Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Too much positivity?

by

“Stop pushing over-the-top positivity and ‘authentic’ leadership… Oh, and while you’re at it, think about doing the same for transformational, servant, ethical, and spiritual leadership” (Moran, 2019, para. 1).  Alvesson & Einola (2019) found that organizations have the best of intentions when infusing their culture with positivity and applying “newer genre” leadership theories such as transformational, ethical, authentic and “moral approaches” such as ethical, authentic and servant leadership, as they are all touted to have favorable organizational outcomes.  They explain that a leader cannot be separated from the organizational context and culture, and that the realities of the setting and environment may make it difficult if not impossible for the noble traits of genuineness, inspiration, motivation, moral aptitude found in these theories to flourish.

Situational leadership, for example, is pushed to the backseat under these approaches.  Leaders in the trenches know, however, that they must sometimes adapt to navigate difficult circumstances the best way possible.  Adherence to positivity, authenticity, and the like at all costs can leave a leader “bogged down” in ideology (Alvesson & Einola, 2019).  These theories are great for TED talks and writing self-help leadership books, but what happens in reality when put to the task?

We will focus on authentic leadership, as many of the other forms discussed above hail from this model.  There are few critical empirical studies to demonstrate its effectiveness and little done to distinguish one leadership approach from the other, as they often overlap (Alvesson & Einola, 2019).  Banks et al. (2018) report that “construct redundancy remains problematic for the leadership literature in general” (as cited in Alvesson & Einola, 2019, p.4).

A key challenge in authentic leadership is the call to represent one’s true, authentic self in a world of an infinite possibility of individually and culturally sensitive issues.  How does one hold back aspects of the self that may not be well-accepted by the organization and are not situationally necessary to express so as to not offend followers, and at the same time embody one’s true self?  We as human beings all possess thoughts, beliefs, behaviors and the like that others might find offensive, whether because of our own shortcomings or their misunderstanding of us.  Leadership is about more that expressing one’s true self, as it encompasses the sometimes painstaking and arduous process of navigating delicate and nuanced social, political and moral issues (Alvesson & Einola, 2019).

By promoting exuberant positivity, a leader can invalidate experiences of the followers.  Being coached to “buck-up, it’s not so bad”, reminded that “we’re all a team counting on each other”, or praised for being “so resilient” can have unwanted effects.  The follower hears in these situations that their emotions and thoughts are unwarranted, the distress they experience and complaints they have about work processes are invalid, and their ability to withstand harm or sacrifices for the job is merely a good personality trait and they should expect more of the same.  When that positivity comes across as insincere, it can actually damage the leader-follower relationship.  Seeds of distrust in the leader and the organization will be sown.  This is seen most clearly when the leader possesses a dominant, power-oriented style (PSU WC, 2023).  The result of leaders consuming these theories is “overly optimistic, unrealistic leaders and, sooner or later, cynical, disappointed coworkers and, sometimes, leaders themselves” (Moran, 2019).  Leaders of startup companies fall prey to this “positivity trap” quite often as they try to rally workers to meet goals, regardless of obstacles faced.  “When leaders put on their cheerleading hats despite a reality that is poor, they seem like liars or worse, like they are delusional,” says executive coach Amie Devero (Moran, 2019, para.6).

Should the employees “buy” the positivity pitch, the situation does not bode much better for the organization.  Most of us humans work better under some amount of pressure.  Anxiety is a survival skill – without the concern for where the next meal is going to come from, our stone age ancestors would not have bothered keeping track of where the good hunting grounds are and preparing and organizing weapons and tools.  By telling the followers that “everything’s awesome, and the team is doing spectacular” when the company is $1 million in the hole, the team is not energized to problem-solve, due to their false sense of security.  The action of displaying excessive positivity robs the organization and the employees of practice of their creativity, problem-solving, reasoning, critical thinking, communication, active-listening and countless other skills and abilities (Moran, 2019).

Perhaps a better approach would be a dialectical one.  Dialectics involves seeing things from multiple perspectives, where there can be more than one seemingly opposing truth present at the same time.  One conceptual applications used in dialectics that could be applied to leadership are the following “you’re doing the best that you can right now and you can do better”.  This acknowledges and validates the present reality and is directional in the future.  Another application is the Serenity Prayer.  Known to individuals in recovery from substances and addictive behaviors but applicable to all of humanity, it states “grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference”.  In following this, one realizes that two opposing truths can occur simultaneously – that one must accept in this moment what cannot be changed, while aspiring to create change in the future.  This application can also serve to validate followers’ experiences, identify problems without it seeming like a doomsday scenario, and facilitate hope.

 

References

Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2019). Warning for excessive positivity: Authentic leadership and other traps in leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(4), 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.04.001

Moran, G. (2019, November 27). Leaders, stop trying to be so positive and authentic – fast company. how to be a success at everything. Retrieved April 2, 2023, from https://www.fastcompany.com/90436454/leaders-stop-trying-to-be-so-positive-and-authentic

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2023). PSYCH 485: Lesson 11: Servant leadership.  Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/sp23/22311–16647/content/12_lesson/printlesson.html.

Labor Union and Management Influence Tactics

by

Never a more polarizing topic in the workplace has been than the debate for or against unions, particularly when both sides -managers and workers- weigh in.  Many workers would relish at the opportunity to have a union at their workplace.  The benefits of collective bargaining – from higher quality, more affordable healthcare to greater job security – can be hard to find in the private sector without a union.  Why are unions not more proliferous?  Some would argue that scare tactics used by management have largely been successful in obfuscating workers beliefs about their rights, and whether legally defensible or not, what employers may do in response to attempts to unionize (Lafer & Loustaunau, 2020).  “Union-avoidance consultants” take in roughly $340 billion annually from U.S. employers seeking to detour employees from going this route, using a combination of legal and illegal tactics (Lafer & Loustaunau, 2020, para. 1).

Some examples of shockingly legal tactics are depicted below:

“Forcing employees to attend daily anti-union meetings where pro-union workers have no right to present alternative views and can be fired on the spot if they ask a question.

Plastering the workplace with anti-union posters, banners, and looping video ads—and denying pro-union employees access to any of these media.

Instructing managers to tell employees that there’s a good chance they will lose their jobs if they vote to unionize.

Having supervisors hold multiple one-on-one talks with each of their employees, stressing why it would be bad for them to vote in a union.

Having managers tell employees that pro-union workers are ‘the enemy within.’

Telling supervisors to grill subordinates about their views on unionization, effectively destroying the principle of a secret ballot” (Lafer & Loustaunau, 2020, para. 2).

Once unionized, management has gone as far as to file for bankruptcy so that they can nullify their collective bargaining agreements, with the goal of restructuring with a lighter load (Jones, 2002; Peterson & Crawley, 2012).  I did a deep dive on the internet on this, as I remembered the scandals surrounding US Airways in 2002 and American Airways in 2012 over this plan.  A bankruptcy court judge can, but is not required to, grant this request under section 1113 of U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Peterson & Crawley, 2012).

Management has a valid concern: unions can be thought of third-party corporations which has exclusive right to supply labor to the firm, an unsettling fact which disrupts the sense of autonomy and injects fear of uncertainty regarding potential rising labor costs (Ozimek, 2014).  The core of this is the fear that union leaders will not believe or care if their demands are untenable, locking the firm into long-term contracts, destining it for unviability.  Companies argue that unionized workforces are less productive, that seniority- rather than merit-based promotions hinder innovation and growth, and increase company costs to be passed onto consumers (Blackwell, 2023).  The image of unions has been tarnished over the years due to lengthy strikes crippling entire industries and affected workers, corruption in union leadership made public in media coverage of legal scandals, examples of excessively paid union workers, and agreements which limited organizational production and increased costs (Collins, 2015).

How can we learn from history and our collective mistakes?  And how does this relate to leadership theory?  People sometimes use the words power, influence, and influence tactics interchangeably; in fact, power is the ability to affect change in another, influence is the change manifested, while influence tactics are the methods used to achieve said change (Hughes et al., 1993).  Power and Influence Theory informs us that there are several influence tactics used between leaders and followers.  Rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, ingratiation, personal appeals, exchange, coalition tactics, pressure tactics, and legitimizing tactics (PSU WC, 2023, p.6).  These are often used by either or both sides of the labor/management table when each is advocating for their competing interests.  An important note is that the “formal leader is not always the person who possesses the most power in a leadership situation, followers often can use a wider variety of influence tactics than the leader to modify the attitudes and behaviors of others” (Hughes et al., 1993, p.109).  Virtually nowhere is this more apparent in the workplace than in the labor union-management dyad.  We’ll explore each of these influence tactics then apply to a vignette, exploring suggestions for both sides.

Rational persuasion involves the use of logical argument and facts (PSU WC, 2023).  When asking for a raise, the union may point out that productivity has been 10-15% consistently over the past 3 years, for example, while management may counter that the cost of health insurance has increased by 20%, and they chose to absorb that cost rather than increase employees’ premiums.

Inspirational appeals can be good for “tough sells”, and may take the form of trying to bolster enthusiasm, positive emotions and support (PSU WC, 2023).  Unions rallying the employees for a new collective bargaining agreement might demand for stock options after the company has gone public, while arguing to the company that this will increase motivation, ownership, and loyalty amongst workers.  Management might likewise try to sell employees (and their union) on the long-term vision of profitability and revolutionizing the industry, but they might have to forgo or reduce raises for the next year to invest in R&D.

Consultation involves collaboration, input, feedback, and a sense of inclusion in decision-making (PSU WC, 2023).  This is seen ultimately at the bargaining table, but that may be pre-empted by the union and management using surveys of employees to determine what is most important to them, their appraisal of the organization’s report card on certain measures, and similar items.  The union representatives inform the employees what they plan to ask for at the bargaining meeting.  The employer uses their survey results to produce data to argue what is important, realistic, obtainable, and has the greatest utility.  This can also take the form of mediation, arbitration, and the handling of grievances (University of Minnesota edition, 2016).

Ingratiation is essentially “buttering up” before asking for something, in attempts to get the target in a good mood (PSU WC, 2023).  This might occur on a more micro-level, often when personal relationships have developed between union representatives and management.  The union representative might compliment the manager on their department’s growth prior to asking that they go lightly on an employee during an upcoming disciplinary meeting.  Similarly, the manager might attempt to influence the union representative by complimenting them on their work performance or always being fair with their union responsibilities before asking that they support the next phase in employee discipline.

Personal appeals are related to ingratiation, but those personal relationships are leaned into a little more (PSU WC, 2023).  The union representative might ask about the manager’s family and recall a shared positive memory, prior to their request.  The manager could remind the union representative of how they have always gotten along very well, consider them a friend.  In each case, the underlying argument is “please do this because it is important to me and we are friends”.

Exchange is otherwise known as quid pro quo, or translated, this for that, means an exchange of favors (PSU WC, 2023).  Another expression used for this is “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine”.  Rather than rely on a personal relationship or even flattery, this tactic can be used even when each party open despises the other.  Each one has something of value that the other wants.  This can lead to pressure tactics easily if the offer is not accepted.  The union might promise to handle a short-staffing issue, if management agrees to a different system regarding overtime.  Management might want less absenteeism, and employees want more paid time off and a raise.  Management may then offer unlimited paid time off and a bonus to those limiting their time off to 120 hours per year.

Coalition tactics emerge when an agreement is not readily reached, and support from others is sought (PSU WC, 2023).  This is where unions draw their strength, threatening to strike, picket, or boycott if an agreement is not reached (University of Minnesota edition, 2016).  They employ collective bargaining, drawing their strength from numbers.

Pressure tactics are used in attempt to dissuade, intimidate, or harass the target (PSU WC, 2023). This can be from management to employees, to prevent them from organizing into unions (Lafer & Loustaunau, 2020).  Once a union has formed and employees are on strike, they use lockouts to close the workplace to workers, or hire strike-breakers as replacements (University of Minnesota edition, 2016).  Supervisors can use these threatening, intimidation, harassment, disciplinary and similar tactics with employees.  Employees can likewise threaten to file a grievance if they believe the supervisor is acting beyond their rights, while the workforce can use strikes and boycotts (of the threat thereof) as their own form of pressure tactics (University of Minnesota edition, 2016).

Legitimizing tactics rely on one’s position of authority or status (PSU WC, 2023).  This involves how their respective roles relate to the target on a real or de-facto organization chart.  This can blend into pressure tactics easily with implied threats.  Until an organizational rule has been violated, in which case a grievance can be brought into the discussion, this often plays out like the manager issuing a directive to subordinates with the added emphasis “I’m not asking, I’m telling”, whether spoken verbally or nonverbally.

For a hypothetical company where unhappy workers are looking to unionize because they want more time off, financial incentives, and limits on mandatory overtime, we might see a number of these approaches used.  We will examine advisable initial strategies for both labor and management.

Labor should use inspirational appeals to fellow employees to gain union votes, citing problems that have arisen as a result of the status quo, and how these problems can be improved by unionizing.  They should combine these with a light version of coalition tactics to gain support from fellow employees, demonstrating solidarity.  To gain the support of certain influential employees, they might need to use ingratiation and personal appeals.  They will need to use some rational persuasion on the legality of employers’ threats to fire people if they unionize.  Once a meeting for a vote is arranged, union representatives will use legitimizing tactics, citing law and the power of their attorneys to support employees.

After the union is voted in, it will then ask for in volunteers to be representatives, who will gather input from employees on their interests, introducing consultative tactics.  The union representatives and leaders will attend a collective bargaining meeting with management, again invoking the consultative form of influence.  It will organize its argument from the perspective of the company, see things from their point of view, and find quantifiable data to support its requests, using rational persuasion.  Part of the bargaining process will involve exchange.  If agreement cannot be reached and an impasse has been reached, the union should rely upon coalition tactics.  If an agreement is made but management later breaches it, legitimizing tactics should be use to address the breach.

From a management perspective, when rumors of unionization begin to be heard, consultation tactics should be the first to be used to address the damaged relationship.  They should recognize employees have been feeling hurt or wronged in some way, and repairs need to be made.  Ingratiation can be part of that initial dialogue, communicating the value and worth of the employees, along with acknowledging any missteps by management affecting employees, taking ownership, and seeking amends.  If particular influential employees can be identified, any kind of personal appeals and repairs that can be made by management with those individuals should be done.  If some progress with repairs has been made, inspirational appeals may be effective, and exchange agreements may be reached.  To ensure order, managers may need to use legitimizing tactics to inform employees that they cannot do union-organizing tasks on company time.  If the workers do unionize, the company should gather its figures and statistics to be able to discuss what is feasible at the collective bargaining meetings.

Pressure tactics are ill-advised, as they often result in a lose-lose scenario, and should be used as a matter of last resort.  Decreased revenues, productivity, morale, and job satisfaction, and increased counterproductive work behaviors, absenteeism, and turnover can result, not to mention lost wages and potentially jobs as a result of strike.  Ultimately, there is potential for the employer to have to locate, hire and train an entirely new workforce, with considerable downtime, while the employee may have to look for new work.  Influence tactics as a whole, however, are not a “bad” thing; it is part of human nature to try to dialogue, get our point of view heard, and advocate for our needs.  The best definition of respect I recall hearing years ago was that respect is where you consider who your words or actions might affect, and take into consideration how they might affect them before acting.  And with that definition, I believe that a mutually beneficial arrangement can be reached between labor and management if they learn to respect each other.

 

References

Blackwell, S. (2023, January 26). The negative effects of labor unions on Corporations. Labor Law. Retrieved March 15, 2023, from https://theblackwellfirm.com/the-negative-effects-of-labor-unions-on-corporations/

Collins, M. (2015, March 23). The decline of unions is a middle class problem. Forbes. Retrieved March 15, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/03/19/the-decline-of-unions-is-a-middle-class-problem/?sh=2bd060557f2d

Hughes, R., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J (1993) Power and Influence. Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. Homewood, IL. Irwin. 0256102783. Ch. 5. pp. 107-131.

Jones, D. (2002, August 27). US Airways asks Bankruptcy Court to void Labor pacts. The New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/27/business/company-news-us-airways-asks-bankruptcy-court-to-void-labor-pacts.html

Lafer, G., & Loustaunau, L. (2020, July 23). Fear at work: An inside account of how employers threaten, intimidate, and harass workers to stop them from exercising their right to collective bargaining. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved March 14, 2023, from https://www.epi.org/publication/fear-at-work-how-employers-scare-workers-out-of-unionizing/

Ozimek, A. (2014, December 27). The difference between unions and corporations. Forbes. Retrieved March 15, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2014/12/27/the-difference-between-unions-and-corporations/

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2023). PSYCH 485:

Lesson 7: Power and Influence. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/sp23/22311–16647/content /08_lesson/printlesson.html

University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing edition, 2016. This edition adapted from a work originally produced in 2010 by a publisher who has requested that it not receive attribution. (2016, April 8). 7.6 Labor Unions. Exploring Business. Retrieved March 14, 2023, from https://open.lib.umn.edu/exploringbusiness/chapter/7-6-labor-unions/

Leadership Training

by

Leadership is viewed as a desirable and respected characteristic in the western culture of individualism.  Children are taught from a young age to aspire to be a leader, not a follower.  Nearly everyone has wanted to be a leader in one context or another.  To some, this comes naturally.  Regardless of your opinion of his politics, many people may secretly wish they had the charisma, the “it factor” of former President Bill Clinton.  That is just one leader prototype of several.  The concept of “organization personality” has been discussed as a factor affecting employee affiliation, selection, and ongoing support.  The predominant organizational personality types include “boy scout, innovativeness, dominance, thrift, and style” (Slaughter, et al., 2004, p.89).  One could reasonably assume that the best leader for such an organization would embody the organizational personality.

One of the greatest things about the skills approach, and the traits approach to a lesser degree, is that these skills and abilities may be learned, acquired, or at least enhanced through training.  A premise of the traits approach is that traits are innate.  While that may be true for some traits, such as height or IQ, other traits can be manipulated.  Let’s take attractiveness, which all morality aside, is thought to be a determinant in respect and acceptance of a leader.  Attractiveness can be enhanced through diet, exercise, a change of wardrobe, makeup, hair style, and even body modifications such as hair implants or bariatric surgery.  This is said to make a point, not to advocate that one should be pressured by the body-shaming present in this culture.  Intelligence, insight, cognitive ability, task knowledge, social and emotional intelligence, for example, are traits identified by theorists which fall under the umbrella of intelligence; these traits can likewise be enhanced through learning and practice, using cognitive exercises, social vignettes, subject matter instruction, and so on (Northouse, 2022).  We could categorize the rest of the traits similarly and train for them similarly.

Walmart Corporation has an interesting program for its employees, called One Global Walmart Academy (Stomski, 2022).  Other large companies have similar training programs, but for the sake of brevity we will focus on Walmart’s as a prototype.  Its program offers the opportunity for employees to develop on-the-job skills, skills needed for advancement, and leadership skills for those in or aspiring to be in management (Stomski, 2022).  The company explains that the leadership program will “focus on growing our leaders and teaching them more about Walmart history and culture, while giving them the opportunity to meet and learn from company leaders“ (Stomski, 2022, para. 4).  Though it does not go into great detail, we should pause to reflect on this concept.

A company with an established organizational personality reflected in its purpose statement seeks to train its management to embody that Boy Scout personality type through the material provided in the leadership training program as well as the acculturation through interaction with more senior leaders.

“We aim to build a better world — helping people live better and renew the planet while building thriving, resilient communities. For us, this means working to create opportunity, build a more sustainable future, advance diversity, equity and inclusion and bring communities closer together. And at the end of the day, helping our customers save more of their hard earned money for the things they care about most. Because at Walmart, Live Better is what we do every day” (Purpose, 2022).

Leadership skills can likewise be trained.  Katz’s three-skill approach identifies technical, human, and conceptual skills as categorical sets of skills required for effective leadership, with varying degrees of each needed according to the level of the management position (Northouse, 2022).  Katz’s model helped to encourage the notion that leadership skills are not innate, but able to be developed.  His 1950’s model jump-started the concept of a skills approach to leadership, which came to fruition with Mumford et al.’s evidence-based studies conducted by the US Army and Department of Defense in the 1990’s (Northouse, 2022).  The study identified individual attributes, competencies, and career and environmental factors affecting skills development, and the interaction of such on leadership outcomes (Northouse, 2022).  One could look at this with a fatalistic pessimism and surmise that if one had experienced negative career and environmental influences they would never become a leader, but that assumes that these factors are static, permanent, and unmalleable.  If one interprets this model a different way, it can be seen as empowering, optimistic, and hopeful – both an individual and organization can seek to change their career and environmental experiences, and thus shape skill development in a positive way.

Leadership skills and traits can be trained, with advanced programs training on embodiment of each organization personality.  One example of empirical support for this concept is reflected in the application of game-based learning to leadership skills, whereby participants utilize a risk-free simulation to experiment with choices and outcomes (Northouse, 2022).  This is an exciting concept, and demonstrates that research is beginning to catch up with the technology already available to and adopted by the consumer market and in the hard sciences.  We have seen “simulations” carried out in sports video games (i.e. Madden Football), social and sociological video games (i.e. The Sims, SImCity), as well as geologic and climatologic simulations and predictions, not to mention those used in computer models to apply biological models to disease spread, chemical combinations, and physics on the quantum, atomic to the universe level.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE.

Purpose. Corporate. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://corporate.walmart.com/purpose

Slaughter, J. E., Zickar, M. J., Highhouse, S., & Mohr, D. C. (2004). Personality trait inferences about organizations: Development of a measure and assessment of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.85

Stomski, L. (2022, June 2). Walmart launches one global Walmart Academy to help 2.3 million associates build and grow their careers. Corporate. Retrieved from https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2022/06/02/walmart-launches-one-global-walmart-academy-to-help-2-3-million-associates-build-and-grow-their-careers

Who Moved My Cheese, and Why the Heck Did They Do THAT?!?

by

A 1999 book titled Who Moved my Cheese? by Spencer Johnson is an endearing parable about the pursuit of what we seek in life. The setting is a maze, where two mice and two “littlepeople” go about their days searching for their respective favorite cheeses (Johnson, 1999).  The cheese supply at one designated location is gradually dwindling, which the mice notice but the littlepeople do not, so when the cheese supply dries up one day, the mice use their trial-and-error approach to adapt and look for the cheese elsewhere.  Not so for the littlepeople, who are dismayed by this turn of events and wail with righteous indignation and consternation.  One of the littlepeople, Haw, suggests that they look elsewhere, but the other, Hem, rejects this idea and the two blame each other for their predicament.  When Haw found “New Cheese”, Hem rejected that as well because it was not the cheese to which he was accustomed.  Eventually, Haw found a new location with an abundance of cheese, and summarized his reflections:

Change Happens. They Keep Moving The Cheese

Anticipate Change. Get Ready For The Cheese To Move

Monitor Change. Smell The Cheese Often So You Know When It Is Getting Old.

Adapt To Change Quickly. The Quicker You Let Go Of Old Cheese, The Sooner You Can Enjoy New Cheese

Change. Move With The Cheese

Enjoy Change! Savor The Adventure And Enjoy The Taste Of New Cheese!

Be Ready To Change Quickly And Enjoy It Again. They Keep Moving The Cheese (Johnson, 1999, p. 75).

How on earth does this relate to leadership one might ask.  Path-Goal Theory suggests that effective leaders focus their attention on the needs and motivators of their followers (Northouse, 2022).  Path-goal leaders make the path to the goal clear and easily traversable, free of obstruction, with intrinsically satisfying work needed to achieve the goal (Northouse, 2022).  In this context, what is depicted in the parable is a poor exercise of path-goal leadership by failing to make the path to the goal clear and failing to remove barriers.  The parable is a good example of leadership in practice, if viewed as a temporal function in an organization.  The tasks required, and rewards attained at an organization can change over time, which can contribute to employee malcontent.  A new hire might view their job duties as fixed, but over time the organization may change and add to those duties. This means that the employee has to do more to get their “cheese”.  The cheese can also change, such as when a healthcare benefits package changes; the employee may have to contribute more or the “top tier” may offer less than previously, for example.

Path-goal theory suggests that effective leadership informs followers of the steps, tasks and timeline required to obtain their cheese, making those steps and tasks as enjoyable as possible, reduces barriers to followers successfully adhering to this path, and provides the cheese as promised at that specified location.  If the cheese must be moved or replaced with new cheese, according to path-goal theory, the message should be delivered ahead of time that the cheeses at location C will be phased out, and within a reasonable timeframe to allow employees to find other employment arrangements if necessary (e.g. 6 months), new cheeses will be offered at location N, and these are the steps, tasks, and timeline required to obtain that cheese.  This represents the directive leadership component of path-goal theory, which dictates specific instructions, including deadlines and how to prioritize tasks when they are competing for time, for example (Northouse, 2022)

When path-goal theory is operating most effectively, the leader accepts feedback regarding obstacles and takes an active role in removing those obstacles; when this theory is not applied effectively, the leader places the responsibility on the employee to remove their own barriers (or face consequences).  This aspect is representative of the application of the supportive leadership component of this leadership theory, which seeks to facilitate followers in viewing the leader as friendly, caring, and invested in their well-being, make the work more pleasant, and increase followers’ confidence in ability to meet the goals (Northouse, 2022).

Application of the participative leadership principle to our parable, the littlepeople and mice should not only have been informed that the cheese was being moved, but been invited into a discussion about the proposal, where they could have been presented with the feasibility, costs and benefits of moving the cheese versus keeping it at location C, rationale for moving it, and offered to contribute alternate solutions.  Participative leadership involves shared decision-making, and can result in improved sense of belongingness, purpose, responsibility, as well as shared group goals, increased group cohesion and performance (Northouse, 2022).

The final leader behavior of this model is achievement-oriented leadership, which entails constant pursuit of excellence, and “raising the bar”, challenging followers to continually seek improvement and performing at the highest level (Northouse, 2022).  If seen through this lens, our parable may tell us that the mice and littlepeople became complacent, doing things how the had always been done, maintaining the status quo but not fostering growth and development.  Perhaps the leader moved the cheese so as to foster new learning, thought, adaptation, or acquisition of skills such as cooperation.

Path-goal theory predicts that follower traits determine which of these four leadership styles will be most effective with them on an individual level (Northouse, 2022).  It suggests that followers with a strong “need for affiliation” prefer supportive leadership, while those with “preferences for structure” prefer the directive type (Northouse, 2022, p.137).  Those with a higher level of “self-perceived task ability” respond more positively to a less directive approach, while the inverse is true for those with a lower sense of “self-perceived task ability” (Northouse, 2022).  The higher rated “self-perceived task ability” followers, however, might respond more favorably to an achievement-oriented approach.  Followers’ “desire for control” is yet another continuum quality, where their perceived locus of control influences their preference for participative versus directive leadership (Northouse, 2022).  The more a follower perceives an internal locus of control, the more they prefer participative leadership, while the more that a follower perceives an external locus of control, the more they prefer directive leadership (Northouse, 2022).  The more simple-minded mice in our parable adapt quickly, almost indifferently to the change of cheese location.  They found location C through trial and error, noticed the dwindling supply and accepted when the change occurred; they found location N using the same method rather than challenge the rationale as did the littlepeople.  The mice would have responded well to a directive approach, as it seems they would have had a lower sense of “self-perceived task ability” and external locus of control.  The littlepeople, on the other hand, preferred their daily cheese-gathering routine and thus had a “preference for structure”, but also believed this to be an autonomous function and thereby possessed a more internal locus of control.  They likely would have responded better to a combination of participative and directive approaches.

We can learn a great deal from this simple story, and one of those lessons involves application (and misapplication) of leadership theory.  Yes, we can point out the faults of the littlepeople for bickering and refusing to adapt, or even the mice for failing to question change or apply reasoning and problem-solving skills.  But if we step back from this Skinner box and take a look at the experimenters, there are a few things we can learn from and about them as well.

References

Johnson, S. (1999). Who moved my cheese? Random House.

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE.

The “Great Resignation” – where are we now?

by

The COVID-19 pandemic first resulted in a wave of unemployment, after businesses were forced to close due to restrictions on those not categorized as essential workers.  Initially, those left working were grateful to still have an income during uncertain times.  The pandemic unemployment packages changed all of that however, as did the gradual re-opening of businesses and development of the first vaccines.  That’s when things started to get interesting in the job market.  Businesses began demanding that workers who had been working remotely for at least a year, often more productively than ever, return to the office.  While one company may have tried to lure workers back in with food and parties, while another offered hybrid work scheduling, and another mandated a return to 9-to-5 or face termination, a phenomenon began emerging in the workforce.  They did not want to go back to pre-pandemic work, they wanted something more.  At the same time, because many people stayed on the pandemic unemployment, it was a workers’ market.  They realized that many job openings plus not enough workers equals leverage.

Sometimes forced to return to tasks without apparent logic or reason, employees engaged in the counterproductive work behavior called “quiet quitting”, referring to throttling down to the bare minimum effort needed to get by (Jones, 2022).  Those that could find a job better fitting their expectations left in the “Great Resignation” in 2021 and 2022 (Jones, 2022).  Managers’ response to their “quiet quitters”?  “Quiet firing”, or failing to provide opportunities to employees, effectively “dead-ending” their job at that company (Jones, 2022).

The tension between employers and employees over return-to-office policies could not be higher.  A survey of 1000 US workers revealed that 60% would rather quit their job than return 5 days per week (Jones, 2022).  That survey also concluded that although 86% of respondents work mostly remotely now, 79% reported their employers want them to return to full-time on-site work, but have not yet established a rigid mandate (Jones, 2022).   If this survey is any indication of sentiments of the US workforce in general, that workplaces everywhere are on the precipice of turmoil.  Other items on employees’ priorities list include: flexible hours, career development opportunities, increased wages in response to the economic recession, and mental health support (Jones, 2022).

Theories underlying this push to return-to-office include administrators’ lack of trust in employees’ amount of effort (versus slacking) and ability to work and collaborate effectively when working remotely, in addition to the overhead costs of an underutilized building (Jones, 2022).  Employees are likely insulted by this lack of trust, administration having been exempt from mandated in-office hours even before the pandemic, and wonder why the company does not just downsize its overhead footprint.

This frustration can be expected given Carsten’s (2014) perspectives on followership (Northouse, 2019).  They “get the job done” when given an objective, and demonstrated their ability to do so while adapting to myriad of changes in a short period of time at the beginning of the pandemic (Northouse, 2019).  They question why they should have to return when they had been successfully doing their work remotely for years.  Most followers intuitively “work in the best interest of the organization’s mission”, putting the needs of the organization over those of the leader (Northouse, 2019).  They get frustrated by inefficiencies, redundancies, wastes of time and money, whether that be their own or the organization’s.  If the worker knows that if they return to the office, they will be interrupted much more often with irrelevant, unnecessary, or inconvenient demands on their attention, their productivity will decline.  Effective followers challenge their leaders and provide information from a perspective to which the leaders are blind; when leaders listen, this can help the organization operate more efficiently (Northouse, 2019).

Given the outcry from workers, and employers’ deaf response, the seed of distrust mentioned earlier is sown in the workers’ field.  Having been told that many of their leaders practice leadership styles fostering value and belongingness, such as transformational, servant, or inclusive leadership, employees recognize that these actions are the antithesis of those styles (Northouse, 2019).    Many organizations assert that emotional intelligence is a core virtue for their group (Northouse, 2019).  When an organization claims that it values emotional intelligence, but responds so callously and with double-talk justifications for the return to office, employees leave the interaction perceiving the employer does not value them or their input.

Employer-employee relations have become more tense, reaching an impasse over this chasm.  Each side has become more distrustful of the other, and employees’ sense of organizational justice has plummeted.  Offering catered lunch on Fridays or free company “swag” is not likely to appease employees.  It seems that given the current state of the economy, employers might be looking at choosing at least one of the following alternative solutions: downsizing with layoffs (with the first round being remote workers), downsizing the organization’s real estate- moving to smaller offices, or settling with a hybrid work and flexible scheduling compromise.

 

References

Jones, J. (Ed.). (2022, October 12). Once again, workers say they would rather quit than return to the Office.  ZDNET. Retrieved January 29, 2023, from https://www.zdnet.com/article/once-again-workers-say-they-would-rather-quit-than-return-to-the-office/

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Followership. Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE.

Skip to toolbar