Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

The Role of Management and Leadership in Accomplishing Goals

by

As stated by Northouse (2022), “Leadership is a process that is similar to management in many ways” (p. 67). Leadership and management both contribute to organizational goals being achieved, but in different capacities. Given the importance of the roles, I will define each and discuss how they work together to drive individuals to achieve a common mission in this blog post.  

The role of management, as noted by Bargau (2015), is “to exercise executive, administrative, and supervisory direction of a group or organization” (p. 182). As suggested in the definition, management monitors group members to ensure they complete their tasks contributing to their organizational goals. Bargau (2015), stresses the importance of necessary skills, which include technical skills (specialized skills), human skills (people skills), and conceptual skills (creative abilities) (p. 183). All three of these skills ensure that the individual placed in the role of the manager will be knowledgeable and experienced to provide helpful solutions and guidance, have the ability to communicate their thoughts and team needs and be able to understand various concepts and ideas brought to them. Management has many moving parts which support the role of leadership. 

Leadership, as Northouse (2022) describes, is “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 57). The definition emphasizes the importance of an influential person because building a followership becomes more difficult to build. Without followership, goals will be ununiformed and lead to ineffective progress. 

Northouse (2022, p. 67) outlines three key aspects of leadership and their connecting duties, as follows: 

Establishing direction  – Create a vision 

– Clarify the big picture 

– Set strategies 
Aligning people  – Communicate goals 

– Seek commitment 

– Build teams and coalitions 
Motivating and inspiring   – Inspire and energize 

– Empower followers 

– Satisfy unmet needs 

From the provided responsibilities, it is evident that leaders focus on group energy and meeting goals, which managers ensure by monitoring team performance.  

Having an understanding of the distinction between the roles of management and leadership, we can delve deeper into how the two work together in getting goals met. First, we must acknowledge that both are needed, management for instilling and leadership for influencing. Northouse (2022) emphasizes this when explaining the overlap of the two (p. 68). For instance, consider the role of a chief executive officer (CEO) and manager. The CEO and manager will both play a part in ensuring the success of organizational goals. The CEO may do this by conducting a global company presentation that highlights recent company success and current projects to keep spirits up. They will likely describe how these components drive the company mission. Now, let us consider a manager’s role in each of these occurrences. In a global company meeting managers from chosen departments may speak and share timelines for achieving the goals described by the CEO. Next, a manager will outline measurements of success and resources used to meet goals. An example of this would be a sales manager presenting the dollar amounts of contracts won and the steps taken to win them.  

Management and leadership overlap when working to achieve a common goal. This may take place with projects at work, school, or any other organization. So, next time you take on a common goal, try to identify and distinguish the roles of leadership and management. You may be surprised by just how much leadership and management must collide to maintain a cohesive progression to common goals. 

To read more about the differences between managers and leaders look at the linked article from Harvard Business Review. 

https://hbr.org/2013/08/tests-of-a-leadership-transiti  

 

References 

Bargau, M. A. (2015). Leadership versus management. Romanian Economic and Business Review, 10(2), 197. 

Nayar, V. (2022, August 18). Three differences between managers and leaders. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved January 23, 2023, from https://hbr.org/2013/08/tests-of-a-leadership-transiti 

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

 

Milgram’s Experiment: Power or Influence?

by

Would you ever administer an electrical shock to a person because you were told to do so by a medical professional? What if it was because the individual gave an incorrect response?

This is the gist of Milgram’s electric shock experiment. In short, he examines participants’ willingness to follow directions from those who hold a position of authority. I found the study to be very interesting (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Especially within the context of power and influence of our PSU WC lesson commentary (2021). The contents of this lesson are not covered within Northouse’s (2019) text, but there is ample information available through the PSU WC lesson commentary (2021) as well as in other chapters from the text. Milgram’s experiment is a great way to further understand and visualize the concepts of power and influence. 

Figure 1

The Milgram Experiment: A Visual

To begin, it is important to understand what power and influence are and how they differ. House (1984) and Bass (1990) define power as having the aptitude to impact or the potential to cause change within others (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Alternatively, influence is “the change in a target agent’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors as a result of influence tactics” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7, p. 2). In fewer words, power is the ability to cause change, whereas influence is the caliber of change that actually occurs.

Regarding the Milgram experiment, in the beginning, there were psychologists telling subjects what they would be doing, and I was unsure how much of it was true. I do not believe I would have considered deception at all if I would have been in the participants’ shoes. Like most people, including those in the Milgram experiment, I tend to take things a doctor, scientist, or psychologist says to be true. We are taught from a young age to respect our elders and those in authority. Additionally, we as a society have been so conditioned that we even show respect to people if they are dressed professionally (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). This results in not questioning the truthfulness or factual basis of things said by people we respect.

In light of this, I believe this is a prime example of power. French and Raven (1959) defined various bases of power, but the main bases of this study are legitimate, expert and reward power (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Legitimate power is defined as a formal authority, or in other words, it is power based on the assigned role (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Expert power is a different way of saying that knowledge is power (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). On this basis, power belongs to the experts. Lastly is reward power, this is a function of withholding a desired outcome until the required tasks are completed (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Each of these is demonstrated to some degree in the Milgram experiment, with legitimate and expert power being the most prominent.

Additionally, there are influence tactics. Influence tactics are behaviors used to create attitude, opinion or behavior changes (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). It is important to recall that power is the potential to influence people and the influence tactics are the actions that make it happen (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). There were nearly a dozen influence tactics spelled out in the PSU WC lesson commentary (2021), but only two of them fit into the context of this experiment. Pressure and legitimizing tactics are the only ones that could be applied to this experiment. Pressure tactics involve intimidating an individual as a means of influencing them (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Pressure tactics can involve removing or providing an incentive. Legitimizing tactics occur when “requests are made based on one’s position or authority” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7, p. 6). Notice that both of these are very similar to reward and legitimate power. Reward power and pressure tactics are comparable to each other because they both involve an incentive or punishment (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7). Additionally, legitimate power and legitimizing tactics are also comparable as they have nearly identical names and defining factors (PSU WC, 2021, L. 7).

An illustration of legitimate power in the Milgram experiment is the fact that the participants thought they had equal chances of being the “teacher” or the “learner.” In actuality, the experiment was rigged so the participants were always “teachers,” and the “learners” were always confederates (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Do not let the “teacher” role deceive you, this role meant they had to adhere to the experimenter’s instructions, not that they were in charge of the situation. The experimenters always instructing the “teachers” is an example of how legitimate power and legitimizing tactics were exercised in the experiment in order to create the outcome of obedient behavior. 

Figure 2

Subject = Teacher, Fake Subject = Learner, Experimenter = Experimenter

Similarly is the use of expert power. The participants, who were the teachers, felt pressured to continue the experiment (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). This was done through the verbiage used by the experimenters. They did this by using severe statements such as, “The experiment requires that you continue” (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). However, these statements often did not come into play until the higher voltage levels, which is when the participants began feeling significantly more uncomfortable with the process. I would argue that until this point, many of the participants complied on the basis of trusting the expert [experimenter], as he had the most knowledge about the situation. Although this is a demonstration of expert power, it is the legitimizing tactics that once again actually creates the result of obedient behavior. 

Lastly is the concept of reward power and pressure tactics. It is worth discussing because there was a cash reward offered for participating in the experiment (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). It is very important to note that such offers are not contingent on completing the experiment. So, while it is possible that the participants completed the task simply for monetary gain, I do not believe this to be the main motive. Especially considering the responses of the participants after they were debriefed. Not one of them mentioned that they only kept going to receive the reward (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Regardless, the reward power is the potential of creating change. If any of the participants were motivated by the monetary reward, then their actions were a result of pressure tactics.

So what is the difference? Well, that is exactly it. The two are easy to define by definition, but in real life the two go hand in hand. Another way to understand these terms could be like this: power can be viewed as the appearance of having influence. Results are the outcome of actually having influence.

Prior to this video, I had never heard of this experiment before. This led me to believe, just like the test subjects, that the man in the chair was truly being electrocuted. Perhaps I missed something at the very beginning of the video, but I rather enjoyed not being omniscient while watching. It allowed me to put myself in the subjects’ shoes while watching. Obviously, I caught on after the first guy, but I tried to not focus on what I knew. Instead, I tried to focus on the subjects’ reactions and how I thought I would react if I were in their place. It was interesting that the man commentating on the video pointed out the laughter the subjects often produced. Often people do find humor in another person’s pain, an example of this is the show “Ridiculousness” on MTV (2011). However, the humor is often lost, quickly, when the person recognizes the other person may actually be harmed. At least that has been my experience in watching the show. As mentioned, there were several individuals in the experiment who displayed laughter. They also may have “laughed” as an effort to express their discomfort and attempt to break the tension of inflicting pain on a stranger.  

Another aspect of the study I found to be interesting is the voltage different subjects considered to be “too much.” One subject refused to go on at a voltage around 145, yet another did not consider the experiment to be too extreme until over 300 volts (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). Could this be due to slightly varying levels of “encouragement” from the experimenter? Or instead, could it be that different people value and react to different bases of power differently?

To go along with this, some of the gentlemen took little to no convincing to continue zapping their counterpart; whereas others took a great deal of persuasion, and some refused to continue all together. One subject was particularly unique, the man who only agreed to continue with the high voltage (400+) because the experimenter assured him that he would not be held responsible should anything go wrong (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). This man continued to administer the shocks only because the responsibility was in the hands of the man with a lab coat, which is yet another demonstration of yielding to legitimate and expert power. It is interesting to note that when the experiment was over the same man appeared to be quite taken aback at his own actions. This realization occurred when the experimenters later asked him about who was administering the shock and who made him continue the experiment (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021).

So how does this tie into real life? Great question.

I think each and every one of us has been in a situation where someone with more power, higher titles, more experience, and such used those things “against” us. They coerced, or attempted to coerce, us into doing things that we wouldn’t otherwise. Perhaps this looks like peer pressure, or maybe it looks like receiving a vaccine you aren’t sure about as a means to create job security. Many times in life we read books and are taught to look for the moral of the story. Do we still do that? What if we look at this and ask ourselves what can we learn from this experiment? Sometimes it is more than the data collected. Sometimes it is more than the definitions. As noted in the film, many of the participants regret their actions during the debriefing period (Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk, 2021). What might we regret when we are reflecting back on our own lives in 50 or 60 years?

Generally speaking, Milgram’s experiment is a great way to further understand and visualize the concepts of power and influence. The main difference between the two is that power involves the capacity to create change and influence involves the degree of actual change that occurs. I think individuals today are more likely to question people with authority than they were at the time of this experiment. In other words, I believe people are more hesitant to blindly trust those with power now than they were in the past. I also think people in today’s society would bow out of the experiment earlier than before. Now, people tend to focus more on themselves and what they want to do; therefore, I believe they are less likely to be convinced to continue doing something they do not want to do. In addition to this, I have also noticed a diminishing amount of respect people have for those in authority. This would also make it more challenging for this experiment to be executed as planned. I do not believe the experiment would go over as smoothly today, if it were to be permitted at all. However, the study has proven to be an excellent resource for psychology, and in today’s context, the study of power and influence.

 

References

Lof Der Zotheid Psychologenpraktijk. 2016, April 25. The milgram experiment 1962 full documentary. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdrKCilEhC0&t=658s

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 7: Power and Influence. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790597

Superjacket Productions. (Producer). (2011). Ridiculousness [Television series]. Los Angeles, CA: MTV

 

The Power and Influence of Hitler

by

Adolf Hitler and his rise to power was a chain of events that intrigues us yet terrifies us; it makes us question how one man could acquire the power and influence to lead a mass genocide. “Power is the capacity to cause change, influence is the degree of the actual change in a target person’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors” (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2012). The Milgram experiment by S. Milgram (1963) is a well-known study that investigated how authority figures exert power and influence over the participants’ moral conscious and obedience to authoritative figures (Hughes, et al., 2012). Participants in this experiment were told to shock the other participant hidden behind glass when they gave the wrong answer, and while some found this absurd and withdrew from the study, 70% of the participants followed orders through the entire experiment (as cited in: Hughes, et al., 2012). Even with permission granted by the experimenter to drop out of the experiment without punishment, a significant portion of the participants chose to continue to take orders. While Hitler’s reign was responsible for the Holocaust and his authority led to real pain and death, the Milgram experiment gave us the perspective of how easily the Power and Influence theory can be applied.

Adolf Hitler is well known for his incredible speeches. He had the ability to vocally inspire millions and drew in his followers with his promises of a better Germany. It was inarguably convenient for Hitler to find many weak spots in Germany’s government as the depression had hit, unemployment was at an all time high, and Germany’s government lost the trust of its’ people (BBC, 2021). A large portion of Hitler’s rise to power was spent influencing people that he is the man the people of Germany needed to make the country thrive again. Influence tactics are the actions and methods an individual does to persuade and influence others, and Adolf Hitler was very fluent in most of them (PSU WC, L. 7, 2021). Hitler started with rational persuasion, using logic and known issues to influence more people to follow his lead, and his inspirational appeals drew in more crowds who were unhappy with the current democracy and agreed and supported Hitler’s ideas (PSU WC, L. 7, 2021). From around 1930-1933 the level of unemployment, starvation, and the citizen’s uncertainty with the government, people was rising and people starting to flock to the extreme left (communism) and the extreme right (Nazi). In 1933 Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, and his rise to power took a bolder turn, especially as more followers were cheering on the slow rise of the Nazi party (BBC, 2021). Hitler now had an actual position of legitimate power and authority and it was time to change his tactics to a more serious and urgent degree.

Due to his new position as Chancellor and the difficulties within the government during the time of his official position in politics, his influencing behaviors turned to more legitimized and pressure tactics. As Chancellor, Hitler held a legitimate level of power and the requests and propaganda he was letting out were now backed up with his authoritative title (Hughes, et al., 2012). Along with his newly heightened power and influence tactics, his ability to use pressure tactics grew as well. Since there was already an immense amount of pressure on the government as the Depression caused devastating results, pressure tactics worked in Hitler’s favor. People wanted jobs, food, and security, and Hitler found his opportunity to persuade the public that communism would destroy the country, and the Nazi party would bring Germany back to what it once was; follow him and you will be rewarded. Hughes, et al. (2012) states that the ease of influencing others increases with the level of power the leader employs. Hitler was able to persuade fellow leaders to pass a law restricting personal liberty which led to many communist arrests, and from there on he was able to pass laws and form an extreme dictatorship and complete control of Germany (BBC, 2021).

“Leaders usually can exert more power during a crisis than during periods of relative calm” (Hughes, et al., 2012). Hitler was recognized as a “savior” who was going to bring Germany out of poverty and lower unemployment rates, and this led to an increased referent power (BBS, 2021). Because he had incredible speeches that drew in crowds with inspiration and perseverance, he was respected and trusted by those who were looking for a government official who wanted to help. Referent power is the potential influence a leader has given the relationship they have with their followers (Hughes, et al., 2012). As previously stated, his legitimate power began when he was appointed Chancellor, and it reached absolute peak when he gained complete control. While legitimate power does add credentials to the individual’s reputation and ability, a leader needs much more, and Adolf Hitler was able to offer it all (Hughes, et al., 2012). Following his climactic career as dictator, he was able to control resources, peoples’ lives, newspapers, and an increasing amount of people’s previous freedoms (BBS, 2021). By having so much control and power over nearly every aspect of life, his reward power was at an extreme as he was able to use this control to increase his influence over the people (Hughes, et al., 2012).  Lastly, and arguably most profound, is the coercive power that Adolf Hitler terrorized his followers, and secret opposers, with. Hitler was responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of disabled individuals he sent off to gas chambers, he placed curfews, made being a Jew practically illegal, and many offenses were punishable by death (The History Place, 2001). Hitler’s reign began with earning the trust of the people he aimed to rule, but it has now turned to terrorizing them into obedience.

Power and influence can be used for the greater good, or it can be taken advantage of and turned into a fear based dictatorship. Hitler was responsible for influencing millions of people that he was going to save them from poverty, hunger, and government failure. The public that supported the nazi party were excited for change and trusted that he would bring it. His ability to influence all those people gave him a stepping stone to push his way through the gaps and take over an entire country in front of everyone’s eyes. Hitler claimed for himself what many powerful leaders want, and that is untimate control. Adolf Hitler is a morbidly perfect example of the disadvantagous side of the power and influence theory and how it can lead someone with the right amount of capabilities to high power.

References

BBC. (2021). The impact of the Depression on Germany – Hitler into power, 1929-1934 – OCR B – GCSE History Revision – OCR B – BBC Bitesize. BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zwmdfrd/revision/1.

The History Place. (2001). The History Place – Triumph of Hitler: The Nuremberg Laws. The History Place. https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-nurem-laws.htm.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2012). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485 | Lesson 7: Power and Influence. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2137573/modules/items/32271438

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525

Leadership Styles of Presidential Candidates

by

With such an importance regarding followership, what happens when you are unable to connect with each follower? What if only 51.3% of your followers truly supported you (Lindsay, 2020)? Followers are an important part of the leadership process because they are the ones assigned to complete the tasks working in favor of the leader and group, as well as support, challenge, and learn from the leader (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3). While challenging the leader may help advance ideas and goal achievement, too much push back or distrust from the followers can create a problem. According to Lindsay (2020), President Joe Biden won 51.3% of cast votes, leaving a 48.7% gap of follower uncertainty. How is a leader in such high position supposed to lead a country that only 51.3% of voters voted for, and how exactly do leadership theories apply to such high numbers? 

The situational approach to leadership suggests a leader adapts to their followers, as they can actively switch from directive roles to more supportive, depending on the situation (PSU WC, 2021, L. 5). As president, it is impossible to adapt and switch roles, and they are faced with the moral duty of carrying out what was promised during their campaign. A criticism of the situation approach to leadership is that compared to smaller, more controllable groups, larger groups of followers may be less predictable, provide fewer chances for style pairing, and lacks evidence to back up its credibility (PSU WC, 2021, L. 5). When leading billions of people, there will be obvious backlash, resistance, unpredictable reactions from fellow country leaders and citizens, and an immense amount of pressure to make the right call. While a leader of such high status can create new ideas in respect of others, push agendas they see fit, and implement reforms to transform areas of living, there will always be groups of people that are left out or negatively impacted. Because of this, it does not seem fit that the situational leadership approach is appropriate to define the position of the President of the United States (POTUS). 

The personality and traits of a person are arguably one of the strongest criteria when searching for life partners, friends, and leaders. The Five Factor Model (FFM) introduces conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion as the main categorical summary of human traits and personality (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2). The traits approach is an important aspect of leadership because traits are a way we present ourselves. How exactly is President Biden supposed to win the hearts of the almost 48% of voters that did not choose him on the ballot? As seen with his predecessors, the US citizens that have lived through the ups and downs of presidencies over the years, and the convictions and victories that go along with it, there will never be a time that everyone looks at them in the same light. The trait approach to leadership is criticized for its inability to isolate leadership traits when presented with different situations; “the situations influences” leadership (Northouse, 2018, p. 31). When speaking about the POTUS, this criticism is a perfect description for the issue in terms of this type of leadership. Our traits and personality are a part of us, and it is rarely a changing aspect. To contrast this criticism, Northouse (2018) claims a strength of this approach is that we consider our leaders to be gifted, intelligent, specific types of people and the differences between people is what makes it a fulfilling approach. This type of approach caused an uproar in the recent 2020 election as both political sides argued for who they saw as more fit to represent our country, and former president Trump received backlash from billions of people and the media. President Biden is argued by some to be softer spoken and more people oriented, while former president Trump was thought by some to be the opposite. “People have a need to see their leaders as gifted people, and the trait approach fulfills this need” (Northouse, 2018, p. 30). The end consensus for this approach is that while the trait approach may not fit the role of presidency itself, the trait approach is important for the voters. 

In slight contrast, the skills approach explains how “leaders must possess certain abilities that allow them to act as a leader” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4). It would seem obvious that the POTUS should attain skills specific to their role, but Donald Trump, who had little political background, won against Hillary Clinton, who has been in politics for decades. The 2020 election presented Joe Biden as the election winner, but many people are questioning his abilities and skills in different ways than they questioned former president Trump and each president before him. At all times, the president is making decisions and giving speeches, and their skills must be highly adaptable, but there will consistently be groups of people who do not believe in their abilities. Whether it was a good or bad presidency, the president’s legacy is what will always be remembered; what did they accomplish? The skills approach “describes good and bad patterns of behavior without necessarily predicting future success or failure” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4). The 2016 and 2020 election brought to light that former president Trump had no military or political experience, while Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have been in politics for decades. Skills that Trump was recognized for greatly differed from the skills of Clinton and from Biden. The skills approach is rather subjective for the role of POTUS because there is a divide between who we believe has the skills for the position, and the skills that the president objectively has, making the skills approach a partially effecting description of leadership. Trump was not the first president to hold very little “credentials” of presidency, as seen in the graph below (Crockett, 2016).

(Photo cited from: Crockett, 2016)

The president of the United States holds a great deal of power and high status of leadership. Because there is such a large following, or lack thereof, of this type of leader, it is almost impossible to match just one leadership theory to explain what approach best matches the demands. Some voters value the traits over skills, or how their leader prioritizes goals, and their flexibility in handling certain situations. The best approach, based on the gathered information, helps conclude that there is no determination of one single theory that makes a president successful according to everyone. When dealing with such great numbers, this type of leadership position is unlike average workplaces in which the effectiveness and support of the leader may have bigger impact on them. In terms of presidency, the citizens are the ones who consider which candidate holds the best characteristics and styles to lead the country. The POTUS must acquire parts of each leadership theory, as they are expected to be flexible in their styles and abilities, making it unmatchable to one effective approach for all. Though there are numerous other approaches, the pattern of styles and needs of leaders is clear.

References 

Crockett, Z. (2016, November 11). Donald Trump is the only US president ever with no political or military experience. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13587532/donald-trump-no-experience.

Lindsay, J. M. (2020, December 15). The 2020 Election by the Numbers. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers. 

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (Eighth Edition). SAGE Publications 

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2137573/modules 

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 4: Skills Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2137573/modules   

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2137573/modules 

Followership and Its Effects on Leadership

by

     Leadership has four main components: process, influence, group context, and goal attainment (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3). From these components we can see that for a leader to influence or attain a group context, there must be a group of followers for these constructs to be appropriately applied. The act of followership has been studied and broken into two theoretical frameworks: the role-based approach and the constructionist approach (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). While there has been much research and consideration into the phenomenon of leadership, followership as well holds a significant amount of importance, and it is necessary to treat the subject equally to better our understanding of these phenomenon. 

     Is a leader truly a leader if they have no followers? This question is not only thought provoking and seemingly obvious, but it is necessary to consider. Qualities of a leader add up to one main job, and that is to lead. Would it be fair to say that an individual’s followers contribute to the success, failure, and behaviors of a leader (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014, as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 3)? Uhl-Bien, et al. (2014) states that leadership is a co-created process, and in order to understand one we must understand the other (Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012, as cited in Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014). This idea means leaders and followers share and work towards the goal together, learning from and building off each other throughout the process. 

The role-based approach, known as reversing the lens, looks at the impact followers have on the outcome of leadership and focusing on this reversed impact (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3). The image below presents a visual demonstration of the theoretical model of the role-based approach.

cited from: (Northouse, 2018, p. 304, as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 1)

     The constructionalist approach, or the relational-based approach, looks at how the interaction between leader and follower influence the leadership outcome rather than how the behaviors affect it (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3). The image below depicts the different, relational-based perspective of followership.

cited from: (Northouse, 2018, p. 305, as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 3)

    In blatant terms, Uhl-Bien, et al. (2014) explains role-based followership being the “leader as recipient or moderator of follower influence in producing outcomes” and constructionist followership being the “followers as co-creators with leaders of leadership” (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014).

The next question is, how exactly do these two theoretical approaches of followership help us understand its effects on leadership and how we define it? With more information being gathered we can begin to make significant connections between leadership and followership, and all the ways they work with or against each other. Followers are important in the leadership process because they are the ones assigned to carry out the tasks working in favor of the leader and group, they both support and challenge the leader, and they also learn from the leader (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3). Since followers play such a large role in the outcome of the leader’s and group goals, it is understandable that researchers are interested in the influences followership has. When defining leadership it is important to take in account that it is not only the leader that guides the group to its goals, but also the followers guiding the leader.

There are many powerful influences and components of leadership that are often overlooked upon initial observation. Researchers and theorists have been making strides to make more connections on how followers affect leaders and vice versa. “Focusing on followership helps us recognize the value of followers and their contribution to leadership” (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3). When we are able to value followership, we will be better able to value and define leadership.

References

Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process. The    Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1043–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.005 

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (Eighth Edition). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications 

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 3: Followership. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2137573/modules 

Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007 

Skip to toolbar