The team concept is one that for many organizations is the most important aspect of their business model.  It is said that this type of structure is an important way for companies to remain competitive because of their ability to respond quickly and adapt to constant, rapid changes. (Northouse, 2016) Shared leadership also helps organizations progress, makes them more efficient, and benefits their team in regards to less conflict, and more cohesion and trust.  It is also thought that this shared team concept when applied to organizational leadership in companies becomes the key to their effectiveness.

At Penn State, where I work, my department has formal leaders, but they also value the opinions and ideas of the team as a whole.  Annually, we organize two strategic planning meetings where all 200 employees gather to give their feedback on things that may help the department function better.   Individually, I also value the shared leadership theory with my team of 15 employees, as they stand on the front lines of the organization, and so I believe that they have valuable ideas for progress, innovation, efficiency and effectiveness.  My team and I meet weekly to discuss the progress of our building, and they know that their suggestions are always considered and opinions heard.  I empower them to make decisions daily, knowing that this helps them to buy into what we are doing as an organization.  According to Northouse (2016), “shared team leadership occurs when members of the team take on leadership behaviors to influence the team and to maximize team effectiveness. (pg. 365)

Another reason for the value of shared leadership is that even the best of leaders need help making decisions.  It seems rare that organizations’ leaders have all the skills and knowledge to make every decision.  It is for this reason that the concept of shared leadership is the key to an effective organization.  According to Carson et. al. (2007), “the complexity and ambiguity that teams often experience make it unlikely that a single external leader can successfully perform all necessary leadership functions.” (pg. 1217)

Many employees seek autonomy in their work, especially those with expert skill and knowledge.  For these employees, they seek to supply this knowledge and skill for the greater good of the team.  These team members “desire a greater opportunity to shape and participate in the leadership functions of their teams” (Carson et. al 2007).  Not only is it good for the autonomy of the team members, but it is also beneficial to the team chemistry.  It is shown that “teams with shared leadership have less conflict, more consensus, more trust, and more cohesion than teams that do not have shared leadership” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 365).

Organizations can benefit from the concept of shared leadership because of the numerous reasons that were previously listed.  There are also other benefits as stated by Carson et. al (2007), who wrote that “when team members voluntarily and spontaneously offer their influence to others in support of shared goals, shared leadership can provide organizations with competitive advantage through increases in commitment, in the personal and organizational resources brought to bear on complex tasks, in openness to reciprocal influence from others, and in the sharing of information” (pg. 1217). These reasons provide the details of why the team concept of shared leadership in my opinion is the key to the effectiveness of any quality organization.

 

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P.E., Marrone, J.A. (2007). Shared Leadership In Teams: An Investigation Of Antecedent Conditions And Performance. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 5, 1217–1234. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.bwl.uni-muenchen.de/download/unterlagen-ws12_13/leadership_and_learning/literature_hoegl1/carson_et_al_2007.pdf

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

I was watching 60 minutes last night and was enthralled by the piece on Kim Jong-Un, the mysterious supreme leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  I don’t know much about Kim, but in my little bit of research, it looks as though Kim was handed down power through appointment by his late father, but doesn’t seem to have the influence to go along with the power.  Leading me to believe that power and influence are not one in the same, especially in this case.  Just because one wields power, doesn’t mean that they have influence as well.

According to the text (2017), “Power is the capacity to cause change and influence is the degree of actual change in attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors”. (PSU WC, pg.1) The ways in which leaders change these values, attitudes, behaviors and beliefs is through the use of influence tactics. (PSU WC, 2017) As previously noted, Kim’s source of power was given to him by his father’s appointment, and he has not gotten it from his followers.  He certainly has the capacity to cause change, and has done so by executing and removing many senior officials, and has even killed two of his top advisors, his uncle and his brother. (Biography.com, 2017)

This is a show of two bases of power- his legitimate power and his coercive power.  The legitimate power is that which he was assigned as the authority figure of North Korea, and his coercive power is his ability to control others through fear. (PSU WC, 2017) Through these flexes of power, Kim has failed to change his peoples’ values and attitudes.  They go along with his agenda for fear of the certainty of retaliation which ultimately could mean their death.

Kim’s motives seem to be based on a need for power.  More importantly his need for personalized power.  He has such a penchant for power that he created his own time zone citing he was “throwing off a hated vestige of colonial domination” (Sang-Hun, 2015) by the Japanese Imperialists.  Kim has a high need for personalized power and is the epitome of everything that it embodies such as selfishness, impulsive behavior, and an uninhibited lack of self-control. (PSU WC 2017) Rather than use inspirational appeals for influence tactics and create enthusiasm, he uses legitimizing and pressure tactics. He uses his position of authority and threats to carry out his influence. (PSU WC, 2017)

Kim Jong-Un doesn’t have referent-influential power, but rather has coercive power with little influence at all.   There are a couple things his iron fist style can teach us about leadership.  What not to do when trying to motivate and influence, and just because one has power, doesn’t necessarily mean he has influence.  The two terms are definitely not synonymous.

Thank you for clearing that up Kim Jong-Un.

 

Biography.com Editors. (2017). Kim Jong-un Biography retrieved from http://www.biography.com/people/kim-jong-un-21125351

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2017). PSYCH 485: Lesson 6: Contingency and Path Theories. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1834746/modules/items/21755148

Sang-Hun, C. (2015). North Korea to Move 30 Minutes Backward to Create Its Own Time Zone retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/world/asia/north-korea-time-zone.html?_r=0

 

As I first started reading about Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, I couldn’t stop thinking about a polarizing former head coach in the National Football League.  His name is Rex Ryan, a former head coach for the Buffalo Bills and the New York Jets.  In looking at situational favorability and how it relates to Rex, it seems as though he excels at the leader-member relation, and as a head coach, has a position of power, but he struggles with task structure.  Even though he excels in two of the three situational favorability categories, telling us that his situation is moderately favorable, he has struggled to successfully lead his teams. (PSU WC, 2017) This has lead to dismissal from both head coaching positions, most recently, not even making it two years before losing his position as the Buffalo Bills head coach.  I wonder where Rex has failed, as he has been known as a “player’s coach”, thus excelling in the relationships with his followers, but has failed to produce results on the field.

According to Northouse (2016), “The stated goal of leadership theory is to enhance follower performance and follower satisfaction by focusing on follower motivation” (Northouse, pg.115).  Rex has fit this goal wherever he has coached.  It seems as though Rex always has the side of the players and their support.  It has been written that “despite a fourth straight year without a playoff berth, Ryan has not lost the locker room. In fact, there might not be a single player in that room who wants to see Ryan gone. And although it’s not unusual for players on losing teams to support an embattled coach, the passion and loyalty that players show in talking about Ryan seems genuine” (Glauber, 2014, pg. 1).  This shows that the leader- member relation, the most powerful determinant in deciding overall situational favorability (PSU WC, 2017), is high in Rex’s case.  It is also said that leaders in this model attempt to enhance the followers’ goal attainment by providing rewards in the work environment.( Northouse, 2016, pg. 115) Rex was a believer in this philosophy by giving players’ off every Monday following team wins. It was also known that he had given them a day off to attend a local celebrity golf tournament in order to strengthen the team building atmosphere around the organization.

Rex’s task management was sub par, as displayed on the field with coaching errors, such as not having enough players on the field or not using timeouts correctly several times throughout his tenure  These are elementary mistakes that cost the team wins, but are large responsibilities of a head coach’s position.  As a result, he must place much of the task management in the hands of his followers.  Despite his inability to manage tasks proficiently, Rex held a position of power, another key to Fiedler’s Contingency Model of situational favorability. (PSU WC, 2017) This gave him strong leader position power.  Rex had great leader-member relations and had a position of power, but struggled with task management.  Judging by this combination, it looks like Rex Ryan had a moderately favorable situation which according to the Fiedler model, “groups led by leaders concerned with establishing and maintaining relationships (high LPC) seem to do best” (PSU WC, 2017).  If this type of leader performs best in what seemed to be an ideal situation to suit his style, why has Rex remained unsuccessful?

I think that the answer lies in the fact that Rex’s followers were unable to perform their own tasks at a high level.  Since task management is an area that Rex struggles with, he places the burden to manage tasks on the members of his team.  Fiedler’s model uses a measure known as LPC (Least Preferred Co-worker).  Even though I haven’t measured Rex’s LPC, I believe it to be high because of his ability to have positive relationships with his followers.  It is thought that high LPC leaders are effective in moderately favorable situations because they will be able to deal with the relationship issues of the team while the tasks can be performed on their own by the followers.(PSU WC, 2017)  In Rex’s case, if he keeps a good working relationship between all of the team players, then they should in turn take care of their on the field tasks.  Unfortunately, when the players struggle to perform on the field, the leader will be deemed ineffective.  In this case, it seems as though a high leader-member relationship is trumped by sub par task management.  This situation remains one of the weaknesses of Fiedler’s Contingency Theory.  The contingency theory at times, fails to fully explain why some leadership styles do not work in situations where they seem to be ideal. (PSU WC, 2017)  Such may be the case with Rex.

Rex’s situational favorability seemed to match- as he was great with relationships, had the power to make decisions, but lacked in task management.  This moderately favorable situation most times favors a high LPC leader like Rex because his team members thrive in their ability to effectively carry out the tasks that they are given.  In Rex’s case, the tasks weren’t performed well by the players on the field, leading to his style becoming ineffective, and ultimately resulting in his dismissal as the leader of two football teams.  The contingency theory recommends putting the right leader in the right situation (PSU WC 2017), it looks like Rex may need to find a better situational fit next time if he wants to remain a viable head coach.

Glauber, B.(2014). Players Want Rex Ryan Back. Newsday. Retrieved from

http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/bob-glauber/players-want-rex-ryan-back-1.9639690

Northouse, P.G. (2016).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University WC (2017). Fiedler’s Contingency Model. Lesson 6 Contingency Path Theories. Pennsylvania State University. Pennsylvania. Retrieved February 14th, 2017 from https://psu.instructure.com/courses

Emotional intelligence is a relatively new leadership trait that has been on the hot seat in regards to its importance to the study of leadership.  It has been around since the early 1990’s, so there isn’t a vast amount of research on the topic, but there are some that swear by it, and others, that cast doubt on its usefulness in leadership.

Emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize, understand, and manage one’s own emotions as well as the emotions of others.  As it relates to the trait approach of leadership theory, emotional intelligence may be a key aspect to becoming a great leader, and those that have the ability to read others emotions will be successful in a leadership role and beyond.  It has become so popular that schools are teaching forms of it and many companies have placed it in their training regimens.  Some believe that emotional intelligence is as important as IQ is for success in leadership and other constructs.

“Some researchers, such as Goleman, suggested that emotional intelligence plays a major role in whether people are successful at school, home, and work”(Northouse, 2016, pg.28).  Goleman also indicated that EI accounted for 67% of the abilities deemed necessary for superior performance in leaders, and mattered twice as much as technical expertise or IQ. (Goleman, 1998)

Many great leaders use emotional intelligence to stir up the emotions of their followers.  Take Donald Trump for example.  Trump’s fiery speeches and obnoxious behavior was a way to use his emotional intelligence to sway voters in his favor, ultimately winning the election.  There must be some truth to the fact that it is important to leadership- Trump is the new leader of the free world.  “As a leadership ability or trait, emotional intelligence appears to be an important construct” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 28)

Being able to read the emotions of others, and speak intelligently to those emotions will help to motivate people, but this trait may only be successful in certain workplaces.  Mainly those that deal with the emotions of people on a daily basis.  If a leader is attempting to motivate his accounting staff or his group of architects, do you think that emotional intelligence is going to be his go to method?  Probably not because their work doesn’t lend itself to an outpouring of emotions, or the necessity of a leader to read into their emotions.  Their work is cut and dry with formulas, numbers and the correct angles.  This differs from the leader that is trying to get better performance out of the sales staff or those that are in the customer service department, then emotional intelligence is a valuable trait to have.

The scientific community also has problems with the views of Goleman.  There are detractors that believe that emotional intelligence can’t be measured, and so it may not lead to valid claims on whether or not it can be used effectively in leadership.  According to Grewal and Salovey, “The biggest problem one faces in trying to use an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence is how to determine correct answers.  Unlike traditional intelligence tests, emotional intelligence tests can lack clear right or wrong solutions” (Grewal & Salovey, 2005, pg.8).   It is also not proven that emotional intelligence testing can predict success in job performance.  Lastly, it has been said that emotional intelligence can be learned, but this is also under much scrutiny.  Some believe that it can be taught, but others believe that it is innate and those that are skilled in emotional intelligence are born with it.

If it could be learned, then not only would it fit into the trait approach of leadership, but would also be viewed as a skill that would be in high demand.  What do you think about emotional intelligence?  Is it a vital trait/ skill in leadership or is it just a trivial quality that has little to no value on leadership potential.  You be the judge.

 

Goleman, D. (1998). Working With Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY. Bantum Books.

Grewal, D., & Salovey, P. (2005). Feeling Smart: The Science of Emotional Intelligence. American Scientist. Retrieved fromhttp://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/feeling-smart-the-science-of-emotional-intelligence/8

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory & Practice. (7th ed). Los Angeles: Sage
Publications

 

How will leadership look in the future with more automation right around the corner?  With the growth of technology that is taking over industries throughout the world, what type of leader will be effective, and how will leadership styles change to accommodate the computerization ahead.

I managed restaurants for a decade, and all of my employees were human beings.  This meant that sociability was a key trait to have as leading employees well through interaction was paramount to the success of the operation.  With the increase of automated systems, especially in restaurants, the key leadership traits are going to shift from ones such as sociability and extraversion to task knowledge and problem solving.

I was walking through O’Hare International Airport the other day, and noticed a self-serve beer bar.  Patrons belly up to a wall that has a variety of taps on it, order and pay through a kiosk and choose which ever type they want and the number of ounces that they would like to try.  It looked like a one employee operation where the employee is checking IDs if necessary, handing out a glass, as well as giving out a card that can be loaded with any dollar amount that one may choose.

I have visited similar wine kiosks and made to order food kiosks.  Working and eating at Penn State has given me a first-hand look at the food kiosks. The new dining facilities have taken out much of the face to face ordering processes, and shifted to ordering through a machine.  This means that those leading this operation are going to place more emphasis on the knowledge of this technology and less emphasis on emotional and social intelligence because of the lack of human interaction.

This leads me back to my original question.  What type of leader will these types of restaurants be looking for in the future?  It seems to me that they will be looking more for a leader that makes knowledge their most important skill as opposed one that has a vast amount social skills.  Senior leaders may be looking this way as well, with more focus being placed on how to maximize the efficiency and knowledge of how to understand breakthrough technologies.  According to Northouse, knowledge indirectly influences a leader’s capacity to define complex organizational problems and to attempt to solve them. (Northouse, 2016)

This may lead to leaders that have learned skills as opposed to innate traits.  Knowledge, a key aspect of the skills model, is going to be needed in this new age of automation.  According to Firlej and Kluz, “digital leadership can be defined by a leader’s contribution to the transition toward a knowledge society and their knowledge of technology” (Firlej and Kluz, 2016). They also point out that “Today’s leaders must have the ability to identify technological trends across different sectors, such as big data, cloud computing, automation, and robotics. However, first and foremost they must possess sufficient knowledge. (Firlej and Kluz, 2016) Moving into the future, knowledge as opposed to social intelligence will be a key aspect of leadership, as human interaction is beginning to be phased out and automation and technology start to take over business.  Leadership sure is changing.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Firlej, M.; Kluz, A. (2016). How to be a leader in the digital age. Retrieved from www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/how-to-be-a-leader-in-the-digital-age/