What Girls Are Made Of

April 9, 2013 by kml5444

There is a line from a children’s song or nursery rhyme that says “Little girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice…” What does that mean? Does it mean that girls are supposed to be always nice, sweet, and even predictable in comparison to the opposite sex? The disturbing thing is that such songs being introduced to children at such an early age is boldly displaying gender stereotyping or distinction which over time developments into a barrier for the little girls made of sugar and spice and everything nice.

For me, growing up as a female was hard because I got to see the prejudice and gender role division first hand initially within my household and then, as I grew up, within the community and workplace. I have a twin brother named Maurice. We did everything together when we were little – shared toys, wrestled, and got disciplined together. Whenever we received gifts for our birthdays or on holidays, I would normally get dolls and toy kitchenware and Maurice would get racecars with the track and dump trucks. We never asked our mom why we were getting gender specific gifts. We just knew that was what girls and boys received. Even though my brother got toy guns and trucks, I played with them and he too played with my dolls so why would my mom continue to buy us gender specific gifts even though we would trade or play with each other’s toys? Was this due to product marketing or inherited or cultural behaviors? Also, as I got older and formed a career in advertising, I noticed that men were given the large accounts like Coke, Gap, etc. and women were given the smaller accounts such as local shops and stores even though we maintained a better and more diverse client sheet with longer client relationships. So what was the problem? Were we viewed as not strong enough to lead and hang with the big boys so that we too can have a seat at the executives’ table? Or was it something we as women were doing wrong?

Are we contributing negatively towards this leadership labyrinth – lack of investment and commitment to home and work and contributing to the prejudice and gender differentiation? Even though studies have shown that women are obtaining higher education degrees at equal and sometimes higher rates, women still are “vastly underrepresented in top leadership positions” (Northouse 2013, p. 354). Perceived expectations too help create biases and gender-based prejudice when it comes to women in leadership positions. Men are viewed as confident and rational whereas women are viewed as sensitive and nurturing (p. 358) which such attributes seemingly does not belong in the board room or leading a country.

According to research, it is said that women are less likely to promote themselves as leaders or ask for what they want than men (p. 357). But to me this too is just another stereotype. Times are changing. Women are wanting and demanding more by overcoming interpersonal and personal barriers as well as getting a higher education and changing the way organizations are seeing them, finding ways to promote themselves as leaders and their product through independent business ventures, and with the help of an economy in a recession women have been putting their husbands to work at home and changing the dynamics of home life. Good-bye glass ceiling. It is time for you to break because those who are made of sugar and spice and everything nice are about to take a huge swing.

Reference

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

What’s Fair?

February 28, 2013 by kml5444

I feel that you can’t help but be drawn to those who are a mirror of you or who have the same goals in mind. For example, if you are a driven, goal-oriented leader then the subordinates who show the same characteristics are going to draw attention to themselves and make their presence known. It doesn’t mean that those who come into work and just do what is formally required of them is doing anything wrong. They are just doing their jobs. But is it fair to offer them, along with those who have shown initiative and proven their commitment to the organization, a promotion that would be more demanding when they have not shown that they want more or even that they want a career instead of a job? In this blog, the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory will be discussed as it pertains to this situation.

At the center of the Leader-Member Exchange Theory is communication. How leaders and subordinates communicate is the key to accomplishing organizational goals and even group or individual goals. It is found that “high-quality leader-member exchanges produce less employee turnover, more positive performance evaluations, higher frequency of promotions, greater organizational commitment, better job attitudes…” and the list goes on. (Pg. 164) The quality of exchange should not depend on whether or not the subordinate is ambitious, driven, and seeking more responsibility (in-group) or if the subordinate just wants to accomplish his/her job duties. Either way the exchange should be high-quality not high-quantity. For example, when I worked for the IRS, those who showed high-quality work and initiative were more encouraged to apply for and notified of job openings that would compliment them by their team leaders even though all were initially notified of recent job openings within the organization. Here, it seems that communication between leader and subordinates is fair and balanced. Everyone is notified not only one group of people.

So, is it fair for leaders to show more attention to some people than others? Throughout my career, I have witnessed different behaviors and attitudes of leaders and subordinates when it comes to showing initiative and not. Some leaders don’t like it when subordinates are so ambitious because it disrupts the flow of the group and has the potential to create problems of jealousy and favoritism so they are discouraged and not given the attention desired. Whereas, some leaders love the initiative because this results in more productivity and makes the leader look good to his/her superiors in the organization. So in order to answer this question I feel that it depends on the career objectives of each individual and the organization’s objectives. For example, if a subordinate doesn’t want any more responsibility, he/she would not do or ask for extra work so if others who are ambitious gets more work and attention it should not bother them or seem unfair. But if notifications such as job announcements are not made public it would seem unfair and shown as favoritism which could cause bad behaviors and attitudes to surface. The main goal regardless of who is doing what and who is not is the goal and objectives of the organization. How the organization operates and accomplishes each goal and objective lies in the quality of the leader and subordinate relationship.

In summary, what dictates whether or not individual, group, and organizational goals are accomplished greatly depends on high quality leader-subordinate relationships. The LMX theory promotes “partnerships” between the leader and subordinates as well as between others within the organization. Such partnerships have different degrees of exchange from great ambition leading to more work and promotion and constant work behavior leading to regular benefits as per “formal contract”. (Pg. 168) Regardless of subordinate efforts, leader behavior should be consistent and fair which results in high-quality exchanges between all subordinates and those within the organization.

Reference:

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

The Lunch Invitation

February 21, 2013 by kml5444

Last year, I went to visit my family in Mississippi. During my visit, my cousin invited me to lunch. I thought that this lunch was like a girls’ lunch where there would be lots of gossip, people watching, and maybe even a little bit of shopping. It wasn’t. Not even close. In this blog, I will discuss a personal experience that entailed several of Cialdini’s principles of social influences – commitment and consistency, authority, and reciprocity.

We were supposed to meet at the country club at noon. When I arrived, my cousin was dressed up very nicely with her hair, makeup, and nails complimenting her attire. I immediately asked “What is the occasion?” She simply told me that she had a special client at the bank that day. So I didn’t think anything of it. When we got inside, she told me that lunch was in a designated room. While walking into the room, I noticed that the room was a conference room and most of the people had badges on. I knew something was wrong and suspicious so I started to walk out until my cousin grabbed me and the speaker at the microphone asked everyone to take their seats because a very special guest from FEMA will be coming to the stage to give everyone some safety advice and precautions during this season of tornados and flooding. I looked at my cousin and she immediately started to beg me and then proceeded to remind me that I didn’t give her a wedding present two years ago and how I missed her two children’s births. I could have killed her that day but there would have been witnesses (and there was no time).

There were three reasons why I did not walk out or three principles of social influence that persuaded me. One reason was public or social responsibility and job commitment. (Commitment and Consistency) The public needed information regarding the risks and damages of natural disasters and plus, without going into any details, it was my job to inform the public. Usually such announcements are approved and planned. The second reason was due to coercion and my cousin held a high position in the charity organization that was sponsoring the conference that day. (Authority) Plus, I loved her and respected her as a woman and a person even though I wanted to seriously harm her that day. The third and final reason was because I was starving and the food being served looked great and it was free. (Reciprocity)

In conclusion, power influences behavior. Some behaviors are a result of some principles of social influence as seen above such as reciprocity, commitment and consistency, and authority. There are also such social influences like social proof which implies acceptability through following the majority, liking which states that we listen to or follow those we like, and scarcity which states that “rare situations or opportunities” are desirable. (Cialdini, 2006, 2008) I feel that no matter how we are influenced the real power is the recognition of such power. Even though I was completely caught off guard and a tiny bit angry when I was asked to deliver a public announcement, the presentation was awesome (if I may say) and empowering because people were listening and I was empowering others with such information.

Reference:

Cialdini, R.B. (2006). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Harper Collins.

Cialdini, R.B. (2008). Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

The Pre-Show

February 15, 2013 by kml5444

Have you ever taken a cruise, gone to a convention, planned a party or simply taken a class? There are so many components to it from venue, itinerary, staff, guests, and food menu to registration and costs. But have you ever wondered or witnessed what goes on behind the scenes? That’s where all the magic (and tragedies) happens. Some of the things that occur will amaze you and some will make you want to call the authorities. In this week’s blog, I will be briefly discussing the Path-Goal Theory as it pertains to a trip I recently had taken.

Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of going on a 5-day cruise to Mexico with my husband and mother. Trust me, it gets better. There were all kind of things planned for us (and other passengers) on the ship from dinners, comedy shows, tournaments, excursions, seminars, and even classes such as painting and dance classes. My mom and I love to dance (not with each other but just in general). There was this “Beyonc�’s Single Ladies” dance class scheduled and we wanted to join. We arrived a little early (an hour and don’t ask) at the auditorium and the dancers were practicing for the “Let’s Rock” dance show that was on schedule to be performed later that night so we sat in the back silently and watched. Wow! What a show it was. It was better than the actual one.

Before I get ahead of myself and tell you too much, let me first set the stage and give you a little information on the Path-Goal Theory. The Path-Goal Theory is all about motivation. It emphasizes “how leaders motivate subordinates to accomplish designated goals” through the use of different leadership behaviors in appropriate situations. (Northouse, Pg. 137) Such behaviors include directive, supportive, participative, and achievement oriented and they are dependent on a few internal structures – the subordinate’s characteristics (their job needs and attitudes) and the task characteristics (organizational atmosphere such as formal authority systems and polices, tasks, and group dynamics). (Pg. 141-2) Each leadership style corresponds to a particular behavior and task that “best fits the needs of the subordinates” in order for the job to get done. Let’s get back to the story and I will show you.

The director was sitting in front of the stage watching as each performer and group danced. Even though each dancer had their own personality, they still fit the molds or characteristics of: the newcomer (needs support or affiliation), the goody two shoes (needs challenges), the control freaks (needs structure), and the prima donnas (needs autonomy or control). When each danced, the director seemed to treat or instruct them according to such characteristics. Let me tell you that EVERYBODY on the stage needed help.

Let’s start with the new comers. Because they were new to the bunch and did not know the choreography as well as some of the others, there was a sense of uncertainty so the director gave them more reassurance and support (Supportive Leadership Behavior). Their confidence seemed stronger afterwards. With the goody two shoes who danced perfectly all the time and loved challenges, the director was more strict and critical with them (Achievement Oriented Leadership Behavior) which made them try even harder. The prima donnas, on the other hand, acted as if they owned the stage and did not need any critiquing. The director was more informal with them and asking them for their opinions such as “How do you think you did?” and “Do you think there is anything that could be added to give you that extra pop?” (Participative Leadership Behavior) which gave them the control they needed in order to improve their performances. Lastly, there were the control freaks who were always on time, formal, did not joke around during practice, and took everything seriously. The director made sure to give them extra attention and direction as well as the space and time needed to practice. For example, the director knew which girls and guys were the “control freaks” so she made them perform first and then she critiqued them immediately afterwards (Directive Leadership Behavior). This was so that they could go to the private practice room next door where they had the space to process the critique and improve their performance in their own way.

Seeing how things came together was amazing. With all of the arguing, slips and falls, crying, and drama prior to the show, I didn’t think there was going to be a show that night to be honest. It really proves that the appropriate leadership behavior during a situation is effective and gets results.

Reference

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

Late Night Talk Shows

January 21, 2013 by kml5444

A few days ago, I could not sleep so I started to flip through the television channels to find something to watch that would make me fall asleep. Nothing was really on except for church sermons and late night talk television. I must say that I usually never watch these shows. I begin watching The Wendy Williams Show. I really can’t tell you what the show was about because I was so shocked that people were actually in the audience and doing live tweets while the show was taping. What shocked me and raised many questions was how could anyone follow this talk show host who looked (to me) like a clown, who has an annoying voice, and who talked about nothing. The show was about gossip and not about anything that was worthwhile (to me). So, what makes this person a leader?

What is leadership according to the trait approach? It has been known for years to be one of the “first systematic attempts to study leadership” by looking at what qualities make a good leader. This in turn prompted the development of the great man theory which focused on “identifying the innate qualities and characteristics”. (Northouse, Pg. 19) For me, the qualities that initially catch my attention are the physical qualities – stature, composure, eye contact, and smile as well as one’s personality qualities – humor, sincerity, empathy, and ambition. When I watched this show, I started to become concern for the future of this country because it just seemed like the public’s attention has moved away from reality and towards “brain goop” which is what my husband calls anything on television that does not help educate or enhance one’s mind. I guess by knowing how crazy Tom Cruise is, how many men Taylor Swift has dated, or how to correctly say “how you doing” is necessary in today’s world.

Many researchers have identified several traits that are associated with leadership. According to R. M. Stodgill, a few traits that are positively associated with leadership are person’s drive, persistence, risk taking, self-confidence, and willingness to accept consequences. (Northouse, Pg. 21) Did I see any of those traits from the host of the show? A few of them – risk taking, drive, and self-confidence. It takes a lot of nerve and ambition in order to get out on a stage in front an audience and cameras knowing that everything you do and say will be heard and analyzed. Talk about being under the microscope! Kirkpatrick and Locke identified such traits as drive, desire, honesty, and self-confidence as being traits of a leader. (Northouse, Pg. 22) Did I see any of those traits from the host? I have to say “yes”. To be honest, all of them were shown by the host.

The personality of the host was awesome. Did I say that? She was funny, charismatic, and seemingly intelligent. As I continued to watch the show, I started to ask myself, ‘Does personality play a vital role in identifying a leader’? According to the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality, there are five traits called CANOE – Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Openness to experience, and Extraversion. (Northouse, Pgs. 26-27) Without knowing or working the host personally, I could not tell if these traits applied. I feel that with such traits a deeper analysis of the person’s behavior or personality is needed and not just through a one time or quick view of a person. I can’t help but think about the assessment tests that people take when trying to get a job. How can any test make a conclusion about a person in just one, two, or three encounters without further analysis such as actually seeing their work behaviors and attitudes? That would mean that the person would have to be hired first then assessed second. Right?

In conclusion, even though I could not believe my eyes and ears when flipping through the television channels to find something to watch one fateful night, my attention towards the host was drawn to Wendy Williams’ personality and how she carried herself with the audience and in the situation of being on television. There were a few traits from this week’s class reading that truly identified her as a leader, such as drive and self-confidence. Do I see myself following her and her show? Probably not, because I know what kind of person I am when it comes to my time, entertainment, and education. But I have to be honest, further review is much needed. Maybe I will secretly catch another show and let you know then.

References

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