Susan Hicks

Teamwork on 9/11

March 16, 2014 by Susan Hicks

by Susan Hicks

Belonging to a volunteer fire department for over 15 years, I have to wonder why when we talk about teamwork, we don’t discuss the team dynamics and team leadership theory blatantly seen through the everyday actions of firemen. Firefighters all over the world have been implementing team structure and leadership into every aspect of their profession and on every incident they are called. From the vehicle accident to the major terrorist attack, they seem to perfect their integration of goals, skills, and leadership within seconds of their arrival. We could learn a great deal about the efficiency of teamwork if we just delve deeper into the professional lives of career and volunteer firemen.

A group of firefighters (“a number of persons gather or classified together”) are sitting in the firehouse (Agnes, 1998). They share a common goal of making it through another 12 hour shift.

Although they share this goal, each of them will eventually get there without the help of the others, however, this is no ordinary day and not an ordinary shift. This day is September 11, 2011 in New York City. The tones go off loudly on the overhead speaker, there is a structure fire in the city and someone needs their help immediately.

A plane has flown into one of the twin towers and in this critical instance, this fraction of a second, they instantly become a team. The goal, to get the truck out and get to the fire as soon as possible with the manpower of experience and training to get the people out of the building and get the fire under control. This team (“to join in cooperative activity”) cannot function as an individual (Agnes, 1998). Although one man can get the truck out, one cannot solely save the people and one cannot solely put the fire out. They immediately start to interact in the setting of the goals, roles, and functions of the team long before the truck ever leaves the station.

The performance of this team starts with the Chief making a “mental model of the situation” by assessing the information coming in with what he sees on-scene (Northouse, 2013). He must foresee the problems that will arise for the team (floors too high for the tower and ladder trucks to reach), the environmental constraints that define the context of the situation (an airplane full of fuel struck the building and there is a great deal of fire and smoke), and find all possible solutions to aid the team with organizational and environmental resources (climb the stairs with hose lines and utilize helicopters for rescue if possible). He must continue to monitor the team and provide intervention (task or relational aid) interiorly within the group functions or exteriorly from resources available outside the team. This completely being done as the group moves through 4 stages of team development that occur on every single incident they face.

As soon as the firefighters reach the scene, it is chaos as goal focusing, structuring, and facilitation decisions takes place. Within seconds, the firemen start working as a well-oiled machine toward reaching their mutual goals of live safety and the protection of property (putting the fire out).Since firefighters do not always work on every incident with the same firemen (varying battalions, engine companies (pipe men), truck companies (truckies), rescue companies, etc… as they respond depending on the location and severity of the incident), they progress through four stages of development. This occurs immediately and rapidly for the firemen in relation to other teams primarily due to the extreme emergency nature of the situation. They first go through forming – finding out about the abilities of the others (find out if he is a truckie or a pipe man), through storming – decide the best course of action for their team (climb the stairs?), to norming – a team leader develops and takes the initiative to start the task (takes the first step), to finally progress through the stage of performing – the team starts to perform their duty (PSU, 2013).

They start to carry their hand lines, high-rise packs, axes, haligan bars, and breathing apparatus up the seventy plus flights of stairs to reach the fire while sending the remaining occupants down the stairs behind them.

Then it happens….

The building collapses.

The scene immediately reverts back to chaos. New teams re-form. The situation has dramatically changed.

New teams are forming to find the rest of the occupants and the numerous firefighters trapped inside. They must act fast if they want to increase the chances of survival for the victims. Should the Chief have monitored the events and foreseen that the building was going to collapse – intervening into the firefighter’s task and gotten them out of there? No one can answer that for sure. One could argue either of the two schools of ‘Monday-night-quarterbacking’ that occurred after the event. The building was designed not to collapse but the fuel from the plane was too hot and lasted too long to prevent the collapse.

What this unfortunate tragedy reminds us is that teamwork is essential and leadership must monitor team effectiveness and performance in all instances. Albeit this was the worst case event that could ever happen within humanity and for the fire service, teamwork is not only the first avenue of defense for the proper functioning of the fire service, but it is what creates the ‘brotherhood’ among firemen that not only gives them the courage to run into a burning building when sane people are running out, but why firemen risk their lives for each other and for people whom they don’t even know. Teamwork is much greater than efficiency and productivity for the fireman – teamwork is about each other and it is essential for their survival.

References:

Agnes, Michael (ed). (1998). Webster’s New World Compact Desk Dictionary and Style Guide. New York: Simon & Schuster.

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

Pennsylvania State University. (2014). PSYCH-485: Leadership in work settings Lesson 9 – Team Leadership. Retrieved March 16, 2014 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/09_lesson/01_page.html

LMX at Work: Deciphering the “High School Drama”

March 7, 2014 by Susan Hicks

By: Susan Hicks

Recently I had the opportunity to disrupt my ‘status-quo’ at work. I got an amazing opportunity to ‘test drive’ a new position at work for 6 months to see if I liked the job and if I wanted to interview for the position. This opportunity was advantageous for me to see if I could handle the job with the enormous responsibilities of work and home. This ‘test drive’ was additionally beneficial for my employer to see if I could handle the job requirements that they would be expecting of me. Therefore, for 6 months I got to move to a different department and run my own team of individuals as their appointed manager. This experience is not about my leadership relationships with my followers, rather a shattering of the ‘status-quo’ in the relationship as me the follower to my leader – my new supervisor – in a foreign environment entirely unfamiliar to me which was the “High School Drama” that plays out behind the scenes amongst the management of my work.

Initially, I felt that I was being brought into the “in-crowd”, being accepted and taken under the wings of my new fellow co-workers. Everyone was vying for my attention, asking me about myself, my hobbies, my likes and dislikes and consequently being offered advice and guidance on job functions. The more I talked to co-workers, the more I found who I liked and those whom I really shouldn’t be talking to – the so-called ‘shunned ones’ who were not part of the “in-crowd”. At one point, I was actually given a dirty look from another co-worker for having lunch with someone they disproved of. This was playing out of a “high school drama” whereas there were cliques that if you wanted to advance and promote, you would incorporate into your network, and those who you talked to, yet remain cautious of long personal encounters for fear of retribution from your “group”. This biggest promoter of this popularity contest was our supervisor who acknowledged to me that if I had any questions or needed any help, to ask only from a small elite number of individuals – the approved ones. Really, am I in high-school again?

As a member of the “in-group”, I found the task of fitting into their preconceived ideologies (how they treated each other and how they treated the followers in our teams) harder than just being myself and expressing my own opinions and viewing my own followers as my team instead of treating my followers the way they believed followers should be treated – like mules (now this really sounds like High-school now doesn’t it). I wanted to understand why those in the “out-group” weren’t making the promotions, weren’t leading the teams, weren’t getting the easy jobs within our group, and why they got lead around also like ‘a rented mules’.

To look at this situation from the leadership perspective of the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), we can gain insight in this “drama” and others like it, as to why this occurs and the strengths and weaknesses of this exchange in the efficiency of workplace task completion.

LMX theory in early research posited that there were “vertical linkages” between leaders and followers that resulted in either “in-group” (negotiated roles) or “out-group” (formal employment) relationships (PSU, 2014). These linkages occurred as relationships that resulted in those in the in-group that were found to receive more advice, concern, guidance, and in turn became more dependable, involved, and communicated with the leader (Northouse, 2013).

This is similar to my initial experiences in my “test drive” position as others (including the supervisor) brought me into their clique and took me under their wing. However, as perceptions of ideologies, work habits, and dissatisfaction for the treatment of others became misaligned with the others, the linkage became weak as I was compelled into the “out-group” that found less compatibility with the leader (and associates) and therefore turned my focus more on work related tasks (Northouse, 2013).

Later studies on this theory identify 3 phases that this relational exchange undergoes.

As I found myself progressing through Phase 1 (strangers getting to know one another), through Phase 2 (acquaintances providing “career-orientated social exchanges”), I found that the mature partnership of Phase 3 did not develop primarily due to differing ideologies and my temporary status in the position (Northouse, 2013). We did not have enough time to neither air our differences nor to fully understand each other’s moral and ethical backgrounds that brought us to the beliefs and values each of us hold to produce a relationship with the intensity that fosters in-group respect and admiration. Additionally, I never had the time to acquire the respect from my leader or co-workers to validate and understand that my ethical work perceptions were not going to be influenced from others to change how I treated people just because my title or in-group affiliation should accept this new perspective as my new status-quo. I fully understand that this tit-for-tat relational interplay allowed them to assess to which degree that I would perform task functions that would not see me as the freelancer, the loose cannon, or the troublemaker that could essentially bring turmoil to the department’s efficiency. They wanted to mold me to the structure of the group and trust that I would not in my temporary status bring shame to the department. These relationships of understanding that occur between the leader and the follower take time to develop in secure trusting mutual bonds of respect and trusting reciprocity that neither of us fully had time to cultivate. Instead of viewing this position as a “high school drama”, I have now come to appreciate and understand that respect is earned over time and cannot just merely be obtained in a six-month positional “test drive”.

I have since left this position to return back to my old job. There were no available interviews at the time of my return so I am left to the arduous task of using what I learned to decide in the future if I wish to re-enter this environment and to re-establish the leader-member exchange relationships in order to advance further in my career. I do not regret my journey. We must accept that in-groups and out-groups exist and in order to identify the in-group, there must be someone in the out-group to compare against. Furthermore, there are individuals who contribute more professionally and socially to the workplace experience (in-group ideology) and those who just come to work (out-group). This theory is descriptive in its ability to identify the presence of these groups and focuses primarily on leadership in this relationship. Interactions that are nurtured, cultivated, molded, and valued stem from a communicative process over time and research has provided us with a great deal of substantiating evidence to the effectiveness of followers in work related performance and satisfaction when this relational exchange is high. Conversely, on the surface we see that these relationships appear to be unfair in the promotion of those who we seemingly like or dislike according to the matching of work related ideologies on human treatment of superiors or followers alike. Therefore, this research doesn’t appear to explain why some are promoted more easily in the in-group. We can only surmise that this may involve access to knowledge, performance recognition, or the idea that leaders promote others inequitably based on the concept of advancing those most like themselves.

No one can answer if it is in one’s best interest to play in the “high-school drama” popularity contest and to go with the in-group. Only the individual can assess if they are willing to pay the price of relinquishing their moral and ethical work obligations to play in a shallow tit-for-tat relational exchange that on the surface appears to be childish in nature. However, the building of relationships over time that creates and builds with intensity, intrapersonal reciprocity of respect and trust that does not surrender basic tenants of ones principals, allows the cultivation of accepted understanding and leader-member exchange appreciation that can effectively allow everyone to advance within careers yet still remained focused on quality relationships and work related efficiency.

References:

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

Pennsylvania State University. (2014). PSYCH 485 Lesson 8: Leader-Member exchange Theory (LMX). Retrieved March 4, 2014 from

Competency and Commitment: Power in Management vs Leadership

February 28, 2014 by Susan Hicks

By: Susan Hicks

I think that we have all worked under those management types that have authority over their followers to get tasks completed efficiently and accurately. They have competent followers who perform the tasks assigned to them because the ‘leader’ had the authority to assign these tasks with an exercise of power. This power is the capacity or potential to influence others which has an effect on another’s attitudes, beliefs or behaviors (PSU, 2014). There is a difference between those followers who exude competency and with those with competency and commitment. Additionally, there is a difference in power wielded by managers versus leaders. For the managers who strive to the role of having the power to assign tasks to followers and take great pride in the belief that they can lead a group, are those followers performing the competent tasks that stem from the power of an authority – manager type figure, or are they the competent, committed followers who are willing to go beyond basic direction to finish the task without constant direction or guidance. Can a manager influence these individuals to competently complete a task while influencing these individuals to be committed to the task as well?

Management – Personalized Power

Wielding power over followers from management perspective that exerts authoritative power with rewards or punishment, cannot necessarily make one committed. Utilizing legitimate power- formal authority assigned by the organization (PSU, 2013) to stand over a group of followers like an employment judge and jury that under their own personalized power, mandates individuals to obey or be punished may sound somewhat extreme, however, there are management individuals who see leadership as this almighty power force that automatically gives them the potential to influence. Influence is the effect of change in the follower’s “attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors” as a result of the power exerted on the individual by the leader/manager (PSU, 2013).This potential to influence followers in the ‘do as I say’ power struggle of threats and promises of resources (employment) that can be given (employment retention) or taken away (employment termination) for non-compliance can cause resentment in followers as they comply with the task assignment but do not personally or individually commit (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2009). These followers are managed through the motions of the task but are not lead to commitment of the task. There are those individuals who can by mere heartfelt commitment to the organization, read their manager’s intent and make small decisions that can influence the outcome of the task assignment without bringing every little iota of discrepancy in problem resolution to the attention of the task assigner. These followers also have power that may not be seen from the manager’s perspective. Whereas some followers may identify commitment to the organization under the manager’s watchful eye, however, these followers’ commitment is objectified on the task and based solely on fear, Therefore, we can’t lose sight of the committed employee who goes above and beyond mandated direction to achieve goals for the organization who does so under leadership direction, not under management directive. To achieve this, managers must understand that they are not the only one with power in the relationship of leader and follower.

Leadership – Socialized power

There is also a power in leadership that is different from our management power example. Leadership defined as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” and does not sound all that different from what a manager attempts to achieve (Northouse, 2013). However, let us take this one step further to acknowledge that albeit the manager possesses legitimate power, the leader possesses a personal socialized power that is “derived from being seen by followers as likable and knowledgeable” (Northouse, 2013). It was identified as being a referent power from “The Bases of Social Power” in the Group Dynamics: Research and Theory of J.R French Jr, and B. Raven’s study in 1962 (Northouse, 2013). This study recognized that the ability to influence stemmed from the individual’s power base from either Referent – identification and likeability, Expert – perceptions of competence, Legitimate – as we mentioned above in assigned formal authority, – Reward – capacity to provide awards (such as in keeping employment), and Coercion – capacity to discipline (as in employment termination) (Northouse, 2013). In the relationship of leader to follower, we must acknowledge that to ascertain this power, it is deemed by the follower in the fluidity of the interaction between leaders and followers in a power teeter totter that allows followers to identify with the leader, the goal, and their own interpersonal importance in the completion of the task. This allows the commitment of the followers to interject personal achievement and subject objectification with the leader in accurate and efficient task completion not seen with the managed individual. Leaders can elicit from their followers a willingness, perceived enjoyment, and satisfaction to enhance the organization as they share power resources in the give and take exchange that is not judged under the watchful scrutiny of power rewards or punishment. The reward or punishment for the committed followers is self-based in their sole judgment of the levels of commitment and their effort to strive toward competency in completing the task. Committed and competent followers also form committed alliances with team goals instead of maintaining an individual goal under fear of resource seizure or elimination.

It is possible for the manager to elicit commitment in addition to competency from their followers as long as they understand the relational power give and take teeter totter that occurs in situations under their guidance. Followers also maintain power that is given to the leader in acceptance of their likeability (Referent Power), their knowledge (Expert Power), respect for their formal authority (Legitimate Power), and their ability to identify with the perceived capacity to assign rewards/punishment (Reward or Coercive Power). While managers strive to influence change in their followers by direction, they must also accept that followers maintain power to allow that change (in the identification of commitment) to occur. Therefore influence as a degree of actual change is smaller with those individuals who change the follower less by only effecting competency rather than competency and commitment (PSU, 2013).

References:

Folger, J.P., Poole, M.S., & Stutman, R.K. (2009). Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations. (4^th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

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

Pennsylvania State University. (2014). PSYCH 485 Lesson 7: Power and Influence. Retrieved February 27, 2014 from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp14/psych485/001/content/07_lesson/03_page.html

Leadership Power Struggles: Hope for the Psychodynamic Theory at Work

January 29, 2014 by Susan Hicks

By: Susan Hicks

You may be faced with power struggles any day and at any time with those who work under you. There is always one person who ‘bucks the system’ or doesn’t seem to want to stay ‘in-check’ with the team or with the leader’s position, power, authority, or ability to influence others toward meeting management goals. We could refer to modernist conflict resolution techniques but what if they don’t always work. Is it possible to look back to the Psychodynamic Theory for help? This is a real-life example of why we should not completely discredit the theory in modern workforce issues.

The scene 6 months ago….

Mary, a middle-management employee in a large company, provides direction for the other offices under which she is responsible. Rena works beside Mary providing support under Mary’s leadership. Mary is in her mid-40’s with less than 10 years with the company while Rena is in her early-50’s with almost 20 years with the company. Mary is a firm, fair, and consistent leader with great responsibility and Rena is a narcissist who rejects being told what to do from someone who is less senior, younger, and who is perceived to be just as stubborn as herself. Power struggles ensue when Mary has to direct Rena to do something vitally needed in the company.

Mary has power given by to her by the company while Rena also has power as she can decide to willfully follow and complete the task with amazing efficiency and accurateness or with lethargy and with no enthusiasm to detail. How does Mary influence Rena to work mutually with her toward management goals and elicit the necessary enthusiasm toward efficiency and precision needed in the organization?

Mary resorted to Conflict Resolution as she attempted to cultivate a collaborative attitude under differentiation that “airs differences” in order to open the lines of communication in order to see differences as “natural and helpful” (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2009). The problem was that differentiation (airing of differences) never led to integration (resolution) because Rena epitomizes a narcissist who took great pride in her own accomplishments aside from that of the group. She had her own concept of her job duties and how she related those duties within the company apart from that relationship with Mary. Rena did not see Mary’s attempt to recognize their difference as helpful, rather she felt it as a personal attack on Rena’s lower ranking position. Mary couldn’t understand how someone could be so defiant and unreasonable so she turned to Psychodynamic Theory.

The Psychodynamic approach focuses on the relationship between the leader and the follower and cannot be taught in a traditional sense (Northouse, 2013). Mary looked at her own leadership personality under the theory but since the theory also looks at the relationship of the leader in congruence with the follower, she looked at Rena. It was found that Mary needed to not get into these power struggles with Rena on an ego level. She needed to relax her power in order for Rena to fulfill her needs yet allow them to flex their power in a way that promotes the collectivity of their knowledge. They needed not to compete. Mary also found through this backward-looking theoretical approach and by being inquisitive, that Rena grew up in an unstable environment with dominating narcissistic parents. She really had a low self-esteem which she overcompensated with her narcissistic behavior. Rena constantly had to tell others of her accomplishments because she was never given praise as a child. Her failure to work within a team framework was her rejection of group congruency that stemmed from the delusions of persecution she experienced from watching her parents fight. She projected to others what she learned as a child. With this information in hand provided by the Psychodynamic Approach, Mary also took another look at the Big Five Personality Factors of leadership. She found that Agreeableness, the “tendency to be accepting…and nurturing” was a part of her personality that she lacked (Northouse, 2013). Although this factor may be considered weakly associated with leadership, this led Mary to developing the leadership trait most valued by her associates.

Today…

We should not only look to those leadership traits and skills that allow us to aspire to, hire, train, and develop leaders to work within an organizational structure. We need to look outside the box toward Psychodynamic Theory in leadership conflict situations, in order to provide us additionally useful tools in which we can see alternative ways in dealing with leadership situations. These tools may be based in a form of psychology that may not be seen as relevant to the organizational needs of today or one that provide us a way of assessing our leaders for their qualities or traits, however, the awareness and acceptance of its existence by leaders can provide a missing link to understanding relational influence necessary in our modern leadership roles.

From the insight of Psychodynamic Theory, Mary and Rena work closely together today in fulfilling the needs of the company with Mary’s instruction and with Rena’s willingness to help. Mary found that her best asset is to be empathetic to Rena’s upbringing and now accepts Rena for how she became who she is. Mary now appreciates the productivity and input that Rena adds to everyday tasks. Mary constantly praises Rena for efficiency and accuracy (fulfilling Rena’s need for accomplishment recognition in which she take great pride) but yet also allows Rena to identify personal vision as being congruent to the visions of the company. Mary is now a highly productive and respected employee of management. Rena is a model employee and considers Mary now to be her leader, her mentor, and most remarkably…her friend.

References:

Folger, J.P., Poole, M.S., & Stutman, R.K. (2009). Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations. (4^th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.

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

Why We Differ on Leadership Definitions: Research and Theory Insight from Bandura and Latane

January 25, 2014 by Susan Hicks

by: Susan Hicks

How do you personally define Leadership? If you think about this question for a minute, do you have to stop because you can’t find the words? Do you instead picture someone who typifies a leader in your mind and use the characteristics and traits of this one person to fill in the blanks as justification of this definition? How does this make you feel? What is it about that one person that stands out among all others that you chose to derive your definition from? Or is it from many, those whom elicit emotions from their traits that in some way you aspire, respect, or have an interpersonal bond with that evokes memories of situations where their leadership has been substantially memorable to you? It is not like I am asking to you explain how you breathe, something so innate, common, personal, and every day that makes definition or explanation, due to its very biological need for survival, extremely difficult to verbally express. But don’t we also need leaders to survive? Where would the world be without those who take giant leaps of faith and lead their teams to research and develop cures for our sickness, to leap forth and lead teams to invent, develop, and manufacture those items we find so necessary in order to live (the automobile, the airplane, the television, computer, and smartphone). You may not be surprised that your definition of leadership will vary greatly from anyone else asked across the world. The difficulty in arriving at any one specific definition of leadership may be largely in part due to the differences of where we grew up and who helped frame our perspectives on leadership according to our particular survival needs at any one time.

The survival of each of us in the human race depended upon our parents leading us and protecting us as children from those things that could hurt us. “Don’t touch the stove”, “Don’t play in the street”, and “Do your homework” were heard commonly in most of our households. Preventative warnings provided to us by our parents that helped to keep us safe and to supplant into our developing memories, the ideas of what was good, bad, and expected of us. Alfred Bandura did research in 1961 of how our models, such as our parents, affected our ability to perceive what was good, bad, and expected of us in situations by our imitation of these models. He put 72 nursery school students through an experiment where he put them separately in a room with an adult model and an inflatable Bobo doll. The children played but observed the adult’s interaction with the doll. When the adult left the room, it was found that the children imitated the adult’s behavior whether that behavior was aggressive (the doll was bad) or non-aggressive (doll was good) toward the doll. It was significantly found that children imitate the behavior of adult models learned by observation (and quite possibly expectations) (Bandura, 1961). Therefore, adult role models we have encountered over the course of our upbringing set the stage for our expectations of good and bad leaders based in our perceptions of our own parent’s leadership.

These perceptions do not stop at our parents. Where we lived, our culture, societal expectations and associated norms of the time, also helped shaped our perceptions of leadership qualities. Although the Trait Approach to leadership focused on “innate qualities… possessed by great…leaders”, flaws in this theory arise when our defining qualities and traits of leaders become so long (such as the generality and inconsistent one definition of leadership), that we therefore cannot “delimit a definitive list of leadership traits” (Northouse, 2013). We are then left to our own perceptions of those leaders that have the traits we associate with good leadership and probably why we have to think of a good leader in order to define leadership. How this arises was posited in the Dynamic Social Impact Theory of Bib Latane. People differ on psychological experiences which are affected by their social influences (tastes, preferences, attitudes, cultural and social expectations, and norms). Latane labels these influences as “strengths” and defines this as the “net of all individual factors” that influences a person in a dynamic (situational) environment (Latane, 1996). As these influences (strengths), immediacy (importance), and the number of persons whom influence the situation increase, so too does the ability for us to imitate and conform to those persons who influence our environment and experiences. We adapt to the beliefs and expectations of our immediate surroundings and base our perceptions of leaders with those who have been culturally, socially, and environmentally depicted as good leaders. This portrayal of strengths may be different for those who lived in the inner city environments of New York in the 1950’s verses New York today or even between the Wild West of history and the California of our present day. As our environment changes, our society places greater emphasis on what is important (even concerning changes in survival… ie…killing buffalo verses owning a smartphone) our perceptions of those persons who lead the way evolve as we do and therefore, changing our definition of leadership.

We may never agree on the definition of leadership. We may never come to the consensus of innate traits, learned imitation, or social influence that creates great leaders. We will agree on one very important fact about leadership. If this society is to continue to progress, if the very nature of humanity is to survive, then therefore, we need leaders to provide that leap of faith that shows us the way and creates a greater place in which we will continue to flourish.

References:

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575-582. http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/h0045925

Latane, Bibb. (1996). Dynamic Social Impact: The creation of culture by communication. Journal of Communication, 46(4), 13-25. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01501.x/abstract;jsessionid=7621183010E9DC24FF3323720B89F14F.f01t01

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