Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Ethical Principles and PLIS

by

A few years ago, a new manager was hired for the department in which I worked.  This was her first managerial position, and prior to being hired, she had worked in a software support role, with no supervisory experience.  I was the team leader in the department; I was a buffer between the staff and the manager.  To be successful in my role, I had to work closely with the manager, whoever it was at any time.  The relationship I had with any manager was based on ethics; a similar philosophy regarding management styles and behaviors between us was very important.  I could teach a manager the nuts and bolts of the job if they were lost, and I could provide input regarding personnel assignments and use of talent, but if there was no common ethical ground between the manager and me, there would be a rift between us.  This kind of working relationship would not be as productive.

I no longer work with this manager, but the relationship between she and the team was tepid at best.  The Ethics chapter in the Northouse text introduced the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS), which allows one to rate their leader’s behavior to “assess the ethical integrity of a manager” (Northouse 2013).  I decided to give it a try, using the PLIS form in the text.  I was curious to see if a gap in ethical ideas could account for, at least partially, the chilly relationship the manager held with the department.

Key:

1 = Not at all

2 = Barely

3 = Somewhat

4 = Well

1. Puts his or her personal interests ahead of the organization

1          2          3          (4)

2. Would risk other people to protect himself or herself in work matters

1          2          3          (4)

3. Enjoys turning down requests

1          (2)        3          4

4. Deliberately fuels conflict between other people

1          (2)        3          4

5. Would blackmail an employee if she or he thought she or he could get away with it

(1)        2          3          4

6. Would deliberately exaggerate people’s mistakes to make them look bad to others

1          2          (3)        4

7. Would treat some people better if they were of the other sex or belonged to a different ethnic group

(1)        2          3          4

8. Ridicules people for their mistakes

1          (2)        3          4

9. Can be trusted with confidential information

(1)        2          3          4

10. Would lie to me

1          2          3          (4)

11. Is evil

(1)        2          3          4

12. Is not interested in tasks that don’t bring personal glory or recognition

1          2          3          (4)

13. Would do things that violate organizational policy and then expect others to cover for him or her

(1)        2          3          4

14. Would allow someone else to be blamed for his or her mistake

1          2          (3)        4

15. Would deliberately avoid responding to e-mail, telephone, or other messages to cause problems for someone else

1          2          3          (4)

16. Would make trouble for someone who got on his or her bad side

1          2          (3)        4

17. Would engage in sabotage against the organization

1          (2)        3          4

18. Would deliberately distort what other people say

1          2          (3)        4

19. Is a hypocrite

1          2          3          (4)

20. Is vindictive

1          2          (3)        4

21. Would try to take credit for other people’s ideas

1          2          (3)        4

22. Likes to bend the rules

1          2          (3)        4

23. Would withhold information or constructive feedback because he or she wants someone to fail

1          2          3          (4)

24. Would spread rumors or gossip to try to hurt people or the organization

1          (2)        3          4

25. Is rude or uncivil to coworkers

1          2          (3)        4

26. Would try to hurt someone’s career because of a grudge

1          2          3          (4)

27. Shows unfair favoritism toward some people

1          2          (3)        4

28. Would steal from the organization

(1)        2          3          4

29. Would falsify records if it would help his or her work situation

1          2          (3)        4

30. Has high moral standards

1          (2)        3          4

TOTAL: 83*

*This total is calculated by reversing the scores on questions 9 and 30, and then summing the scores (Northouse 2013).

A score of 30-32 is highly ethical, a score of 33-45 is moderately ethical, and a score of 46-120 is low ethical (Northouse 2013).

The score I came up with for this manager falls squarely into the “low ethical” category.  I do believe that some of her behaviors were rooted in poor communication skills, but regardless, her other behaviors created a disparity in our respective ethical viewpoints.  This had an adverse effect on the team, as ethics in leaders is vital because “of the nature of the process of influence, the need to engage followers in accomplishing mutual goals, and the impact leaders have on the organization’s values” (Northouse 2013).

When considering the five principles of ethical leadership identified in the Northouse text, the PLIS score should not be a surprise.  These principles can help drill down into what I considered to be shortcomings that impeded success.

 wow_artastic.gif

(image source: http://base.foretagsam.se/files/1/3/10/ledarskapetik.gif)

 

Respects Others:  This manager was not empathetic, repeatedly dismissed opposing points of view with no explanation, and did not consider the individuality of the workers in the department.  She did not say “good morning” to anyone; she normally only spoke to a worker if she had an issue with their work.  She routinely threatened workers with bad performance reviews, even though the department had been outperforming other similar departments in the company for years.  On the plus side, if she noticed a worker was productive, she would assign that worker more duties, which demonstrated a confidence in that worker’s abilities.

Serves Others:  The Northouse text defines this principle as it relates to the ethical theories based on self-interest versus interest for others (ethical egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism.  This manager, in my view, was slanted towards ethical egoism.  The most telling evidence was how she discouraged high performers from seeking higher positions in other departments.  My thoughts were that she wanted to retain talent to keep her department’s productivity high.  I felt this notion was correct when, after the manager left, several of the department members did successfully transfer to higher positions.

Fairness and Justice:  On a positive note, this manager did not play favorites; she treated everyone in the same manner.  It was rather impersonal, but being impersonal is something that can sometimes be chalked up to introversion or social awkwardness (although I don’t think that was the case here).  The issue was that she was quick to claim the successes of others, and just as quick to shift blame and throw people under the bus – even if they were not involved – when mistakes occurred.

Honesty:  This is closely related to fairness and justice, and the shortcomings in the previous principle can be partially attributed to a base that lacks honesty.  No manager can be completely honest – there are company work-in-process that can’t be divulged at times, the manager can’t come out and say what disease a certain team member has that has kept them home from work, the manager may be restricted as to communicating trade secrets, etc.  But the manager should at least not be misleading, and definitely not outright dishonest.

Build Community:  This manager influenced workers to achieve a common goal; however, it was the result of a forced imposition of will and coercion, which did not bring the department together.  Coupled with a weak foundation in the other four principles, there was little unity and bonding in the department.

All things considered, it was evident that this manager had never supervised before.  She conducted herself like she did at her old job, where it was more common to prop yourself up while tearing others down to make yourself look good.  I have worked under many fine managers, but I learned from this manager what a manager should not do.  Having a manager who isn’t altruistic or utilitarian isn’t the most ideal situation, but it can be an opportunity for learning.

 

REFERENCES

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

S. B. Craig and S. B. Gustafson, “Perceived Leader Integrity Scale: An Instrument for Assessing Employee Perceptions of Leader Integrity,” pp. 143-144, 1998. Used with permission of the authors as it appears in the Northouse source.  Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/northouse6e/study/materials/Questionnaires/03409_16lq.pdf

Female Leaders and Perception

by

Lesson 13 touches on what observers and workers think of women leaders and how they compare to men.  Alice Eagly conducted three meta-analyses on gender and leadership during a ten-year period from 1992 to 2002, and the findings suggested that women leaders should not act too much like men, nor should they act too much like women (PSU 2013).  Working a thin line between those two polarized ends, has there been more acceptance of women leaders since the meta-analyses were conducted?

A recent Gallup poll found that 35% of respondents would rather have a male boss than a female boss, 23% would prefer a female boss, and 41% had no preference (Gallup 2013).  This is a significant change from when these questions were first posed in 1953, when 66% of respondents preferred a male boss and only 5% preferred a female boss (Gallup 2013).  However, the percentages have been fairly steady over recent years.

Gallup 1.jpg

(photo credit: Gallup)

 

Having worked for excellent male and female bosses, I am encouraged that the majority of respondents don’t prefer one gender over the other.  Acceptance of women leaders is still trending upwards, albeit very slowly, as it has been for most of the timeline.  When drilling down into the data, I was surprised to see that 40% of female respondents preferred a male leader, whereas only 29% of men preferred a male leader.

Gallup 2.jpg

(photo credit: Gallup)

Since the rate of preference of female leadership has been rather stagnant, what can be done to improve the acceptance of women leaders at a quicker rate?  The commentary for Lesson 13 discussed many barriers that can be addressed, but one barrier in particular I think merits particular attention.  The Lesson 13 commentary listed “lack of white male mentors” as an interpersonal barrier, but a mentorship may not be enough.  Mary Davis Holt is an author and a partner of a consulting firm that promoted women and workplace advancement.  She proposes that sponsorship is much more effective than a mentorship (daSilva 2012).  What’s the distinction between the two?  Mentorship involves one person showing another the ropes of the job and providing career advice, whereas sponsorship adds a dimension of advocacy (daSilva 2012).  For women to be represented more in the highest positions and affect workplace culture, it is immensely advantageous to have someone sponsoring and advocating them to aid in obtaining higher positions.  This sponsorship can give women the support to be successful, overcome all organizational, interpersonal, and personal barriers, and break through the glass ceiling.  As more women become successful in the executive ranks, the broad perception of women leaders will change and there will be a higher rate of acceptance of women leaders.

 

REFERENCES

daSilva, J.  (2012).  Q-and-A with Mary Davis Holt: The state of women in leadership.  SmartBlog on Leadership.  Retrieved from http://smartblogs.com/leadership/2012/08/27/the-state-of-women-in-leadership/.

Newport, F. and Wilke, J.  (2013).  Americans Still Prefer a Male Boss.  Gallup Economy.  Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/165791/americans-prefer-male-boss.aspx.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2013). Lesson 13: Leadership and Diversity. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa13/psych485/002/content/13_lesson/printlesson.html.

Challenges of Servant Leadership

by

“Followers exist to support a leader”.  That’s a notion that has been held for a long time.  That conception has been changing recently, and is continuing to change.  In 1970, Robert Greenleaf introduced the concept of “servant leadership” in his essay “The Servant as Leader”, and stated that a servant leader and a leader who was driven by power or money were on two ends of a spectrum (Greenleaf.org). 

There are specific departments at my workplace that operate under a form of servant leadership.  The managers of these departments are very interested in developing the talent in their areas.  It is a very collaborative style because the leader puts the needs of the followers first and helps in their developmental paths (Northouse 2013).  At the same time, this leadership style allows for more worker autonomy, which in turn makes workers feel respected.  The morale of the workers is high because they feel their opinions matter, their actions make a difference, and that they are valued members of the organization.

So, why isn’t the practice of servant leadership more widespread?  Part of it is the lack of solid research.  Decision makers in organizations want to be able to justify every decision they make.  A decision to implement servant leadership practices would turn an organization’s culture upside-down.  That’s too big a risk for most decision makers, especially those in large companies in highly competitive industries.  I feel that another factor, a significant factor, to the inhibition of servant leadership is workplace culture.  Many people still think of leaders as possessing certain alpha traits, and when a manager acts more like a career counselor than a leader, it can give that manager a soft reputation, especially in workplaces that aren’t populated with many servant leaders.  A soft reputation may be detrimental when dealing with other managers at the same level (especially power-hungry bulldog managers), and worse, it may limit the manager’s ability to get promoted because most organizations don’t want a nurturing figure at the top – they want a decisive leader who will carry the flag at the front of the battalion. 

Despite these hurdles, I feel servant leadership is very effective because it empowers followers and helps them attain their potential in career progression.

 

REFERENCES

Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership (2013).  What is Servant Leadership?  Retrieved from https://greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Leadership and Broken Windows

by

BrokenWindows.jpg

(Image retrieved from http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/desktop/users/u165/images/2012/Broken-Window-Fallacy.jpg)

In police work, there is a “broken windows” theory.  This theory holds that if minor crimes like broken windows on a building are ignored and left alone, it will foster an environment where worse crimes will occur in places where there are several broken windows.  A neighborhood that has several buildings with broken windows is sending the message that they’ve stopped caring about the community and will do little to turn it around and make it presentable.  By addressing seemingly minor issues like broken windows or litter, the deterioration of a community can be slowed or reversed, and more serious crimes are less likely to occur in the community.

Some of the general ideas of the broken windows theory can be applied to leadership.  How many times have you been employed at a workplace where the culture allows a significant amount of leeway, to a point?  Places where behaviors were overlooked (at least for a while) but there was a fine line, which when crossed, resulted in disciplinary action?  I worked for a security firm in the early 2000s, and we were provided internet access with our computers.   Some of the guards had never held a professional job prior, so they ran away with this perk.  They loved being paid to surf the internet.  The supervisors allowed it to go on, because there were more urgent matters that required their attention, and as long as nothing bad happened, they couldn’t show it was negatively impacting the quality of work.  That changed when a vice president approached a guard who was surfing the net, and the guard ignored the vice president for over a minute before looking up from his web browser.  The hammer came down after that, as all internet access for the guards was cut off.

It could have been worse.  The guards might have missed systemic stealing of goods from loading docks, they might have missed cars being broken into, or any number of crimes due to being distracted.  Some guards came to resent other guards who spent too much time surfing, and they would tire of thanklessly picking up the slack.  The lack of restrictions regarding one minor thing – web surfing – could have had much larger effects on the team’s chemistry and on their performance than it did.

Leaders will want to pay attention to the “broken windows” in their work environment.  Proactively addressing problems when they are small, before they become larger problems, is efficient.  This behavior fits in with the Style Approach of leadership.  The Style Approach “focuses on what leaders do and how they act” (World Campus, L5, p4).  When leaders initiate this kind of structure, which is often vastly different from how many workplaces focus on reacting to big issues, the leader can help change the culture from a reactive mode to a proactive mode.  This can affect workers’ outlook towards their tasks as well as build trust amongst workers.

Basically, leaders should fix problems when they are small.  Leaders shouldn’t wait for a small fire to turn into a far-reaching wildfire that devastates an entire team.  I’m not advocating micromanagement, but a leader should be aware of what’s going on in the team and fix the broken windows.  Taking care of the little things creates a work environment and culture that is creative and professional.  When workers don’t have to worry about the broken windows, they can concentrate on what they need to do to succeed.

 

References:

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2013). Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa13/psych485/002/content/05_lesson/printlesson.html

Leadership and Parenting: Parallels

by

Parenting and leadership often tap into the same skill sets.  Many lessons learned from parenting can be applied to leadership styles in the workplace and other areas of life.  Before I became a parent, I was in leadership positions at work, and my experience with applying leadership skills was restricted to my work life.  Raising children forces a person to become a leader around the clock.  This presents many more opportunities to refine leadership techniques and become a more effective leader.  Relationship building skills from the workplace apply to parenting, and being a parent allows a person to practice consistency and assertiveness, which can be applied to the workplace.  Both spheres of the work-life balance influence and reinforce each other.

Evaluating the Path-Goal Theory as it applies to both roles reveals many parallels.  Being a good leader is much like being a good parent, in that you have to create a path for those under your charge to succeed.  You must show an interest in their development and show confidence in their abilities, and you must provide the tools they need to overcome obstacles and succeed.  These are elements of supportive leadership.

The directive leadership aspect of Path-Goal Theory, as it applies to parenting and work environment, is fairly intuitive.  Clear communication of expected performance is necessary.  This includes informing charges of what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, how it needs to be done, and what standard is expected.  Checking for understanding is very helpful as well.

Participative leadership can help bring out confidence in children, and it can help foster an innovative environment in workers.  In both roles, participative leadership allows charges to express themselves and feel like an integral part of the process, to feel as though their voice is being heard and they are contributing.

Achievement-oriented leadership is useful in home and work life.  Just as a parent will continue to raise the bar for their children to help them reach their potential, a leader in the workplace will challenge their followers to constantly improve.  To a follower, this shows that the leader is confident in the follower’s ability to grow, which can be excellent motivation.

It isn’t always helpful to treat followers as children, as this approach will turn off a good portion of followers.  However, some of the skills learned and honed from raising children will be very beneficial when applied in the workplace.  I’ve found that since becoming a parent, I feel my leadership style has become more effective, and part of that performance can be attributed to practicing more leadership techniques more often at home.

Skip to toolbar