Olivia K Lewis

Can we ever resolve the conflict between good and bad?

April 26, 2014 by Olivia K Lewis

What is ethics? How does it relate to morality and altruism? Does ethical behavior make a leader effective? In society today, we are bombarded daily with news flashes of a scandal or violation by someone in the public eye. Individuals we look upon as leaders or even role models. Because we see these transgressions on a daily basis, the study of ethics is always a timely pursuit. How do we then bridge the gap between the definitions of good and bad leadership, moral and immoral behavior, altruistic or self-serving motivations to arrive at a place and definition everyone can agree on? We are faced with the ever evolving definition of leadership and our attempts to overlay or join ethics within that definition. If we return to the original definition of leadership by Northouse (2013), “Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5), we can conclude that the ethics of the leader and their actions will permeate the group and set the tone for the actions of the followers. “Leaders play a major role in establishing the ethical climate of their organizations” (Northouse, 2013, p. 428). The connection between leaders and followers and their behaviors is clear. The question remains, what is ethical behavior? How do we know if a leader has a code of ethics they use as the scaffold for their daily lives? Where does morality fit?

Is a person a good leader if they act ethically in all manners but do not affect real change? What about the person that employs the Robin Hood technique? Their actions of stealing is unethical but giving to the poor is ethical. Where do they fall? “History defines successful leaders largely in terms of their ability to bring about change for better or worse” (Ciulla, 2004, p. 310). Ciulla (2004) describes this conundrum as “the Hitler problem” (p. 307). As a society, we have condemned Hitler for his decisions and actions. His actions were evil and immoral. When we look at the meaning of leadership, can we also say that Hitler was an effective leader? If we consider Heifetz’s (1994) contributions to ethical leadership scholarship, it could be argued that yes, Hitler was an effective leader. According to Ciulla (2004), Heifetz’s (1994) argument was “under the ‘great man’ and trait theories of leadership, you can put Hitler, Lincoln, and Gandhi in the same category because the underlying idea of the theory is that leadership is influence over history” (pp. 307-308). Heifetz (1994) believes that “leaders must use authority to mobilize people to face tough issues” (Northouse, 2013, p. 429).

I believe using Hitler as an example to challenge our views of ethics and leadership is extreme. At the same time we cannot dismiss those actions as a blip in history because Hitler was an extremely charismatic leader. I am illustrating that along the vast spectrum from good to evil, ethical to unethical and every point in between there are conflicting conclusions about the effectiveness of a good leader. In my readings about ethics and leadership, the conclusion I have drawn is there is no single conclusion. Nor will there ever be. Studying ethics should always remain at the forefront of our actions in order to live an ethical existence. Can we really define ethical if we do not see unethical, sometimes in the same person or the same action? The adage that you cannot have good unless you have bad to compare it to seems relevant. I believe we will continue to stumble along not pinpointing a single conclusion or idea. I believe it is the journey that will keep us ethical.

— O. Lewis

References:

Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Ethics and leadership effectiveness. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 302-327). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Image: http://www.releasingtruth.com/2013/10/discernment-good-vs-bad-overflow/

Image: http://scottsthotz.wordpress.com/category/ethics/

How can I apply this to my future success?

February 23, 2014 by Olivia K Lewis

Image 1 – Obstacles

I took the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) test and was rather surprised by the results. I consider myself to be a people person. In the workplace, I have a keen sense of how to solve problems in a manner that benefits both parties. I am one of a few that is able to bridge groups and remain friendly with all parties. I have worked with some extremely difficult individuals to the point of anxiety, depression and fear of the work environment. As I took the test with one difficult co-worker in mind and I tallied my numbers, I was surprised to see a score of 54. I doubted the results and took the test again with a different coworker. My score was a 46. This says that I am task-oriented, concerned with results. How can that be when I use my people skills to successfully navigate obstacles in the workplace?

“A leader’s LPC score is akin to a basic aspect of his or her personality (e.g., assertiveness), and as such, it should be relatively stable and difficult to change over the short run” (Schriesheim & Neider, 2006, p. 452).This makes sense but it fixes aspects of my personality in place and doesn’t allow for change. I like many others, want to think that over time my personality will grow and change, yet I’m sensing a boundary. “[L]ow-LPC leaders are more effective under very favorable and unfavorable conditions” (Schriesheim, Tepper, & Tetrault, 1994, p. 562). I do prefer extreme situations rather than moderately favorable situations, “that is, in situations that are going along very smoothly or situations that are out of of control” (Northouse, 2013, p. 125). I have been in many unfavorable conditions which gave rise to the coworkers that were the subjects of my LPC test.

“Leadership effectiveness is most easily enhanced by changing the situation rather than by trying to alter the leader’s style” (Schriesheim & Neider, 2006, p. 452). Changing the surroundings especially in the workplace is not always feasible. If I truly had the power to change the workplace, I would have done so a long time ago. I am a task-oriented leader who works best in extreme situations. How can I use this information to my advantage? Can this help me in those scenarios that fit between the extremes? I am good at creating and maintaining positive leader-member relations. I can also adjust my coaching depending on whether I am sensing that an individual needs explicit directions or has a good handle on the subject matter. The variable that I cannot control is position power. The good news is I am on a track to increase my position power and I can use my knowledge of contingency theory to ensure my future success.

Image 2 – Success

— O. Lewis

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Schriesheim, C. A., Tepper, B. J., and Tetrault, L. A. (1994). Least preferred co-worker score, situational control, and leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contingency model performance predictions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 561–573.

Image 1 retrieved from: http://blog.inclusivastrategies.com/2012/10/transcending-small-business-obstacles.html February 23, 2014.

Image 2 retrieved from: http://blog.fitmarkbags.com/2013/11/21/looking-beyond-the-surface/ February 23, 2014.

Leadership training in the modern workplace

February 9, 2014 by Olivia K Lewis

Leadership has been a huge buzz word in the workplace for some time. The underlying theme is the way to a happy work environment is to empower employees to have a greater say in their daily work, provide opportunities for training, and encourage leadership. What does that mean exactly? What makes a good leader? We must go back to the beginning and recall Northouse’s (2013) definition, “Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5).

Over the past few weeks, we have been introduced to theories that attempt to explain why certain individuals are successful leaders. Are these qualities inborn? According to trait theory, “It is the leader and the leader’s personality that are central to the leadership process” (Northouse, 2013, p. 29). Are the qualities learned? The skills approach states, “Through job experience and training, leaders can become better problem solvers and more effective leaders” (Northouse, 2013, p. 57). Can we use psychodynamic theory to uncover our true nature so that we may understand why we react as we do in certain situations? “In the psychodynamic approach, personality types are emphasized and evidence is presented that suggests that various personality types are better suited to particular leadership positions or situations” (Northouse, 2013, p. 319).

These are all important questions especially while studying individuals in recognized leadership roles, i.e., CEOs, VPs of corporations and even Deans of universities and colleges. When happiness in the workplace is discussed, we are not speaking about those individuals, we are describing the state of the rank and file employee. I have been a rank and file employee my entire career and I have benefitted from the decades of research put into studying leadership. Employers use this research to develop their own strategies. Given what we know about these approaches, employers cannot change who a person is fundamentally. The use of Jung’s typology with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (c) (MBTI) is to help employees understand themselves better but it doesn’t go so far that employees can use the information to relate to each other in a more productive manner. The method left is the skills approach and it is the best strategy employers have to develop future leaders.

Vast amounts of money go into the development of training modules designed to teach leadership skills. “…[A] leader’s effectiveness depends on the leader’s ability to solve complex organizational problems” and that “[K]nowledge and abilities are needed for effective leadership” (Northouse, 2013, p. 43). Penn State is no different with leadership training for individuals, administrative support staff, supervisors, and teams. Does this create a happier workplace? It has been my experience that it helps to a point and then becomes a means for disgruntlement. It is like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. The nature of the job would need to be changed to accommodate leadership in order to see successful results.

As I stated previously, I have benefitted from such strategies and while I have a cap on the level of leadership I can exhibit, I will continue to educate myself with an eye on the future. The research in this area will continue to provide new strategies and should be encouraged.

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Image retrieved from http://potentials.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/leadership-button.jpg

Marx, Engels, Jung, Myers and Briggs

February 1, 2014 by Olivia K Lewis

Leadership keeps popping up as the big buzz word in the workplace. It is an occurrence that cycles around on a predictable basis. That rotation goes like this: Workplace is at a steady state. All employees feel valued and are content. The surroundings begin to cool off and the true conditions of the workplace begin to rise up. The divide between those with power and those without begins to expand to a gaping chasm. The discontent settles in and all of the higher-ups jump to attention. They decide the best way to appease the masses is to help them feel empowered and part of the work organism. Everyone is called a leader, given training (usually by way of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ©), and for a while the conditions are again at a steady state.

The recurring issue of employee discontent is described first by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848/1963). The Communist Manifesto (1848/1963) described the phenomenon between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie identifying the nature of their relationship as that which perpetuated the clash. This may seem extreme but the underlying ideas are relevant; it is about the haves and the have nots. Today’s workplace is much the same; those higher-ups who have and those on the front line who have not. I can say that my work experience has clearly shown this relationship. The back and forth tugging results in exactly the cycle I described above.

I have been part of the proletariat all of my working life. I have experienced the range of disgruntlement, I have stayed silent and at times, I too have risen up in protest. The administration’s trick up the sleeve in response to the disgruntled proletariat is always training. I have been analyzed and tagged as one particular type or another many times. Carl Jung in the 1920s classified individuals by personality types. The four overarching dimensions these personality types come from are the way an individual gathers information, the way an individual derives energy, the way an individual makes decisions, and whether an individual plans ahead or lives off the cuff (Northouse, 2013, p. 330). The sixteen personality types that come from these four dimensions is the impetus for how administration or management can give employees the sense of autonomy and leadership.

I have often been called a natural leader. I have been praised for my demeanor and my ability to get others to work together. Personally I do not see myself as they do but I can see results. The management sees my strengths as stemming from my ISFP or ISTP personality, with my close score on the decision-making dimension another asset. The values associated with those types do describe me and are useful in the workplace, efficiency and cooperation (Northouse, 2013, p. 335). Administration/management praise my pragmatic, proficient, flexible synergy (Northouse, 2013, p. 335) as a rare gift and demonstrative of my natural leadership skills. During the release phase of the employee discontent cycle, I am praised and artificially given power by leadership. The realization of the artificiality begins the degradation to unhappiness.

Employees at all levels can have their personality types evaluated. They can be given training to fill in the gaps according to their place in the work environment. As much as organizations work at this, what remains consistent is the lack of attention to “the culture of the organization, its structure, and the particular kinds of challenges and tasks it faces” (Northouse, 2013, p. 340). Not to mention the fact that the psychodynamic approach cannot change the fundamental nature of an individual. Where does that leave the workplace? The identification of personality type is beneficial but it is those little caveats like situation that aren’t able to be factored into the leadership equation. I wonder if in Marx and Engles time they had Jung’s personality tools, would it have made the class struggle a mere blip in history?

–O. Lewis

References:

Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1963). The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Retreived from http://www.heinonline.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.cow/comanif0001&id=1&collection=cow&index=cow/comanif#1 (Original work published 1848)

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

Image retrieved from: http://www.niagarainflatables.com/index.php/products/tug-of-war-rope

Image retrieved from: http://phys.org/news/2011-05-ivory-tower-myth.html

Expectations of Integrity and Morality

January 25, 2014 by Olivia K Lewis

The definition of leader has been studied and refined over the decades. Northouse (2013) has a simple definition, “Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5). This gives a skeletal framework for recognizing leadership but what exactly does it look like. What are the nuances? “Consider the following leaders: Hammurabi, Cyrus the Great, Pericles, Asoka…Adolf Hitler…Indira Gandhi, Idi Amin, and Fidel Castro” (Simonton, 2010, p. 630). Great leaders both kind and cruel, all defined by the same common attributes. We can see the pieces of the definition of leadership in their reign of power. The common goal is what the leader envisioned (good or bad), the group described the people who followed willingly or not, and all of these leaders exhibited influence over a time, growing and refining their message. It begs the question, when we have examples throughout history of both good and bad, why are people surprised when our modern leaders fall from grace.

Trait theory is the study of personality attributes in an attempt to determine what is unique about leaders. Why are some individuals catapulted to fame or infamy and others contribute but are never acknowledged? Is there a secret formula that if recreated, could produce the next great leader? It has been shown there are traits in these leaders they all have in common. “His [Ralph Stogdill] results showed that a person who holds a position of leadership surpasses the average member of the group in several ways, including intelligence, scholarship, dependability, and sociability” (Wynn, 2006, 1029).

Leaders have always been in the news and there is usually a scandal behind their shine in the spotlight. Just recently we have seen the Toronto mayor, Rob Ford, who admitted smoking crack, the former chief-of-staff to Sen. Lamar Alexander, Ryan Loskarn, charged with possessing child pornography, Anthony Weiner, and Gov. Chris Christie. As leaders, they all seemingly possessed the same traits, “intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability” (Northouse, p. 23). One precipitous event befalls them and they are delivering an apology scripted by their speechwriter. What if we have wrongly attributed morality and integrity amongst the other good attributes and this scandalous persona is the real individual? “Although evidence was found for the genetic transfer of intelligence and life span, morality and leadership was more subject to role modeling effects” (Simonton, 2010, p. 636).

We are predominantly a Christian society which puts that set of values on top of the characteristics we have come to expect of our leaders. This is ingrained into our psyche by religious leaders and politicians alike. Arnold Ludwig’s (2002) study of 20th century heads of state showed, “that the individual’s type of leadership could be discriminated according to such variables as scholastic performance…sexual profligacy…courage or bravery in battle…mania, anxiety, paranoia and cognitive impairment” (Simonton, 2010, p. 635). Further, Ludwig’s (2002) seven predictors of leadership are, “dominance, contrariness, presence, agent of change, vanity, courage, and wary unease” (Simonton, 2010, p. 635). One could make the argument that while we expect morality and integrity, in reality, those in power have always and will always have the immoral person just under the mask of good.

We see that leaders and leadership are both good and bad and share many of the same characteristics. We have been shown that the moral attributes of a leader are not genetic but as a result of modeling. This role modeling has a long history of immoral leaders from which to learn how to lead. Despite the multitude of immoral examples throughout history, our predominantly Christian society expects moral and pious behavior. This incongruous set of expectations gives us leaders like President Bill Clinton who was caught lying about an immoral act, retained his presidency and has gone on to remain a prominent member of society. Morality and integrity are essential to building trust and creating a welcoming environment. With so many examples exhibiting the contrary, perhaps the world isn’t ready to give up pillaging and plundering that catapulted individuals to power and ruined societies in the not so distant past. It may be pure morality and integrity is not within us at this time and our expectations should be shifted to an area that can truly make a difference.

— O. Lewis

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications, Inc.

Simonton, D. K. (2010). Personality and Leadership. In R. A. Couto (Ed.), Political and Civic Leadership (pp. 630-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Wynn, S. R. (2006). Trait Theory. In Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership and Administration. Ed. (pp. 1029-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.