Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

No Longer a Glass Ceiling

by

According to Northouse (2016), women became strongly career-oriented in the 70’s but had to fight an uphill battle to excel in the workplace because they were fighting preconceived societal notions that the women’s place was in the home, taking care of the children, household chores, cooking dinner, etc. Because of this way of thinking, women were often overlooked for promotions, and when they were offered, they were more title than substance (Northouse, 2016). This phenomenon was referred to as “The Glass Ceiling”, this invisible societal barrier that prevented women from being as successful in their careers as men (Northouse, 2016).

The feeling that this “Glass Ceiling” still exists, continues to be prevalent today (Northouse, 2016). While over 50% of management positions are filled by women, they hold less than 17% of the executive management positions in America’s Fortune 500 companies (Northouse, 2016).

Women in the 70’s and 80’s were fighting social prejudices that kept them in lower level jobs, but today, the “Glass Ceiling” women face is self-perpetuating (Rice, 2009). Women now earn more than 50% of bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees and make up almost half of the available workforce (Northouse, 2016). Women can no longer claim they are being held back due to lack of educational opportunities.

It is true that women receive fewer training opportunities and less work experience, but there are valid reasons for this (Northouse, 2016). Some women choose to have a career AND to have children (Rice, 2009). Unfortunately, these women are either doing a disservice to their children, by working long hours and shorting them of their mother’s time, or they are doing a disservice to their employer, by taking maternity leave, calling in sick for their kids, and not putting in the time commitment and work effort that is required for them to be considered for a top-level position (Rice, 2009).

Other women have just simply reached a point in their careers where they are giving as much of themselves and their time as they are willing to, and that isn’t what companies are looking for in high level executives (Rice, 2009). In fact, almost 60% of women over 30 pause their career progression either to take a break, scale back, or start their own business to get more time for themselves (Rice, 2009).

Men are willing to put in the work and time needed to be successful, which they self-define as higher pay and big promotions (Rice, 2009). Women now have the same opportunities available to them as men, but they are choosing not to take those opportunities because they are more concerned with personal fulfillment than with success (Rice, 2009). So, the idea that women are being prevented by society from succeeding, just isn’t true anymore (Rice, 2009).

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership Theory and Practice, 7th Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Rice, M. (2009, October 21). The Truth is the Only Glass Ceiling That Exists Today is Created by Women. Daily Mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1221818/The-truth-glass-ceiling-exists-today-created-women.html

Servant Leadership and Social Work Careers

by

Northouse (2016) describes servant leadership as the leader putting the follower and the followers needs before their own. These leaders quietly nurture and support followers as they shift authority to them, which fosters follower confidence and personal development (Northouse, 2016).

As Northouse (2016) explains in the Servant Leadership model, the success of Servant Leadership is influenced by pre-existing conditions, such as work atmosphere, societal rules, the personality traits and moral standing of the leader, and whether the followers in this situation want a servant leader. Servant Leadership can only succeed if the leader can convince followers that their concerns are important and they want them to excel, to support them emotionally, garner their trust, and guide them (Northouse, 2016). That servant leaders can think abstractly, will always be honest and fair, will encourage freethinking, and will contribute to the community(Northouse, 2106). When successful, the results of servant leadership are that followers will grow and excel, increasing their confidence and their team production (Northouse, 2016). Followers will then begin to treat others better, and ultimately society will benefit (Northouse, 2016).

My first thought when I started reading this chapter was that this chapter pertained most to healthcare workers, teachers and clergy because these are all vocations whose focus is on serving others. Northouse (2016) agreed, describing a few different examples throughout this chapter of individuals who were good servant leaders: a nursing supervisor who understands the mission of the hospital as well as the daily needs, a hospice priest who grasps that patients just want someone to listen to them, a professor who puts students’ success ahead of her own, a teacher who provides unbiased guidance to students, and a teacher who empowers his teacher’s assistants by encouraging them to be independent (Northouse, 2016).

I briefly had a manager that utilized this style of leadership. She was an interim nursing director for our unit for a few months, and the full-time director of another unit. She always had time to listen to employees, despite her extra busy schedule managing both units. She did not micromanage, leaving it up to each unit’s charge nurses to make the day to day assignments. She stopped by both units fairly regularly, but only to let everyone know she was around if needed, not to take over. She always stayed until the nightshift came in, and checked in with both units to make sure they were adequately staffed for the night, and also to say hello to staff she didn’t run into often. She made everyone from the cleaning person to the charge nurse feel important and needed.

I wish that more leaders would adopt this style. It does not have to be just these social/service fields that utilize servant leadership. I’ve worked many hourly jobs over the years, and the one thing most of my coworkers had in common was a dissatisfaction with their job that stemmed from a feeling that they did not matter to the company they worked for. This in my view is the number one reason for employee turnover. An employee will not feel loyalty to a company that does not care about him. And it’s not about free lunches and bonuses, (all though those are great!) Servant leadership is about leading by encouraging followers to grow, by really listening to them when they speak, recognizing their contributions and their hard work, and by providing them with the right environment and all the tools that are necessary to be successful at their assigned tasks.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Comparing transformational, transactional and laissez-faire styles

by

In this week’s lesson, we looked at transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership. Transformational leadership focuses on the leader as the follower’s source of inspiration to exceed expectations (Northouse, 2016). They have a charming personality and magnetism that draws followers to them, and they provide encouragement and support that inspires followers to want to meet their goals (Northouse, 2016).

There are four main factors of transformational leadership. One is idealized influence or charisma, which describes leaders who are charming, and who have a compelling presence and an allure that attracts followers to want to be like them and help them achieve their goals (Northouse, 2016). Another factor is inspirational motivation, which describes how leaders incentivize followers to participate in the achievement of their vision by convincing them their input is vital and irreplaceable (Northouse, 2016). An additional factor is intellectual stimulation which describes how leaders incentivize followers by challenging them to think outside the box, encouraging creative expression and supporting them in all their endeavors to meet team goals (Northouse, 2016). The final factor is individualized consideration, which describes leaders who are attentive to followers needs, who are sympathetic, and who provide an understanding atmosphere to them (Northouse, 2016).

Transactional leadership, in contrast focuses strictly on the interchange between leaders and followers, specifically what is the benefit to each party to complete the goal (Northouse, 2016).

There are two factors of transactional leadership. One factor is contingent reward, which means that the leader requests a task be completed, and a predetermined reward is given to followers upon completion of that task (Northouse, 2016). The other factor is management by exception which involves the leader only giving feedback, in a negative manner, as a corrective measure (Northouse, 2016). Management by exception can take the form of the leader closely observing followers and providing negative feedback when they make mistakes, or generally ignoring them until they make a mistake and only then providing negative feedback (Northouse, 2016).

Laissez-faire Leadership describes a complete lack of leadership, where followers have virtually no contact with, or support provided by the leader (Northouse, 2016).

I haven’t had any experience with transformational leaders at any of the jobs where I have worked, I have mostly experienced transactional leaders. I think this is due to my direct managers being more middle management as opposed to upper management. Middle managers have to report to someone else, so they are on the hook to their boss for their employees’ performance. I think this scenario breeds a transactional leadership style because it is an easy rut to fall into. As the manager, all you have to do is provide an employee a desired incentive to complete a task, like a monetary bonus, and combine it with a threat of corrective action for failure to perform, like a negative review in their file. This process absolves you of any failure by your employees to meet company goals because you are following the company’s guidelines for dealing with employee behaviors. Transformational leadership on the other hand is much more difficult to achieve, especially if you are not an outgoing or charismatic person, because it involves much more involvement and interaction with your employees.

I did have a laissez-faire manager at one of my previous jobs. I worked nightshift at an auto parts warehouse, and the plant manager worked dayshift. I was hired during a job fair and spoke to someone from the HR department, so I didn’t meet the manager at that time. My shift was 11p-7a and his shift was 9a-5p. He never stayed late, or came in early, so in the 6 years that I worked there, we never crossed paths. I finally met him on the day that I was called into a plant-wide mandatory meeting on dayshift where they informed us that the warehouse was being closed.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

New Supervisor Position

by

According to Northouse (2007), Contingency theory studies how effective leaders are based on both their style and the leadership situation. The thinking is that matching style to situation makes the best leader (Northouse, 2007). The three leadership styles used in Contingency Theory are 1. Task Motivated Leaders – who are motivated by goal accomplishment, 2. Socio-Independent Leaders – who are more self-directed and less concerned with either tasks or relationships, and 3. Relationship Motivated Leaders – who are more interested in their relationship with their followers (Northouse, 2007).

The three situational factors used in Contingency Theory are 1. Leader-Member Relations – which is how loyal employees are to their leaders and how much confidence leaders instill in their employees, 2. Task Structure – which is how delineated and clearly understood the requirements for completing a task are, and 3. Position Power – which is whether the leader has the authority to hire, fire, discipline or reward employees (Northouse, 2007).

Northouse (2007) states that these factors are measured using the Least Preferred Coworker scale (LPC). You evaluate the person who is your least preferred coworker on the 18-item survey and then total your responses. Your total score indicates your preferred leadership style, with up to 57 indicating low LPC or task motivated leaders, 58 – 63 indicating middle LPC or socio-independent leaders, and 64 and above indicating high LPC or relationship motivated leaders (Northouse, 2007).

A new leadership position just opened in the registration department at the hospital where I work. The position is for a FT Supervisor for the 3p-11p shift. All our Managers work dayshift, so this would be more of a “team lead” position. They are looking to promote someone that currently works at the hospital in the registration department.

Looking at the situational factors, this position would have Good Leader-Member Relations because the candidate would be someone that all the managers and department employees already and have a good working rapport with them.

This position would have High Task Structure because the job is very straightforward. It requires employees to speak to every patient that enters the hospital in a pleasant manner, to maintain confidentiality while gathering demographic information to fill out two electronic forms, and to collect a co-payment if indicated.

However, the position would have Weak Position Power because while the Supervisor is responsible for being available during shifts to make immediate decisions about work processes or computer issues, they will not have the power to hire or fire, discipline or reward employees. The Manager position handles those duties, and a Supervisor will only report any issues or recommendations to them. On the Contingency Model these findings indicate that this situation would be a level 2 and the best leader style would be either a Low LPC or a Middle LPC (Northouse, 2006).

I decided to take the LPC Measure to see if it says I would be a good fit for the Supervisor position. The directions were a bit unclear, asking you to “Think of the person with whom you can work least well” and “describe the person as he or she appears to you” (Northouse, 2007). I am not sure if this means observations of them as they work? Or how you feel about them when working with them. When I take the test based on my observations, I get a score of 21, which means I am Low LPC. This is because what I see when this person interacts with others is a very negative overall air about them. When I take the test based on how I feel when working with this person, I get a score of 60, which means I am Middle LPC. That’s because even though this person has a negative air, it doesn’t affect how I do my job. I am motivated by doing the best job I can do, not by being the #1 employee or by being best friends with my coworkers.

The Contingency Model states that either Low or Middle LPC would be a good style for a level 2 situation (Northouse, 2007). Either way, whether I would be listed as Low LPC or Middle LPC, my leadership style would work well with the Supervisor position situation.

 

References

Northouse, P. (2007). Contingency Theory. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. pp 113-126. Retrieved from https://reserve-libraries-psu-edu.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/psy/532/53201.pdf

 

 

Applying Past Experiences to the Future

by

I am currently going to therapy because I found myself experiencing ever increasing levels of stress about not having enough time to get things done. I was trying to work, go to school, help my parents look after my niece, take care of a very sick dog, look after my own household and burning myself out in the process. In therapy, I discovered that I do this to myself because I have a need to please everyone and a need to do it perfectly. Why? What will happen if I fail?Today? Nothing. But clearly something in my past, trained me to think that there would be serious consequences if I failed.

According to Northouse (2016) psychodynamics is the study of the subconscious motives behind human behavior. These behaviors are our unconscious responses to situations that have similar emotional stigma to experiences from our past (Neely 2016). These unconscious responses are blind spots in that people don’t even know what motivates them (Northouse 2016).

These responses carry over into our leadership styles, and if we can discern our motivations, we can be better leaders (Northouse 2016). Our personalities are developed from our Core Conflictual Relationship Themes (CCRT’s) which are our hidden desires and intentions (Northouse 2016). Leaders who understand their SSRT’s and those of their followers are the most successful (Neely 2016).

I took the abridged Leadership Archetype Questionnaire, located on page 318 of our textbook, to identify the personality qualities, that I developed in my past, that would make me a good leader moving forward. My results indicated that I was a mix of The Processor and The Coach archetypes. According to Northouse (2016) The Processor is someone who is structured, sensible, meticulous, dependable, organized, good at time management, and highly functioning under stress. These are all qualities that I pride myself on having as an employee. However, Northouse (2016) states that these qualities can make a leader inflexible toward change and new situations. I agree that these qualities in a leader could make me inflexible, but I think more from the sense that I would hold people to my own very high standards for punctuality and perfection, and those standards may not be realistic.

The Coach is someone who is empathetic, an extremely good listener, is good at reading other people and their emotions, and gives others the benefit of the doubt (Northouse 2016). The drawback to these qualities, as a leader, is that we may be too diplomatic to effectively provide feedback (Northouse 2016). I find that because of these qualities, I am well-liked in my current job. However, I agree that in a leadership capacity, these qualities would make it difficult for me to discipline or even fire someone.

References

Neely, B. Psych 485: Lesson 3: Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web site: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1834747/modules/items/21827811

Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice, 7th Ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. pp 295 – 327.

Skip to toolbar