Instead of picking a president based on our opinion of where they stood on issues, what if we cast our vote based on the concepts of power and influence? Everyone lies, stretches the truth, omits fact, and generally it can be hard to tell who can really be trusted.  Stepping outside the debate box for a moment I’d like to look at picking a president in a different manner, leaving personal opinions, specific issues, and names out of it for diplomacy sake. 

Power is defined here as the extent to which they can effect someone, and their potential for influence (PSU 2013).  Influence then is defined as how the person who is being influenced changes as a result of the influencer’s attempts (PSU 2013). As far as the sources of our future leader’s power, well, we give it to them.  However simply because we give them their power in the form of an office does not mean that they can actually lead or are going to be effectual in actually exerting their potential influence. An Influential tactic is a specific behavior designed to elicit influence.  Politically speaking someone might slander another; choose not to slander another as contrast, kissing babies, or shaking hands. 

According to French and Raven (1959), there are five bases of power that the future president can choose to employ (PSU 2013).  These are expert, referent, legitimate, reward, and coercive (PSU 2013).  Expert refers to how knowledgeable they are (PSU 2013).  Referent means how strong their influence is due to a bond between the leaders and other members (PSU 2013).  In this case it is how well the people like their president and how the president uses that.  Legitimate power refers to authority; specifically what authority they have that the office comes with (PSU 2013). Reward power is the ability to grant bonuses, raises, grants, or promotions (PSU 2013).  In the case of the president they would have the ability to lower our taxes and improve our health care situation.  Lastly, coercive power is control through fear or punishment (PSU 2013).  In the case of the president they would have the ability to raise our taxes and make our health care situation worse. 

Referent and expert power come up as frontrunners for success and see more motivated and satisfied followers (PSU 2013).  In the case of our president if they are knowledgeable and we vote for them things should be fine, right?  It might not be that easy.  If it is that important to a leader we like them, that may limit how effectual they are.  So if these are the top two, who do you think has what type of power?  Also you can ask yourself do you agree with these top two or is there a different type you would like to see, or do see, being exhibited by our candidates? 

The need for power can be a factor as well.  The future president’s desire for having or using power is actually correlated to success (PSU 2013).  This I admit surprised me at first thinking it sounds greedy.  Power though can be personalized or socialized.  Personalized is where it is not good for the organization and generally means the person in question is selfish, impulsive, uninhibited, and lacking in self-control (PSU 2013).  This is pretty much the definition I thought of.  The socialized form however, is self-sacrificing, good for the organization, and winds up being empowering rather than autocratic (PSU 2013).  So asking yourself in regards to the current debates, which would you rather have and who would better suit that?  Someone with a low need for power might not want to actually lead. What if one of our candidates really wants to improve our country, thinks they can do some good, and help us, but not really want to lead. Where would that leave us? 

There are nine influential tactics.  These are actual actions taken for the purpose of changing the target person (PSU 2013).  In the presidential issue, we are the target people and the candidates are exerting influence, even now during the debates.   A few relate directly to the presidential issue.  Rational persuasion, for example, uses logical arguments or facts for influence like in the debates (one of which is starting soon; I should type faster so I can watch).  Ingratiation applies as it refers to putting your targets, us, in a good mood (PSU 2013).  Some politicians use levity to become more endearing.  Do you like this tactic or do you find it pandering?  Is there someone who does that more than the other with our current candidates?  Pressure tactics applies, but in a roundabout way.  It refers to threats or nagging for influence (PSU 2013).  The candidates do not threaten us directly, but they do threaten us with the other person’s stand on issues by putting negative spins on things.  Legitimizing tactics are used, but more on a party level in congress.  These are requests that are made based on the person’s authority (PSU 2013).  In the presidential analogy, party members might have a tendency to vote for their party members regardless of personal view.  In this analogy it can divide congress.  Would one president more than the other promote this or try to get over this?

Social influence refers to activating unconscious thoughts that make people comply almost without thinking (PSU 2013).  There are 6 principles, but a couple directly to the presidential analogy.   Social proof means that people follow others (PSU 2013).  This can relate back to voting democrat if you are a democrat or republican if you are a republican.  Whatever you vote is fine, but topping and asking yourself if this is the right answer or the automatic answer is an option just to make sure you are really following what you think.  Liking is when we listen to people we like (PSU 2013).  Presidentially speaking, there will always be one person we like over another for whatever reason, but is liking enough?  Should we vote for someone because we like them or should we look deeper? 

References:
Pennsylvania State University. (2012). Lesson 7: Power and Influence. Retrieved from Penn State World Campus Psych 485: Leadership in Work Settings website https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/001/content/07_lesson/printlesson.html

I have been toying with the idea of starting my own business again.  Since taking this course I have also been debating on what approach I would turn to to refine my leadership skills.
The situational approach is rooted in the concept of the developmental continuum (Northouse 2010).  The idea that employees move forward and backward constantly and it is up to the leader’s to keep up and provide what is needed at any given moment and gives four leadership styles (Northouse 2010).  I was in love with this concept when I first read about it.  The Path-Goal theory similarly suggests four leadership behaviors that the leader needs to cycle through to meet employee needs (Northouse 2010).  It goes on to include different subordinate characteristics as well as task characteristics.  Aside from being more complex, it also is more specifically goal oriented.  It is driven by employee motivation as well as working on a reward system.  I wasn’t so sure that If I ran my own businesses again I’d be able to properly utilize the concepts of task and subordinate characteristics. 

The other differences lie in the order in which they do things (Northouse 2010).   The Situational Approach first prioritizes the tasks (Northouse 2010).  Then using the developmental continuum they assess employees in terms of their skills and motivations (Northouse 2010).  Then a leadership style is decided on.  The Path-Goal theory considers employees before even assigning tasks (Northouse 2010). They make employees confident they can do the task, assign the task, and then work on a reward system (Northouse 2010).  It was realizing the impact of the order in which they do things that really turned me around. 

Personally if I ever run a business again, I’d probably look to the Path-Goal approach for guidance.   I like the simplicity of the Situational Approach, but the Path-Goal has more to offer even if you don’t get deep into the complexities.  I like the idea of actively utilizing a reward system and focusing on motivation.  I also like that it considers employees first even before assigning tasks.  These are things that are more in line with what I was doing when I was running my own businesses and expands on it. 

I can see how for every day utilization that the Path-Goal would be a bit much.  I need an approach that combines the simplicity of the Situational with the attitude of the Path-Goal.  Something that can embody the concept of the developmental continuum, but retain the outlook of the Path-Goal.  That’s the beauty of learning all these different approaches though, that there is something to learn from all of them.

References:

                             

Leading via the situational approach really is like a balancing act.  You have to know when to turn on and off certain styles to keep up with your followers ever changing flow (Northouse 2010).  Not only do you be good at the different leadership styles, but you have to be in tune with when to switch to what. 

Going by the skills approach, I do think that this is a learnable ability.  Falling under the Human Skills section, this type of skill let the leader help the follower’s work together for the sake of a common goal.  With the understanding that the follower’s will go up and down as far as where they are productivity wise, the leader has to constantly adjust his or her style to keep them together and on task.  I used to be a counselor at kindercamp and I remember how one of the older lead counselors acted.  She seamlessly drifted between being stern, happy, comforting, and encouraging depending on what was going on.  Whatever the kids needed, that is what she was.  She managed to keep all those little kids in line and on task without batting an eye.  The other lead counselor was younger and clearly less experienced.  She tended to be too stern and if a child needed comfort instead of sternness, she continued to be abrasive and generally made the situation worse.   

Psychodynamic approach could come into play as the leader really does have to be in touch with themselves to truly know what they need to learn to accomplish the type of adaptability needed.  In addition they have to be comfortable enough with themselves as people to perhaps act in a way that is not natural to their base personality. After the stern lead counselor was there a month or so you could see moments where a kid who bumped his head would run to her distraught and there was this moment where she was about to scold the child for being careless, but then took a breath.   She visibly stopped herself and readjusted.  She became aware of her actions and adjusted, thereby learning a new skill by inward reflection. 

What the skills and psychodynamic approach cannot relate back to the situational approach in any way is the fact that the situational approach is the only one that takes leaders, followers, and situations into account (Northouse 2010).  The leader can use the psychodynamic approach to glean what he needs from himself to gain the skills for adaptability to be effective using the situational approach. 

 Many approaches describe leadership, the situational approach shows you what to do in given contexts (Northouse 2010).  Whether the trait approach has blessed you with natural ability or you used the psychodynamic approach to learn the skill, the situational approach remains a very practical, sensible, and easily applied approach (Northouse 2010). It is also very intuitive (Northouse 2010).  The too stern counselor learned to be more adaptable by herself, no text books required. 

References:
Northouse, P.G. (2010).  Leadership: theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

The trait approach has to do with innate abilities, but stops there (Northouse 2010).  The psychodynamic approach promotes introspection, but has no ability to be backed by research (Northouse 2010).  The skills approach shows that leadership can be learned and is accessible to everyone (Northouse 2010).  Instead of viewing them individually, if they are looked at as components they work together very well. 

The trait approach is too limiting, so we have the skills approach to expand on that.  What you get when you put them together is an approach that acknowledges the innate traits of people as a jumping off point and allows them the ability to grow by learning new leadership skills based on what they already have.  The psychodynamic approach allows for the introspection to examine what you have innately and balance it against what you need to learn to find out what leadership skills have to be learned in the first place.  Putting them all together like this makes them seem very well rounded instead of parts of a whole. 

The trait approach and the psychodynamic approach are criticized for not being useful for training, but if it were part of a larger concept the skills approach aspect would make up for that.  The skills approach is criticized for considering itself not a trait approach when in fact it involves attributes that seem much like the same thing.  If skills and trait were on the same team that point would be mute.  The psychodynamic approach lacks legitimacy in the form of not being backed by extensive research.  The trait approach and skills approach portions would add validity. 

I think when you put them together the process is natural.  When I was first starting to run my landscaping business when I lived in New Jersey, there were certain things I was innately good at, my traits.  I was good with people.  As I went on I saw the implications of not being more well rounded as a leader, looked at myself honestly, and found what I needed.  Mirroring the psychodynamic approach.  Once I realized I needed to be better technically, I learned these skills from my partner and the end result was me being a more confident self-sufficient leader.  Learning the technical aspect mirrors the skills approach. 

None of these approaches are perfect on their own, but they do all have merit when viewed together.  These three together I think work on an intuitive level.  Everyone has things they are naturally good at and everyone has things that they need to learn to get better.  In between is the ability to look at ourselves and locate what it is we need.  It’s a process I think we do naturally. 

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2010) Leadership: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage Publications

The trait approach and the psychodynamic approach are at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as popularity.  Both have their strengths and weaknesses with even some crossover.   However, two major divisions exist.  Trait approach has backed research and psychodynamic approach does not (Northouse 2010). The trait approach is built for popular appeal and the psychodynamic approach is not (PSU World Campus 2013). Due to the issues of research and general appeal, the psychodynamic approach is not taken seriously despite offering just as many good points as the trait approach. 

The biggest problem I can see with the psychodynamic approach is that it’s not testable (PSU World Campus 2013).  If it is not testable it cannot be proven that it works.  It cannot be proven that it works; therefore it will be written off as bunk.  Unfortunately for the psychodynamic approach, just because it cannot be tested does not mean it doesn’t have perfectly valuable attributes. It just means no one will believe that it does.  Every approach has strengths and weaknesses and every approach has its kryptonite.  The psychodynamic approach’s kryptonite just happens to be a particularly harsh one, and a hard one to get past.  I had a job once screen printing t-shirts.  My leader at this job was a good man, but very oblivious.  He had so many little things he did that simply did not pertain to us or the situation at hand but like he was going on automatic.  His criticisms at times did not even pertain to us directly. It was as if he was chastising us in advance.  If he is going on automatic, he must have been taught to think like that at some other point in his history.  Someone’s behavior is not just summed up in their behavior or actions, but from what lingers in their unconscious from their previous encounters (Northouse 2013).  Despite the difficulty of proving things such as this, if our t-shirt leader was more in touch with what was going on inside himself, he would have saved us all a lot of heartache.  We had one really good worker quit because she was tired of being accused of things she had nothing to do with.

The trait approach does not even list traits in any complete manner, ignores the followers and situations, and does not take outcomes into account (PSU World Campus 2013).  Yet because people can relate to it is more widely accepted.   It is for this reason that I would worry that instead of research influencing the public it is the other way around.  The trait approach is appealing and fits with an already existing belief that leaders are special (PSU World Campus 2013).  The psychodynamic approach implies leaders are fallible like anyone else and by requiring personal work.  The trait approach and the psychodynamic approach even share negatives in that neither one lends itself to training and both are subject to some amount of subjectivity (PSU World Campus 2013).  The trait approach is open to subjectivity in its interpretation of what are the most important traits and the psychodynamic approach in the findings themselves (PSU World Campus 2013).  Both are criticized for not taking situations into account (PSU World Campus 2013).  The similarities between criticisms of both is striking, and yet because the trait approach holds an innate appeal to the public based on pre-existing stereotypes of what a leader should be it has a leg up. 

Despite its obvious handicap, the psychodynamic approach offers a great deal.   It takes the followers into account when the trait approach does not.  It crosses cultures easily, while I can see the trait approach faltering as it looks to traits to define a leader.   What traits a people finds appealing in a leader may change with different cultures looking for different traits.  This approach calls for growth and development while the trait approach does nothing of the sort and simply looks to define a leader.  This narrows the scope for who can be considered a leader while the psychodynamic approach does not make such distinctions.  Instead it encourages you to work on yourself from the inside out; in that regard it includes anyone to be a leader with enough work. The psychodynamic approach also works to eliminate manipulation in leadership (PSU World Campus 2013).  I can’t help but wonder if this is being underestimated as a strength.   It is devastating when your leader is found out to be not what you thought he was.  Presidents get impeached, bosses get fired, and faith is lost.  There is most times, just no coming back from that.  A former boss of mine was fired and her assistant demoted.  New owners bought our hotel.  Our leader was also GM at another hotel.  This was against her new contract with the new owners.  She hid this from the new owners and the assistant covered for her.  If we knew the new owners were coming over the assistant would call the GM at her other hotel and she would rush right over and look like she has been there all day. She was never actually at our hotel.  She got greedy, and was trying to manipulate the new owners so she could get two paychecks.  I do believe she could have benefited from some of the personal growth emphasized in the psychodynamic approach.

The psychodynamic approach has great benefits and overinflated criticisms.  Some of these criticisms are actually shared with the trait approach.  There is even the benefit of including followers that the psychodynamic approach has been criticized for not having.  The problem is that it is so subjective it is hard to find research that can back it.  Another issue lies with a lack of popular appeal.  This proves itself a great force in the popularity of the trait approach which matches up with current ways of thinking.  Due to the issues of research and general appeal, the psychodynamic approach is not taken seriously despite offering just as many good points as the trait approach. 

References:

PSU World Campus. (2012). Lesson 3: Introduction to Leadership. Retrieved from:

https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa12/psych485/001/content/03_lesson/11_page.html

Northouse, Peter G. (2010). Leadership, Theory and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Pubications.

Image from: http://forum.jobmarket.com.my/index.php?topic=625.0

Image from: http://www.gadgetbargains.com/freudian-slippers.html?gclid=COWT7NW_tbICFYeDQgoddQ0AIA