Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Knowing the Unknowns

by

Occasionally I come across a topic that catches my interest and I am eager to research it further to find out more information. This generally comes as a result of pure excitement, yet there are moments where my interest comes from the unknown. The desire to known the unknown and make sense of it all is part of my character. Could it be pride, to know information before anyone else finds out? Or possibly it comes from the fear of being the last one to know, resulting in a given reputable label by others to show my lack of intelligence. Donald Rumsfeld once said, “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” This #PSYCH485 blog is not to share with you the unknowns of life, but to express my interest in a topic that seems unknown: authentic leadership.

There is a great amount of information on what authentic leadership is, why it is successful, and the like. Yet, it is not a fully developed theory, especially when viewing the moral side of it. It has not been fully explained, and as my #PSYCH485 course points out, “…it may turn out that this is not a useful theory after all.” (Lesson 12, p. 6). So what exactly is authentic leadership? Northouse (2015) defines it in three ways: interpersonal, intrapersonal, and developmental. Interpersonal refers to healthy relationships between a leader and a follower, with actions being present on both ends. Intrapersonal qualities describe a leader’s knowledge of him or herself through ways such as self-knowledge, behavior awareness, etc. Development explains that authentic leadership can be learned throughout life as people grow older and change their ways. (195-196).

Gruenfeld and Zander (2011) wrote an article about the downside of authentic leadership, and the consequence of it not being a fully developed theory. “Your authentic self should be the basis of your leadership style. But, it is better to take a good hard look at who you really are before showcasing and defending everything that comes naturally.” This seems to connect back to Rumsfeld’s quote in the first paragraph, about the unknown unknowns. A person may use their authentic leadership skills, but how can they lead with those when there are unknown dark spots within them that they have not been exposed to yet?

This led me to a personal question of whether or not I am an authentic leader. I used Michael Hyatt’s article to reach the conclusion of my own level of authentic leadership. Hyatt (2012) recognizes five characteristics that point towards an individual being an authentic leadership: insight, initiative, influence, impact, and integrity. Out of these five, the one that I feel I lack the most is impact. Impact is not something that is found in the leader, but rather it is found within the follower. Many times I find myself going through the motions in life, without making an impact on others. As a leader, I hope to make an impact but it is not always clear whether I am or not.

Authentic leadership can be a great leadership style, but because it is not fully developed, it is hard to say whether or not one must possess the characteristics within this theory in order to be successful. Regardless, the characteristics can be used as motivation to better oneself in ways that they may need. I will look at authentic leadership as a way to develop my skills, without solely using this theory to base my whole career from.

Reference:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/donald_rumsfeld.html

Gruenfeld, Deborah., & Zander, Lauren., (February 3, 2011). Authentic Leadership Can Be Bad Leadership. Retrieved April 7, 2016 from https://hbr.org/2011/02/authentic-leadership-can-be-ba.

Hyatt, Michael. (July 3, 2012). The 5 Marks of Authentic Leadership. Retrieved April 8, 2016 from http://michaelhyatt.com/the-five-marks-of-authentic-leadership.html.

Northouse, Peter G. (Ed.). (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th Ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pennsylvania State University (2016). Leadership in Work Settings—PSYCH 485. Online course lesson. Penn State World Campus. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved April 7, 2016 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych485/002/content/12_lesson/06_page.html.

A Place and Time for Sharing

by

Did you know there is a difference between a team and group? The difference might be greater than you expected. I believe it is safe to say that mostly all individuals have been a part of some sort of team or group at a point in their life. I was talking to my wife the other day to see if she could guess the difference. Her response to the question was, “Um, I don’t know. I’d guess that a group is less personal and a team works better together doing the same task.” She was surprised when I told her the real differences, those that I learned in my #PSYCH485 course commentary this week.

A group involves a strong influence that is passed back and forth between two or more people that are working towards the same goal by completing the same task. It is possible for a person to be in multiple groups at a given time. A team is interdependent, and involves multiple people working towards one goal by each individual contributing in their own way. Although each member of a team is working on their own personal task, they still need one another to accomplish the main mission. (Lesson 9, p. 3). I was under the impression that I worked within a group at my workplace, but the understanding and knowledge I gained from my college course has made me aware that I work in a team because each of us have our own tasks that in the end complete a project.

Fun fact: it is possible for group and team members to share the role of leadership. This unique way of sharing leadership has a name that suits it better than any name could…Shared Leadership. As it might have become evident at this point, shared leadership involves all team members having equal say and contribution to ideas and final decisions. Research has found that shared leadership is more effective because each member has their own strengths to offer to the rest of the group. (Lesson 9, p. 10). In traditional leadership, there is one leader who directs the rest of the team. Traditional leadership shows a top-down model, where the leader tells his or her peers where to start and guides the process. At times there are leaders who are such by name only, and have their peers bring the ideas to them. This is referred to as the bottom-up model. The shared-leadership model creates equality in the organization, as each person brings their own influence to others.

I have not yet worked in an organization that offers shared leadership. It could be difficult having a management team sharing responsibility with a lower level employee within the company, but is that not the point of shared leadership – to have individuals from all walks of life to add value and new perspectives to accomplish the goal? Management that is willing to establish shared leadership would show they value their employees, as they would work together and build relationships rather than one person commanding and controlling their way through the project.

It seems that there is a place and time for shared leadership. For instance, when I was in the United States Marine Corps, we did not share leadership to advance in our missions. With the nature of our work, it was always time sensitive. Sitting down and collaborating and sharing thoughts, ideas and opinions would jeopardize mission success and who would be coming home safe or not. Sometimes, (in this particular situation) it is best to make a decision without hesitation and run with it. In this environment any decision is better than no decision. So case in point, uniformity was key for this employer. If there was any deviation there could be severe consequences. Now, there are R&D teams and course developers for schools within the Marine Corps that does take the collaborative approach to hear input from each field practitioner but that was the proper time and place. Overall, I believe shared leadership is beneficial to an organization since each member of the team can contribute their ideas and skills, but I do not think that every organization should adopt the concept of shared leadership for the business they are running.

References:

Farag, Walid (2014). Boost Potential with Shared Authority and Lean Management. Retrieved on March 20, 2016 from: http://www.infoq.com/articles/shared- leadership

Pennsylvania State University (2016). Leadership in Work Settings—PSYCH 485. Online course lesson. Penn State World Campus. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved March 20, 2016 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych485/002/content/09_lesson/10_page.html

Power and Influence …Intimidation?

by

When was the last time you felt intimidated? Was it while talking in front of a person you found attractive? Were you put on the spot by a professor who called your name to answer a question when he clearly knew you were zoning out? Intimidation can come as a result of power and influence. Power and influence involves a leader and a follower, with both parties holding their own type of power and influence. By this I mean, while a leader can hold power, he can still be influenced. Like wise, a follower is generally influenced by a leaders actions and words, but the follower has a sense of power as well.

In my #PSYCH485 course this week, the commentary brought up a point that made me connect to the lesson very strongly. “Office furniture can also signify power.” (Lesson 7, p. 4). I kid you not, this simple sentence made the whole topic of power and influence clear to me. Allow me to explain why…

When I was first going through the interview process for my current job, it was very intimidating and intense. There were two 45-minute phone interviews, followed by two 90-minute in-person interviews. After the first two phone interviews, I thought to myself, What else is there to talk about in an in-person interview? I had already spent an hour and a half answering questions, communicating my concerns, and explaining my past experiences within my job field. I did not know what else I could say during a third and fourth interview that I have not said already. The day came for my first in-person interview. I walked in to the building, and was led by the receptionist to the meeting room. There was a circular table with a handful of chairs. There were also two chairs leaning against the wall, away from the table. This caught my attention. Usually a circular table shows equal power, but I have never seen one in a workplace before. I especially have never seen one during an interview. While I waited for the Co-owner and the Human Resource Manager to come in and speak with me, I nervously took a seat in the chair against the wall.

 

314ad4781223418d34e89eca80e4f4c8

(I created this meme using the following website: https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/X-Everywhere).

[Read more…]

A Leader That Wants

by

Traits and skills: where do we begin? At first glance it might look as though these two words have the same definition, but they surely do not. Thanks to #PSYCH485, you will now understand the important difference between the two! Within leadership, there are two approaches that explain how an individual becomes a leader. The trait approach focuses on hereditary and environmental factors, with the idea that a leader is born. (Lesson 2, p.3). The skills approach is under the belief that leaders can be made, because they learn leadership skills from the aspects of life around them. (Lesson 4, p.3).

Within the skills approach are three main categories of skills: technical, human, and conceptual. Katz (1955) refers to these as the Three Skills Model. Technical refers to the usage of knowledge and tools to get the work done. Human skills are people skills. Conceptual skills focus on creating ideas. (Lesson 4, p.4). One word that stuck out to me in the course textbook was the word ‘adaption’. According to Northouse (2015), “Leaders with human skills adapt their own ideas to those of others” (p.44). Connecting this to more information, Figure 3.1 on page 45 describes the need for technical, human, and conceptual skills at each level within an organization. It is interesting to see that human skills are the only skills in this group that stay consistently high for all levels of management. At the top level, technical skills are less important. At the lower level, conceptual skills are less important. Adaption is necessary on all levels of management, because a leader cannot go in to an organization close-minded.

At a church I used to attend, there was a pastor who had been there for many years. He was a leader of the church, and had a heart of gold. There was one problem: his human skills were not the best. While human skills fall under a behavior and can be learned, it seemed that he never expressed interest in learning such thing. This pastor did not adapt well with new church attendees, which was a big issue. When people are new to a church, they want to see if they fit in to the environment, if they get along with others there, and how the pastor conducts the service. Because church is not a one size fits all, and the people that attend all come from different backgrounds, the pastor needs to be able to fit the needs of all types of individuals. This requires adapting to new ideas and building strong relationships. It is hard to feel welcomed in a new place when the leader of that place barely attempts to reach out to you. The following link further explains more as to why pastors need human skills: http://sharperiron.org/article/people-skills-pastor.

This has led me to the realization that leaders need to want to be leaders. They cannot settle for where their traits direct them to be. Leaders are not just born: they are made. When your only form of leadership is that which you have been born in to, are you striving to become a better leader, or are you content with the spot you are in? Leaders need to continue their leadership development to stay up to date with their environments. If a person has fallen into a leadership title by their personality and intelligence, and they do not want to be a leader, they will lead their followers incorrectly.

I have used the words #lead, #leader, and #leadership a great amount in this blog. It may be appearing repetitive at this point, but let us not forget how we became the people that we are today. It is from those who have taught us our values and who have influenced our personalities. We behave in certain situations because of the way we have learned to do so. We follow in hopes of one day leading. It is up to each individual to decide what type of leader they want to be. May your development of leadership never come to an end. May you always want to strive to be a better you.

 

References:

Northouse, Peter G. (Ed.). (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th Ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Paiz, J., Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., Brizee, A., Keck, R. (2014, November 11). In-Text Citations: The Basics. Retrieved from https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/02/.

Pennsylvania State University (2016). Leadership in Work Settings—PSYCH 485. Online course lesson. Penn State World Campus. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved February 3, 2016 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych485/002/content/04_lesson/03_page.html

Not All Leaders Are Perfect

by

In #PSYCH485 this week, the focus was on the trait approach to leadership. When people hear the word “leadership”, there mind automatically thinks of a person, an experience, or a definition. Individuals all have their own thoughts on what it takes to be a leader, how a leader acts, and why leaders are needed. Let’s be honest in how the common person views a leader: intelligent, understanding, trustworthy, determined, and self-assured. They have all the five main traits that Peter G. Northouse lists in Chapter 2 of his book “Leadership Theory and Practice”. It seems like a leader has it all together. After all, if they have made it to the point in life where they are able to direct others in to doing something that they have already mastered, they must be successful. Wouldn’t we all rather be leaders than followers?

There is something about the word “follower” that simply sounds like it is a bad thing. It’s a labeling name that you don’t want to be called in your social circle. I can hear it in my head now, the judgments that one pass to the person who would be considered a follower. When is she going to stop being a follower and start thinking for her own mind. Or the one thing that we have all heard or said ourselves, He is following in his father’s footsteps. Even if it’s NOT a bad idea for that person to be a follower, there will always be at least one person who says it with negativity, as though the only way to success is through leadership.

I could sit for hours and discuss how being a follower can still be a leader per se, but my focus is on the leader right now: that individual who can do no wrong because their traits are of high honor. Let me show assurance that I have not a cold heart towards leaders. I have many great leaders in my life, and feel that I am one for others as well. I find this topic of leadership intriguing, in that there are always positive traits that leaders are known for and praised on. There is a dark side of personality traits that people seem to forget about. Thankfully, the Penn State World Campus course ‘PSYCH 485’ in the Lesson 2 commentary addresses these six negative traits that leaders can have.

As based on the commentary, the six personality traits that are viewed dark-sided are: “argumentative; interpersonal insensitivity; narcissism; fear of failure; perfectionism; impulsivity.” The bad personality traits can be viewed as opposite effects that occur when the main five positive traits are taken too far, or not far enough. Intelligence can become argumentative. Self-confidence can lead to narcissism. Determination can show a fear of failure and strive for perfectionism. Interpersonal insensitivity replaces integrity. Sociability has the extreme opposite skills as that of impulsivity. If a leader has a handful of great traits, but even one dark-side trait, are they really a great leader?

It interests me to study the dark-side of leadership traits, mainly because exposing the hidden layers of any individual can lead to a better understanding of society. We don’t actually know all that we think we know from what we see when we first see it. Being a follower is generally associated with a negative perception, but at least those individuals keep it real with their strengths and weaknesses. Leaders can move mountains, which is needed in the world, but that does not mean they will have a happy and successful life. A successful leader needs to stay clear of the dark-side leadership traits, because they will ruin all that they have worked hard to become. My advice to all leaders is to stay passionate about your field of work, and don’t let the increasing demands and stress take over your mind and soul.

For additional reading, check out this link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/157670/leader-development-and-dark-side-personality.pdf. It offers a great perspective on dark-side leader traits, including a study that took place involving statistics, strategies, and analysis.

 

References:

Northouse, Peter G. (Ed.). (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th Ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pennsylvania State University (2016). Leadership in Work Settings—PSYCH 485. Online course lesson. Penn State World Campus. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved January 21, 2016 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych485/002/content/02_lesson/06_page.html

Skip to toolbar