership. These behaviors, according to The Ohio State study as cited in Northouse (2013, p. 76) include organizing and structuring work and defining roles.

What made our partnership truly successful is that we both appreciated each other’s strengths and often called ourselves the ying and yang of district office reception! Our skills perfectly complemented each other. More importantly, we learned from each other. Through Iris, I have come to appreciate the importance of stopping and taking the time to truly interact with others and get to know them. While just as important, tasks can come later. On the other hand, Iris shared with me how she was amazed at my focus and ability to efficiently complete tasks all while remaining calm and unflustered. In combination, as leaders, the ability to tap into both of these behaviors is extremely beneficial. Leaders must constantly make assessments of their subordinates and the given work situation and dial up one behavior and/or turn down another in order to meet the needs of the subordinate and at the same time, accomplish their work goals.

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

When is Narcissism a Good Thing?

by

They say we live in the age of narcissism. Yes, thanks to the many social networking platforms, even the most humble of people can inadvertently come across as narcissistic. However, is merely posting on social media truly narcissism? Or, are we just too sensitive? And what about all of the selfie photos we are subjected to on a daily basis. Social media aside, let’s move to the subject of narcissism in the realm of leadership.

First, what exactly is narcissism? The word according to the International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis is derived from the Greek myth of Narcissus, referring to self-love. Beginning with Freud, who considered narcissism from the standpoint of sexuality, to more modern theorists, such as Fischer and cited by Emmons (1987) who found that narcissism had a subclinical component because it could be prevalently seen in the general population.

When considering narcissism within the realm of leadership, an easily translatable concept is narcissism as a personality trait. In terms of the Big Five traits of extraversion, conscientiousness, openness, and neuroticism, according to Paulhus and cited by Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell and Marchisio (2011) the most “grandiose narcissists are ‘disagreeable extraverts’”. Another finding Campbell et al. (2011) share is that, preliminary research indicates there is the link between narcissism and leader emergence. As well, Campbell et al. (2011) point out there is what they call a bright and dark side of narcissism in leadership.

The Campbell and Campbell model known as the contextual reinforcement model found, that in the instance of leader emergence, when the leadership position is new or when leadership happens during a chaotic situation, narcissism has a bright side (Campbell et al., 2011). Khoo and Birch, et al., tout “their strong social skills and charisma” (Campbell et al., 2011) as well as bold risk taking as beneficial in a crisis situation. However, narcissism moves to the dark side when the leadership position is long-held or leadership occurs during stable situations. Khoo and Birch, et al., points out in these conditions, their exploitative and unethical tendencies become negative to their followers and the organization as a whole.

Campbell’s findings are significant in an organizational setting. What should be done about narcissistic leaders? It is important for organizations to recognize the situations in which narcissists thrive and conversely the situations where they will flounder and act accordingly.

References:

Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G. (2011, November) Narcissism in Organizational Contexts, Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 268-284. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/science/article/pii/S1053482210000574

Vincent, M. (2005). Narcissism. In A. de Mijolla (Ed.), International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis (Vol. 2, pp. 1104-1109). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3435300947&v=2.1&u=psucic&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=5a0d661b65c089f9cdf230a11d68d08b

 

Integrity Matters, but What Exactly is it?

by

Of the five key leadership traits, intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability, the one trait that will most likely determine how readily or effectively followers will support a leader is integrity. Palanski and Yammarino (2011) point out research by Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Craig and Gustafson, 1998; Howell and Avolio, 1995; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991; Parry and Proctor-Thomson, 2002 and Simons, 1999, has determined “that integrity is essential for effective leadership.” If the leader’s integrity is questioned, leaders lose their potential to lead.

It is very difficult to clearly define integrity. In their review of scholarly literature, Palanski and Yammarino (2007) found five major themes that described integrity: wholeness (similar to what we think of as a person’s character), authenticity, consistency in words and actions, consistency in reaction to adversity and, moral/ethical themes. They contend that there are few theories or rigorous empirical studies of integrity because of this lack of common meaning. In a subsequent study, Palanski and Yammarino (2011) have determined within the context of leadership, a leader’s behavior integrity is closely related to trust. Therefore, no matter how integrity is conceptualized, for ease of interpretation, trust is commonly related.

At one point in my career, I had a job in inside sales for a small manufacturing company. My manager, who was in charge of the internal and external sales force, was visiting a customer. The customer had a broken device from one of our major competitors. Our boss offered to take the device and fix it for the customer. His true motivation for taking it was not to fix it but to have our engineers examine it and possibly gain some new engineering knowledge from the device. While this kind of activity may not be unheard of, what was most unsettling, when this customer began calling repeatedly, demanding the return of the device, my boss instructed us to make excuses for why it wasn’t fixed. At the same time, based on my interaction with and observation of this manager, I would describe him as smart, self-confident, determined, and fairly sociable, however, his lack of integrity made it unbearable for me to follow him. In that situation, the only alternative I could see was to find a new job. I was only with that company only three months!

Given the fact that every day there are leaders who exhibit a lack of integrity, from those who make the news and many more in the shadows as I described above, more training and education on the subject is needed, as well as continued attempts at empirical study. Fortunately, education has begun at the K-12 level with the development of curriculum that addresses the concepts of integrity such as “character, values and [ethics]” (Northouse, 2013). Only time will determine if this early educational intervention proves to be successful.

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Palanski, M. E. & Yammarino F. J. (2007). Integrity and leadership: Clearing the conceptual confusion. European Management Journal, 25 (2007), 171–184. Retrieved from http://sk8es4mc2l.search.serialssolutions.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/?genre=article&issn=10489843&title=Leadership%20Quarterly&volume=20&issue=3&date=20090601&atitle=Integrity%20and%20leadership%3A%20A%20multi-level%20conceptual%20framework.&spage=405&pages=405-420&sid=EBSCO:Business%20Source%20Premier&aulast=Palanski,%20Michael%20E.

Palanski, M. E. & Yammarino F. J. (2011, August). Impact of behavioral integrity on follower job performance: A three-study examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 765-786. doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Skip to toolbar