Laura Clive

Throwing Stones at Glass Ceilings

April 14, 2014 by Laura Clive

This morning I felt like I had taken a time machine back to the 1960’s as I read that an article that stated “On average, full-time working women earn just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.” (Whitehouse.gov 2014).

Except this isn’t the 1960’s, this wasn’t the writing of an extremist feminist group weekly circular that my hippy mother would have read. This is happening today, and our own government is telling us about it!

I got to thinking, why is this STILL? Perusing through my week’s reading assignment from my leadership class I learn that 57% of bachelor’s degrees are earned by women, and 60% of the master’s degrees in the United States (Northouse 2014). If this is the case then women are currently out-performing men academically, and I would expect the opposite situation to exist for pay, and if it were, at least it could be said to be a fairer situation than the one we currently face.

The parallel between lower pay and lesser representation in leadership roles is not lost on me. Currently women make up only 25% of reported CEO positions, and only 3% of Fortune 500 company CEO roles (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Why does our society believe that women not only do lesser work, and are incapable of strong leadership and should also be paid less?

According to some, the reason for both restriction from leadership, and lower pay is due to women taking ‘career breaks’ to raise a family. It’s been noted that nearly 40% of women work part time or leave the work-force to take care of the kids, and when they re-enter the job market they are left with lower-level and lower paid positions as they are less qualified (Weiner, 2013). Women are expected to take more maternal roles, and less ‘masculine’ roles, such as strong and aggressive leadership which is typically looked at as negative behavior for a woman (Northouse 2014). This break then means women are exposed less to management positions, perhaps stepping off the career ladder right as they should be building their own teams so they can instead start their own families? I am not convinced, and I feel like the use of kids is being used an excuse to deflect away from the ‘glass ceiling’ of corporate America. A term coined by execs to explain this phenomena of lack of female presence at the senior management level; a glass ceiling indicates that it appears all can reach the top but women cannot get through the last hurdles of leadership, and in turn, earn the top salaries.

Personally, as a woman, this data scares me, especially as I try to work my way through and navigate a career path that will endow me with leadership opportunities and what should be an equal potential for pay with my male counterparts; based on performance, not preference. With the increase female workforce, especially at a higher level of education, we should all start to cast our ‘stones of knowledge’ and work together to break through the ‘glass’.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013) Leadership Theory and Practice. 6^th Ed. Sage Publications.

Weiner, J. (2013, August 13), Why women still earn less than men: It’s the kids’ fault. Washington Post. Online. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/08/13/why-women-still-earn-less-than-men-its-the-kids-fault/

Whitehouse. Gov (2014), Online. Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/equal-pay/career

A Family Affair

March 16, 2014 by Laura Clive

I have had the unique experience in working for a highly nepotistic company, in which over half of the employees were in some way related to or had been friends of the owners. Now, there is nothing to say that these types of companies or environments are unsuccessful or problematic compared to any other employee model, but the experience I had here can relate very well with the concepts behind Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX).

What was special about this institution was that automatically, the employees that were family members became part of the in-group; whom had special relationships and influence with the leadership of the organization, and everyone else was essentially part of the out-group; they had formal roles within the company, for which they were hired (Northouse, 2013). These in-groupers knew more about the company and had more influence over the future and decisions of the company than the out-groupers. This would be normal, but in most other institutions, in-groupers are chosen by levels of skill and competency and usually ‘earn their right’ to hold an ear to influence the business owners. In this environment the family members were often least qualified to pass on opinions, but yet had the strongest voice. This could have been predicted to be harmful for the organization, and indeed it was.

What resulted was that the out-group felt disenfranchised and became disenchanted with the organization. Their valuable opinions would go unasked for and changes would occur that impacted all but benefited few. This led to internal struggles and attrition.

Eventually the owners realized they couldn’t continue to favor those employees who were in their ‘inner circle’ and instead started to expand their in-group, or they would only seek the opinion of the most qualified employees as it related to each issue, so that the same few people were not the only ones consulted. They also started to adopt an ‘open door’ approach and actively encouraged employees to raise issues and strategies with them and allowed them to become more involved with the company at a higher level. This mirrors some of the later research on LMX theory; that strong leadership involved empowerment of followers/members; that this relationship was symbiotic, the leaders would get valuable insight and advice, and members would have a stronger sense of involvement and partnership with the organization. This led to stronger bonding of employees to the company, more ideas and enthusiasm towards work, and a much stronger organization overall.

References

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

A Captain’s Power

March 16, 2014 by Laura Clive

What makes a leader more successful? Is it their level or power, or their ability to influence? Are these concepts the same, or different? I would assume a powerful person is someone who has the ability to influence, and expect an influencer to hold a great amount of power, but there are subtle differences that should be addressed.

Here are some examples to explain these. A person can be endowed with a great amount of power, such as a captain of a ship; who has gained experience and acquired a position of responsibility and influence. However, if the sailors on the ship do not respect or agree with the captain, a mutiny will occur and so the power will yield no influence. On the flip side, an individual like Nelson Mandela, who was stripped of all power and rights of citizenship when imprisoned in South Africa held an enormous amount of influence over people in his nation. So which is more important? To have power or to have influence?

Power is characterized as the ability to influence others – to have an effect on them; their thoughts and behaviors; so defined by Bernard M. Bass. So we can reassess Mandela’s and the Captain’s situations and reverse them. Mandela had a great deal of power because he was influential, and our Captain had no influence and so no power. So although these are different constructs, they can in fact be interchangeable when it relates to leadership success. How can we use this to our advantage in our lives, can we become more powerful by being more influential?

Beyond going to medical school to become a doctor, or going through law school to become a judge, we can also join the police force or traffic enforcement bureaus to gain power. What do these roles of power have in common? They all wear uniforms. Research has been found that people who wear uniforms have a stronger level of influence over those who do not (PSU, 2014). For example, conducting a research experiment can be more successful and gain more compliance from participants if the administrator wears a white coat. Another example is the ‘power suit’; an individual wearing a dress suit rather than jeans and a t-shirt will be viewed as more intelligent and powerful by a casual observer.

Other ways to gain power are to assert social influence; by becoming an expert in a field of study or skill, by working your way up through a corporate ladder, or to reward behavior that matches the sought response.

Ultimately what seems to drive and result in good leadership is the careful and balanced use of power position and gentle influential rather than dictatorial style. Followers still have a choice in how much power to grant to their leader and how much they will respond to influence, and so the leader who can manage both type of power and communication of influence will be successful.

Reference

Pennsylvania State University (2014), Psychology 485, Leadership in Work Settings. Lesson 7, Power and Influence. Online.

Transformative Leaders. How do they work?

February 1, 2014 by Laura Clive

I often hear about a mythical person called the ‘Transformative Leader’ (TL); someone who can inspire change in the world, and has quite literally attained the Buddha status of the highest form of leader. I feel like these leaders come into being very infrequently and are idolized in their greatness; Martin Luther King Jnr., Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, etc. But is it really just a high dose of charisma and a volatile environment that sparks this inspirational adoration, or are there tangible aspects that we can capture and use in our own training to make better leaders?

One psychologist thinks we can break a TL down into four parts. 1. Idealized Influence – someone who leads by example, 2. Inspirational Motivation – the ability to motivate people – usually using charisma, 3. Individualized Consideration – having genuine concern for your followers, and 4. Intellectual Stimulation – challenging your followers to be and think better (Riggio, 2009). This is Bass’ Transformational Leadership Theory; which was developed in the 1980s following preceding ideas of defining one by James McGregor Burns in the 1970s.

This theory might help to give us the tools that we need to help inspire our followers to change by becoming a TL. Aside from the intrinsic charisma and empathy that is needed, the other areas can be worked upon. So perhaps a leader with strong basic traits; remember the Big Five: neuroticism; extraversion; openness, agreeableness; and conscientiousness (Northouse, p.26) would be able to strengthen their skills and become this higher level of leader.

An extension on this theory describes these ‘leadership factors’ of which Bass names seven different factors that go into any type of leadership, perhaps explaining some of the overlap in true TLs and lesser leaders. Such factors include charisma, rewards, corrective actions, transactional approach and non-transactional approach (Northouse, p. 191).

But what if these ‘powers’ of transformational leadership were used in ways that were not for the greatest good; purely for the gain of the leader? Criticisms of Bass’ theory are arguments that the powers of impression management gained by leaders could lead to amoral self-promotion and ulterior uses; that is difficult to train as it requires a combination of natural ability/traits as well as soft skills; and that manipulation of followers by less scrupulous or moral leaders is more likely with this type of leadership (MSG).

In summary, it seems it may be possible to identify key aspects of true Transformational Leadership, and help grow skills in existing leaders to get them closer to this ideal, but only if other traits and factors are in accordance. In a way this is reassuring as I can’t imagine a world where everyone could be truly influential leaders should they follow a formula; we as a society would be lost amongst all the competing influencers.

References

MSG (date unknown), Transformative Leadership. Management Study Guide.com Retrieved January 28, 2014 from http://managementstudyguide.com/transformational-leadership.htm

Northouse, P. G. (2013) Leadership Theory and Practice. 6^th Ed. Sage Publications.

Riggio, E. R. (2009, March 24) Are You a Transformational Leader? Cutting-Edge Leadership. Psychology Today. Retrieved January 28, 2014 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/200903/are-you-transformational-leader

Wikipedia. (2014, January 21) Transformational Leadership. Retrieved January 28, 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_leadership

Not cited, but more information can be found on Bass’ theory:

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Image Sources

Retrieved January 28, 2014 from http://graystoneadvisors.com/gray-stone-advisors-man-jumping-over-gap-sunset.jpg

Retrieved January 28, 2014 from http://managementstudyguide.com/transformational-leadership.htm

Toxic Leadership and Bad Bosses

January 26, 2014 by Laura Clive

In today’s modern age of Human Resources, employee protection laws, workers’ rights, and employment litigation; bosses can no longer act in a coercive or abusive manner to get what they want. They must lead and motivate their employees, not withhold wages and evict them from their homes as landowners would do in the agricultural age and industrial revolution. This would lead me to think that we must now have a stellar force of capable and caring managers, bosses, CEO’s and chairmen; but this is far from the case.

I’ve personally encountered more than a few bad leaders and the kind of bosses you would give half your paycheck to never have to deal with them again. Admittedly, most of the culprits were themselves the business owner, so they had no-one to acknowledge their short-comings and rightfully fire them, but they would have a long history of turnover and retention issues that should give them a hint of their ineptitude. But why is it so difficult to be a good leader? Since we’ve identified key skills and traits in leadership, why can’t every manager and business owner, government representative and parent be better at it?

Research has shown that there are key personality traits that define a good leader. These are called the ‘Big Five’ or the five factor personality theory and they are: neuroticism; extraversion; openness, agreeableness; and conscientiousness (Northouse, p.26).

It is great that we can identify these traits as we can identify and test for them to be sure our leaders have them in abundance for our needs. The problem lies in that there are negative traits for leadership and these are very similar in appearance to the positive traits; they can be very difficult to test for, and usually only arise once the person has taken on their position of power (PSU, p.6).

Have we seen some of these types of bad bosses before?

The tyrant or bullying boss who is impulsive and argumentative, can fly off the handle and is not to be reckoned with. She may suffer from low emotional intelligence or better put; social intelligence. This is the kind of awareness you need to have to navigate social situations and consists of empathy, confidence, self-awareness, and self-regulation (Northouse, p.28). She may have plenty of assertion and neuroticism that is required for leadership – but perhaps too much of this leads to the tyrannical behavior.

Another type; a narcissistic boss is very difficult to spot prior to the hire. “Narcissists believe that they are the center of the universe and everything is about them.” (Riggio, 2009)

The problem with narcissism is that it is very similar to extraversion; one of the Big Five – a self-assured confidence, but the problem is that it is toxic and this boss will harm their followers on the mission to fulfill their own agenda.

So it seems to be that it can be pretty hard to weed out the bad leaders from among the good. Perhaps it is time to start testing for negative personality traits as well as positive and then maybe we can all walk into work a little more happily.

Reference Sources

Riggio, E. R. (2009, June 4) How to Spot a Bad Leader II: Really Bad Leaders Psychology Today. Retrieved on January 22, 2014 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/200906/how-spot-bad-leader-ii-really-bad-leaders

Pennsylvania State University (2013): Lesson 2 Commentary. Retrieved January 22, 2014, from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/02_lesson/01_page.html

Image Sources

1. Retrieved January 22, 2014, from http://technorati.com/business/gurus/article/bad-boss-revolution/

2. Retrieved January 22, 2014, from http://www.chicagonow.com/grateful-miserable-work/2013/02/are-you-an-awful-manager/