Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Being a REAL Leader

by

Anyone can walk up to a podium and say something to a crowd. There are no qualifications. If you want to gain a following it normally helps to say something smart, inspiring or valuable.

BUT.

 

How can you *actually* stand out as a leader?

Be real.

Be authentic.

 

How?

Be vulnerable. Put yourself out there. Let your [potential] followers get to know you. There are thousands, perhaps even millions of people trying to be leaders. Uniqueness will attract your followers. Connection will keep them around (Northouse, 2019, p. 200).

That’s where this idea of authentic leadership comes from. Northouse (2019) describes it as “genuine” (p. 197). Followers are often insecure or apprehensive and look to leaders for reassurance. According to Northouse (2019), this is where authentic leadership comes in, it meets the demands of trustworthy leadership, especially in a world where the media is brimming with “fake news” and “professionals” with no credentials (p.197).

Northouse goes on to list the three qualities of authentic leadership as intrapersonal perspective, interpersonal process and developmental perspective (Northouse, 2019, p. 198). The main focus of the intrapersonal perspective is the leader’s knowledge, self-regulation and the concept they have of themselves (Northouse, 2019, p. 197). Contrastingly, the interpersonal process’ focus is on the relationship between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2019, p. 197). Alternatively, the developmental leadership process focuses on leadership as something that can be refined and developed (Northouse, 2019, p. 197). In each of these areas, authentic leadership is a process. The varying processes value experience, relationships to achieve goals and developing leadership over time, respectively (Northouse, 2019, p. 198).

 

I think he is missing one thing. Vulnerability.

 

Such an idea would fit within his interpersonal process definition, but I believe it is worth being specifically mentioned.

In my experience, vulnerability fosters connection. Funerals can be an example of this; people who would not otherwise be drawn together connect while reminiscing on good times. Something I have personally experienced is showing empathy to someone going through a hard time. Sharing our own stories can give them hope. Such things are not ones I want to post here, on the internet, for all to see. However, they make a world of difference in a one-on-one conversation.

The idea of the interpersonal process was developed by leaders and followers, and it highlights the importance of the exchange between them [leaders and followers] (Northouse, 2019, p. 198). Reciprocity is the main idea here because followers affect leaders and vice versa (Northouse, 2019, p. 198). However, my idea of vulnerability takes this one step further.

Authentic leadership requires authentic relationships. It would do no good for a leader to build relationships and invest their time doing so, all the while pretending to be someone they’re not. One of the characteristics of authentic leadership, in the George approach, is strong relationships (Northouse, 2019, p. 200). I believe this is where vulnerability comes in.

The George approach discusses sharing one’s own story and listening to another’s story, but I believe it goes farther than this (Northouse, 2019, p. 200). You see, anyone can learn to craft a story and regurgitate it in a compelling manner. That is simply a skill that can be learned. Listening to other people’s stories is a skill too. Anyone can learn to be a good listener. Now, I’m not suggesting these are not leadership skills, because they are. However, high-quality authentic leadership should go a step further.

Instead of cutting out the “ugly” parts, tell them. No one’s life is a magazine. That isn’t relatable. Yes, followers will look up to a fairy tale story, but it won’t resonate with THEIR story. Telling the hard part will foster connections. It will open the door to real and authentic conversations. It will make them willing to stick around if things get hard again because they’ll be in your corner. It will encourage them to share their scary parts. Again, that will open the door to more authentic conversations.

Leaning into vulnerability will take the connection, sense of trust and closeness that the George approach covers to a much deeper and more sincere level (Northouse, 2019, p. 200). This is the openness that people are looking for (Northouse, 2019, p. 200). Vulnerability is a step further than the transparency from the George approach (Northouse, 2019, p. 200). Consider it like this… transparency is relaxing the boundaries, and fully disclosing real-life, messy, circumstances. Vulnerability is letting people in on the real and raw emotions that accompany real-life, messy, circumstances.

Leadership is a process, and including vulnerability transforms you from one among millions to one in a million.

 

 

References:
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Authentic Leadership  (pp. 197-200). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Do You Feel Heard?

by

Many organizations believe they have a dynamic relationship between managerial staff and lower-ranking employees, but in reality few actually do. However, there is good news, such a situation can be changed. High-quality communication between leaders and followers can serve the business, or organization, in many ways. Communication allows for valuable exchanges of information, which can, in turn, result in mutual trust, respect, commitment and retention (Northouse, 2019, p. 147 & Butler & Waldroop, 1999, p. 152).  Understanding the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory is beneficial to all who are involved. Alec Clark and Tarl Robinson, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of Plexus Worldwide, practice this well; regardless of whether or not they know the LMX theory by name. Clark and Robinson work closely with those who work well with them and contribute the most value to the company, and through this, they model the leadership and communication expectations of the organization so that it is applied at all levels to create the result of a tight-knit community and retain their personnel.

Let me unpack this a little by providing some context, and then I will delve into the LMX theory itself. Plexus Worldwide is a network marketing, health and wellness company, which often goes by the motto “If you’re blessed, be a blessing” (Plexus Worldwide, 2021). Clark and Robinson founded the company together in 2007 (Plexus Worldwide, 2021). Speaking from experience here, despite their different levels of authority, the two work closely together and with others on most happenings in the corporate side of things, as well as the business aspect. This leads right into one of the first facets of LMX theory, dyadic relationships. Dyadic relationships occur when two people are dependent on each other in terms of completing their goals (Northouse, 2019, p. 139). In other words, it is viewing leadership as an interaction between leader and follower, rather than as a tyrannic relationship.

Clark and Robinson work closely with leaders in the corporate and business sectors. The names of these individuals can be found online (Plexus Worldwide, 2021). By doing this they are practicing dyadic relationships, and each one is unique (Northouse, 2019, p. 141). These individuals are the “in-group” by Northouse’s (2019) terms, and the subordinates below them [the corporate and business leaders] (p.141). Followers in the “in-group” receive more attention, concern, and so on and they are more involved with their leaders (Northouse, 2019, p. 140). These close-knit relationships promote trust and honest communication, and in doing so Clark and Robinson can be made aware of areas that need attention, improvement, or recognition (Northouse, 2019, p. 140). In fact, it is because of these more intimate relationships that the leaders are more communicative (Northouse, 2019, p. 140). As a result of this communication, those involved become more committed, stay with the company longer, have better attitudes, progress within their careers faster and become increasingly more involved (Northouse, 2019, p. 141). All of these traits are highly sought after in any workplace. In my opinion, it makes the work environment much more enjoyable and pleasurable to be around as well.

Another benefit of working with the “in-group” is that it is exposed to effective leadership mannerisms. Northouse (2019) discusses something similar to this later on in the chapter, and he terms it “leadership making” (p. 143). I propose an idea similar to, but different from this. Rather than a leader attempting to develop relationships with everyone in his or her organization, which would be very impractical on a large scale, (s)he could cultivate very high-quality relationships of those who are part of the “in-group” and model that behavior for them. Within this relationship (s)he would set the expectations that each individual in his/her “in-group” do this with their own respective “in-group”. Now, this would not mean that everyone was treated the same or was intimately involved, but it would involve the highest caliber people. The domino-effect result would be the same across the board, but at a higher quantity than if it were not passed down. To reiterate, the impact would be more involved and committed employees, faster career progress, improved attitudes and greater retention (Northouse, 2019, p. 141).

Doing things in the manner described above skips the phases of leadership making (Northouse, 2019, p. 144). Normally these phases involve progressing from stranger to partner over time (Northouse, 2019, p. 144). It is suggested that the leader do this with every follower to promote feelings of involvement and equality for all followers (Northouse, 2019, p. 144). Skipping the phases of this process increases efficiency since the responsibility of cultivating relationships is distributed evenly throughout the organization. Since the responsibility is evenly distributed and does not lie heavily on any single person’s shoulders, a close-knit community is the result. Trust and open communication are commonplace in this scenario because the individuals know they can depend on each other (Northouse, 2019, p. 144). Again, this would result in each level of leadership being well informed of the needs, praises, and such of those below them.

An example of this in the context of Plexus Worldwide is Clark and Robinson’s frequent meetings with diamond ambassadors. Diamond ambassadors are those who have reached the top rank in the company (Plexus Worldwide, 2021). I am friends with a few of them, and they have shared with me that they meet with other diamonds, as well as with Clark and Robinson, several times a month. In these meetings, they bring their own input and answer any questions Clark and Robinson have as a means to provide insight and provide open communication. In some circumstances, highly qualified diamonds are asked to serve on the advisory board of Plexus Worldwide (Plexus Worldwide, 2021). Both of these groups are different examples of “in-groups”.

Clark and Robinson work closely with those who work well with them and contribute the most value to the company; and through this, they model the leadership and communication expectations of the organization so that it is applied at all levels to create a tight-knit community that retains their personnel. Regardless of the scale, process or phases, when leaders develop high-quality relationships with their followers, good things happen. It is beneficial for leaders to do this because it decreases employee turnover, increases commitment and involvement, results in a better attitude and faster progress and it is all a result of the mutual trust and open communication that comes from such a standard of relationships.

So I’ll leave you with this question: when was the last time you felt heard in your position at work?

 

References

Butler, T. & Waldroop, J. (1999). Job sculpting: The art of retaining your best people. Harvard Business Review, 77(5), 144-152.

Plexus Worldwide. (n.d.). Advisory board. Enjoy the journey. https://recognition.plexusworldwide.com/spotlights/advisory-board

Pleuxs Worldwide (2021). Ambassador compensation plan. Plexus help center. Retrieved September 27, 2021, from https://helpcenter.plexusworldwide.com/hc/en-us/articles/360018731252-Ambassador-Compensation-Plan

Plexus Worldwide (n.d.). Meet our founder and president. https://shop.plexusworldwide.com/alec-clark

Northouse, P .G. (2019). Leadership: Leader-member exchange theory (pp. 139-144). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Filed Under: LMX

Milgram’s Experiment: Power or Influence?

by

Would you ever administer an electrical shock to a person because you were told to do so by a medical professional? What if it was because the individual gave an incorrect response?

This is the gist of Milgram’s electric shock experiment. In short, he examines participants’ willingness to follow directions from those who hold a position of authority. I found the study to be very interesting (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Especially within the context of power and influence of our PSU WC lesson commentary (2021). The contents of this lesson are not covered within Northouse’s (2019) text, but there is ample information available through the PSU WC lesson commentary (2021) as well as in other chapters from the text. Milgram’s experiment is a great way to further understand and visualize the concepts of power and influence. 

Figure 1

The Milgram Experiment: A Visual

To begin, it is important to understand what power and influence are and how they differ. House (1984) and Bass (1990) define power as having the aptitude to impact or the potential to cause change within others (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Alternatively, influence is “the change in a target agent’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors as a result of influence tactics” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7, p. 2). In fewer words, power is the ability to cause change, whereas influence is the caliber of change that actually occurs.

Regarding the Milgram experiment, in the beginning, there were psychologists telling subjects what they would be doing, and I was unsure how much of it was true. I do not believe I would have considered deception at all if I would have been in the participants’ shoes. Like most people, including those in the Milgram experiment, I tend to take things a doctor, scientist, or psychologist says to be true. We are taught from a young age to respect our elders and those in authority. Additionally, we as a society have been so conditioned that we even show respect to people if they are dressed professionally (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). This results in not questioning the truthfulness or factual basis of things said by people we respect.

In light of this, I believe this is a prime example of power. French and Raven (1959) defined various bases of power, but the main bases of this study are legitimate, expert and reward power (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Legitimate power is defined as a formal authority, or in other words, it is power based on the assigned role (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Expert power is a different way of saying that knowledge is power (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). On this basis, power belongs to the experts. Lastly is reward power, this is a function of withholding a desired outcome until the required tasks are completed (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Each of these is demonstrated to some degree in the Milgram experiment, with legitimate and expert power being the most prominent.

Additionally, there are influence tactics. Influence tactics are behaviors used to create attitude, opinion or behavior changes (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). It is important to recall that power is the potential to influence people and the influence tactics are the actions that make it happen (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). There were nearly a dozen influence tactics spelled out in the PSU WC lesson commentary (2021), but only two of them fit into the context of this experiment. Pressure and legitimizing tactics are the only ones that could be applied to this experiment. Pressure tactics involve intimidating an individual as a means of influencing them (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Pressure tactics can involve removing or providing an incentive. Legitimizing tactics occur when “requests are made based on one’s position or authority” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7, p. 6). Notice that both of these are very similar to reward and legitimate power. Reward power and pressure tactics are comparable to each other because they both involve an incentive or punishment (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Additionally, legitimate power and legitimizing tactics are also comparable as they have nearly identical names and defining factors (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7).

An illustration of legitimate power in the Milgram experiment is the fact that the participants thought they had equal chances of being the “teacher” or the “learner.” In actuality, the experiment was rigged so the participants were always “teachers,” and the “learners” were always confederates (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Do not let the “teacher” role deceive you, this role meant they had to adhere to the experimenter’s instructions, not that they were in charge of the situation. The experimenters always instructing the “teachers” is an example of how legitimate power and legitimizing tactics were exercised in the experiment in order to create the outcome of obedient behavior. 

Figure 2

Subject = Teacher, Fake Subject = Learner, Experimenter = Experimenter

Similarly is the use of expert power. The participants, who were the teachers, felt pressured to continue the experiment (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). This was done through the verbiage used by the experimenters. They did this by using severe statements such as, “The experiment requires that you continue” (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). However, these statements often did not come into play until the higher voltage levels, which is when the participants began feeling significantly more uncomfortable with the process. I would argue that until this point, many of the participants complied on the basis of trusting the expert [experimenter], as he had the most knowledge about the situation. Although this is a demonstration of expert power, it is the legitimizing tactics that once again actually creates the result of obedient behavior. 

Lastly is the concept of reward power and pressure tactics. It is worth discussing because there was a cash reward offered for participating in the experiment (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). It is very important to note that such offers are not contingent on completing the experiment. So, while it is possible that the participants completed the task simply for monetary gain, I do not believe this to be the main motive. Especially considering the responses of the participants after they were debriefed. Not one of them mentioned that they only kept going to receive the reward (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Regardless, the reward power is the potential of creating change. If any of the participants were motivated by the monetary reward, then their actions were a result of pressure tactics.

So what is the difference? Well, that is exactly it. The two are easy to define by definition, but in real life the two go hand in hand. Another way to understand these terms could be like this: power can be viewed as the appearance of having influence. Results are the outcome of actually having influence.

Prior to this video, I had never heard of this experiment before. This led me to believe, just like the test subjects, that the man in the chair was truly being electrocuted. Perhaps I missed something at the very beginning of the video, but I rather enjoyed not being omniscient while watching. It allowed me to put myself in the subjects’ shoes while watching. Obviously, I caught on after the first guy, but I tried to not focus on what I knew. Instead, I tried to focus on the subjects’ reactions and how I thought I would react if I were in their place. It was interesting that the man commentating on the video pointed out the laughter the subjects often produced. Often people do find humor in another person’s pain, an example of this is the show “Ridiculousness” on MTV (2011). However, the humor is often lost, quickly, when the person recognizes the other person may actually be harmed. At least that has been my experience in watching the show. As mentioned, there were several individuals in the experiment who displayed laughter. They also may have “laughed” as an effort to express their discomfort and attempt to break the tension of inflicting pain on a stranger.  

Another aspect of the study I found to be interesting is the voltage different subjects considered to be “too much.” One subject refused to go on at a voltage around 145, yet another did not consider the experiment to be too extreme until over 300 volts (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Could this be due to slightly varying levels of “encouragement” from the experimenter? Or instead, could it be that different people value and react to different bases of power differently?

To go along with this, some of the gentlemen took little to no convincing to continue zapping their counterpart; whereas others took a great deal of persuasion, and some refused to continue all together. One subject was particularly unique, the man who only agreed to continue with the high voltage (400+) because the experimenter assured him that he would not be held responsible should anything go wrong (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). This man continued to administer the shocks only because the responsibility was in the hands of the man with a lab coat, which is yet another demonstration of yielding to legitimate and expert power. It is interesting to note that when the experiment was over the same man appeared to be quite taken aback at his own actions. This realization occurred when the experimenters later asked him about who was administering the shock and who made him continue the experiment (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021).

So how does this tie into real life? Great question.

I think each and every one of us has been in a situation where someone with more power, higher titles, more experience, and such used those things “against” us. They coerced, or attempted to coerce, us into doing things that we wouldn’t otherwise. Perhaps this looks like peer pressure, or maybe it looks like receiving a vaccine you aren’t sure about as a means to create job security. Many times in life we read books and are taught to look for the moral of the story. Do we still do that? What if we look at this and ask ourselves what can we learn from this experiment? Sometimes it is more than the data collected. Sometimes it is more than the definitions. As noted in the film, many of the participants regret their actions during the debriefing period (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). What might we regret when we are reflecting back on our own lives in 50 or 60 years?

Generally speaking, Milgram’s experiment is a great way to further understand and visualize the concepts of power and influence. The main difference between the two is that power involves the capacity to create change and influence involves the degree of actual change that occurs. I think individuals today are more likely to question people with authority than they were at the time of this experiment. In other words, I believe people are more hesitant to blindly trust those with power now than they were in the past. I also think people in today’s society would bow out of the experiment earlier than before. Now, people tend to focus more on themselves and what they want to do; therefore, I believe they are less likely to be convinced to continue doing something they do not want to do. In addition to this, I have also noticed a diminishing amount of respect people have for those in authority. This would also make it more challenging for this experiment to be executed as planned. I do not believe the experiment would go over as smoothly today, if it were to be permitted at all. However, the study has proven to be an excellent resource for psychology, and in today’s context, the study of power and influence.

 

References

Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk. 2016, April 25. The milgram experiment 1962 full documentary. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0&t=658s

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 7: Power and Influence. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790597

Superjacket Productions. (Producer). (2011). Ridiculousness [Television series]. Los Angeles, CA: MTV

 

Skills Approach or Nature vs Nurture?

by

What do you believe in?

Are leaders born or made?

How does the skills approach help answer this?

Why does nature versus nurture matter in this context?

Those are great questions, and hopefully I will answer all of them over the course of the next few paragraphs. I want to start by diving into the skills approach. So what is it? Basically, the skills approach is the idea that a person must possess a certain set of abilities in order to operate as a leader (Northouse, 2019, p. 68). Specifically, the abilities are not traits, but instead behaviors. Such behaviors would ideally allow them to act appropriately in accordance with their situation. The skills approach parallels the nature versus nurture debate in that their key terms share similar definitions, each concept as a whole encountered similar misconceptions and a middle ground has been found in each of the respective areas of study.

To begin, the skills approach has been around for nearly a century. Robert Katz is the person who is credited with being the first to present this idea (Northouse, 2019, p. 43). In 1995, he published his research on skills in the Harvard Business Review under the title of “Skills of an Effective Administrator” (Northouse, 2019, p.43). He was seeking skills that could be taught or developed in order to create leaders (Northouse, 2019, p.43). The skills he defined include technical, human and conceptual (Northouse, 2019, pp. 44-45). In brief, these are skills that involve the skills of knowing how to use tools and processes, the ability to work with people and understanding ideas and thought processes (Northouse, 2019, pp. 44-45). At the time, the popular idea was that leaders were born, not made (PSU WC, 2021, L.4).

Furthermore, the definitions of the skills approach are crucial for the purpose of comparing the two concepts at hand. Based on chapter one, a trait is an inborn characteristic (Northouse, 2019, p. 7). It is again defined in chapter three, and this time as who a leader is, what they are made of, their inborn characteristics (Northouse, 2019, p. 43). Whereas a behavior is something that can be learned (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4). Again, the skills approach examines this in light of the idea that leaders can be made.

Equally important are the definitions of the concept of the nature versus nurture debate. The idea of nature versus nurture came into play in the mid-1800s by Francis Galton (Pain, 2013). This concept can be defined as the debate of whether a person’s genetics or upbringing and culture determine the person’s behavior (McLeod, 2018). In the context of this article, I am proposing that an individual’s leadership traits are much like their nature, innate and part of who they are. On the other hand, an individual’s behaviors are much like their nurture, taught or modeled and learned over time.

Early on in the development of both the skills approach and the nature versus nurture debate, there were misconceptions that arose. Most notably for the skills approach was the idea that leaders were only born, never made (PSU WC, 2021, L4). Similarly, in the beginnings of behavior study psychologists thought behaviors were only controlled by genetics. It was not until later that either party took behavior or environment into consideration, let alone thinking they were relevant. Thus, the skills approach and the nature versus nurture debate were born.

Consider this example, intelligence is generally thought of as a relatively fixed trait (Weingberg, 1989, p.101). For the sake of simplicity, we will assume that it is; although, it could host a debate of nature versus nurture of its own. Regardless, there is a correlation between high intelligence quotients (IQ) and leadership abilities (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004, pp. 163 -166). Considering this, based on the nature (genetic) perspective and the misconceptions of leadership, a person born with a high IQ has it in their blood to become a leader. Based on these same principles, a person born with a low IQ stands no chance of holding a leadership role.

Alternatively, if we consider the nurture and behavior aspect, there is a completely different outcome. The same individual with a high IQ can still become a leader. Next, we will contrast this with the individual who has a low IQ. Under these circumstances, of nature (environment) and behavior, the low IQ individual can learn leadership skills such as the technical, human and conceptual ones that Katz (1995) defined (Northouse, 2019, pp. 44-45). Developing these skills could be done in order to make up for their area of weakness, which in this case is intelligence (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p. 27). Doing so would allow them to still go on to be a leader.

Since the 19th and 20th centuries, the misconceptions of the skills approach and the nature versus nurture debate have been almost entirely refuted. That does not mean there are no camps for the various sides of each concept, but most people and researchers tend to find a middle ground (Gruber, 2013 & Northouse, 2019, p. 68). For the skills approach, researchers admit individuals can be born with innate leadership traits (Northouse, 2019, p. 43). Additionally, they acknowledge that skills can be developed to better a “born” leader or to develop a potential leader (Northouse, 2019, p. 54). Likewise, most professionals profess that genetics lays the groundwork for a person’s behavior, while also acknowledging the importance that environment plays as well (Gruber, 2013).

The skills approach parallels the nature versus nurture debate, as their key terms share similar definitions, they each had similar misconceptions and have been able to find middle ground within their respective studies since the time of their establishments. As mentioned, these concepts have their similarities, yet they hold a very different range of applications. The skills approach may be limited to military scenarios, as that is the context most of its research was performed under (Northouse, 2019, p. 59). On the other hand, the nature versus nurture debate can be applied to a wide range of behavioral observations from empathy to anger issues. The skills approach is a newer concept, and it holds the potential to follow in similar footsteps of the older, nature versus nurture debate. Perhaps it will one day be as widely known and recognized.

 

References

Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. The Free Press.

Gruber, T. R. (2013). Nature, nurture and knowledge acquisition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(2), 191-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.10.004

McLeod, S. (2018). Nature vs. nurture in psychology. Simply Psychology.https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Introduction (p. 7). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Skills approach (pp. 43-68). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pain, B. J. (2013). Nature and nurture. (M. Serpell, Ed.). British Journal of Pain. Sage Publications. 10.1177/2049463713507019

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 4: Skills approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790541

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. American Psychologist Association. 10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162

Weingberg, R. A. (1989). Intelligence and IQ: Landmark issues and great debates. American Psychologist Association

Achieving Success as a Leader

by

In today’s world, just about everyone has access to endless amounts of knowledge and it is right at our fingertips. The growing use of the internet in our daily lives has made learning and becoming educated easier than ever. However, just because it is there does not mean people are going to take advantage of it. With such ready access to an infinite supply of knowledge, anyone has the ability to form an opinion on any matter, at any time. To some, this is an overwhelming concept to think about, while others feed on the ability to know more and do more. The latter are leaders. The following paragraphs will break leadership down into bite sized pieces in order to provide better understanding of the interactions and outcomes between leaders and followers.  

The definition of a leader is as follows, one who guides, is in command, in the position of influence or in a position of importance (Webster’s Dictionary, p. 165). On the other end of the spectrum is a follower, which is defined as, a person who supports and is guided by another person (Webster’s Dictionary, p. 131). Notice that one cannot be a leader without something to lead, and one cannot follow without one who leads. This seems obvious, yes, so what lies below the surface that separates a leader from a follower? 

A difficulty of studying leadership is measuring what it takes to be a good leader. Leaders generally have characteristics such as integrity, self-control, decisiveness, humility, being respectable. All of these are true and it is no one thing that makes a leader. As part of my leadership research, I spoke with a wise woman and a strong leader who I know well, Brittney Howard. She and I have narrowed down what it ultimately takes to be a leader into two things. The two key characteristics that separate the leaders from the followers are mindset and willingness to learn.

It is important to keep in mind that these characteristics mean nothing if they are not coupled with action. A couple of my favorite traits of leadership are Stogdill’s (1974) vigor and persistence (Northouse, 2019, p. 20). I believe that when a person combines vigor, persistence, a strong mindset and willingness to learn, anything is possible for them. These traits, when applied, open the door for an individual to find success in all of their endeavors. Of course, that is assuming they apply themselves and commit to the process.

There it is again though, that qualifying condition, taking action. John Maxwell, a highly respected and admired leadership coach and speaker. In his book from 2020, “Success is a Choice,” Maxwell elaborates on the actions and 14 different choices that need to be made in order to achieve success. I believe they are all important, but in the context of focusing on followership, cultivating good relationships and committing to responsibility are probably the most important.

In reality, these two choices and actions go hand in hand. However, I believe committing to responsibility should come first. In doing so a person builds up their own reputation. They become recognized as a person that can be counted on (Maxwell, 2020, p. 162). When done consistently that person is then recognized for their solidity. In turn, this makes the second action of choosing to cultivate quality relationships much easier. Trust is a two-way street in relationships, so having a solid reputation makes it easier to gain trust.

As mentioned before, there are no leaders without followers. In the past, followers were often considered in the realms of leadership research (Northouse, 2019, p.293). In hindsight, such ignorance is rather foolish. Followers are no different than leaders, they bring strengths, unique characteristic expectations and other behaviors to the table. Followers play their own role in the process of leadership. Specifically, followers get to learn from, support and challenge leaders, not to mention they get the work done (Northouse, 2019, p.306). For these reasons, they are equally important as leaders.

So why mention all of that? Well, leaders and followers both influence each other, like a feedback loop. It comes back to Maxwell’s (2020) choices of cultivating good relationships and committing to responsibility (pp. 143-158). After acknowledging the importance of followers, a leader is more likely to make these choices. These choices will lead to a higher quality leadership, then a higher quality of followers, which will then lead to a higher quality of followership (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3). In total, the higher followership will produce the return of higher results, which can ideally be measured as success.

References

Maxwell, J.C. (2020). Success is a choice (pp. 143 -158). HarperCollins Leadership

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice (pp. 19-41 & 249-306).Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 1: Introduction to Leadership. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790500

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 3: Followership. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790532

Webster. (2006). Follower. In The new international Webster’s standard dictionary (p. 131). Trident Reference Publishing.

Webster. (2006). Leader. In The new international Webster’s standard dictionary (p. 165). Trident Reference Publishing.

Skip to toolbar