Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Pull Planning and Social Influence

by

In the commercial construction industry, there is a common LEAN method used called pull planning. “A Lean Method is a way of optimizing the people, resources, effort, and energy of your organization toward creating value for the customer” (Lynn, 2020). “Pull planning is a technique that is used as part of the Last Planner System to develop a coordinated plan for one phase of a project” (Pull Planning). So far it has been used on every job I have worked on. The way that pull planning works is that all the foreman, or “Last Planner,” of each construction crew (plumbing, electrical, mechanical, general contractor, painters, etc.) that’s needed for that specific phase is called to a meeting. A goal is established which defines the very last thing that needs to happen for the phase to be completed and the date that the phase must be completed by. A plan is made by working backwards from the defined goal date which is usually facilitated by a construction management team member. They start at the end date and continuously ask the foreman, or last planners, what needs to happen in order for this to get done? The subcontractors (foreman/last planners) offer their information and give their word that the work will be done by the date that they commit to. The foreman not only gives their word that the work can and will be done by a certain day, but they are making a social commitment. Pull planning only works if everyone is there at the same time as to not let anything out and consider all aspects. After the plan is made, there are meetings to go over what is done and what is not done, so if the work is not done by the time originally committed, the foreman must explain why before every foreman at the meeting. 

The Lean Method described above is effective because it goes right to the source (the last planners), asks what they need to complete their part of the job, and then outlines a plan which includes all subcontractors for the phase. Everyone is on the same page. But is that the only reason why it is so effective? According to Lesson 7: Power and Influence, the social aspect may have a lot to do with it. We learn that most people tend to follow through with commitments they give to authority figures (Hamel, 2021). The Construction Management team is there to facilitate but also has legitimate power as defined by the lesson (Reward Power could also be argued), as they control when subcontractors get paid; they only get paid for the work they complete, which is reviewed by the CM every month (Hamel, 2021). Commitment and Consistency and Social Proof as defined by the lesson can be contributors as to why pull planning is a great method to implement on a project. Commitment and Consistency has to do with a person verbally committing to an idea (Hamel, 2021). The sub will commit to the date not only verbally, but in front of his peers. The meetings following the initial one reinforce the dates previously established and the subcontractors repeat that the date is still good. This happens at least once a week but depends on the project (could be more frequent). The repetition from going over the dates at every meeting and recommitting to them shows the consistency part of this principle. The Social Proof principle says that “if others are doing it, it must be a good thing” (Hamel, 2021). The subcontractors would not want to be the only ones behind, so that when the facilitator asks if their part is done, they obviously want to say yes like everyone else. 

In conclusion, pull planning largely works due to the social aspect of the nature of this lean method and has proved effective on many projects. 

 

Sources:

Hamel, R. (n.d.). Lesson 14: Ethics and Leadership, 2021

Lynn, Rachaelle. “Lean Methodology.” Planview, Planview, 18 June 2020. 

“Pull Planning.” Lean Consulting, Lean Construction Institute, 2021.  

 

Transformative Leadership Characteristics of Michelle Obama

by

Transformational leadership is defined in the lesson commentaries as a form of leadership that “serves to change the status quo by appealing to followers’ values and their sense of higher purpose…[they] engage with followers and create a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower (Hamel, 2021).” One iconic member of society that is famously known for their transformational leadership style is former First Lady Michelle Obama. She held the qualities of a transformational leader by having vision, rhetorical skills, image and trust building, and personalized leadership.

In her latest documentary she was shown having a meaningful discussion with young women, empowering them to become leaders in their own ways and stressing how important education was for herself, and for them. Through this, she was able to depict the vision characteristic, or known amongst leaders as those able to “recognize the problems of a present system and offer a vision to overcome these problems (Hamel, 2021).” She discussed the issue of the lack of female leaders, and ways to fix this issue by stressing the importance of education for women around the world. Additionally, this demonstrated her rhetorical skills as a transformational leader, as she was able to share her vision across her followers and across the country of women empowerment and working hard to achieve one’s goals. From this, her followers were able to embrace her vision and share it with others.

Michelle also represented qualities such as image and trust building. This characteristic states that transformational leaders “build trust in their followers through an image of self-confidence, moral conviction, and personal example and self-sacrifice (Hamel, 2021).” She fulfills this characteristic through her story of coming from a low-income neighborhood in Chicago, where neither of her parents had the opportunity to achieve a higher education. Her story of self-sacrifice, hard work and dedication to receive the prestigious education she had has been shared everywhere and has inspired millions. Her image is known globally as a woman who leads by example and who radiates self-confidence in herself and in her work. 

Additionally, Michelle continues her work as a leader through personalized leadership, the final characteristic described in the lesson commentary as transformational leaders that “share strong, personal bonds with followers,” and “are sensitive to the emotional states of followers and are adept at picking up social cues (Hamel, 2021).” In many of her speeches, she spoke on race and the discrimination she faced an African-American. She was able to empathize with the Black community and other marginalized groups about their experiences and created a strong, personal bond with them because of this.

With all these characteristics satisfied, it is clear that Michelle was a prominent transformational leader that paved the way with her foundations, books, and historical achievement as the first African-American First Lady for eight years. Her advocacy for poverty awareness, education, nutrition, and other important issues led to her being a role model for all and a leader for her followers to admire and follow her vision.

References

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 11: Servant Leadership, 2021

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Leadership of Queen Elizabeth II

by

The current Queen of England has always intrigued me personally, like any great historical figure. But she has never been a great personality, like the Kennedy’s, or revolutionary, like Nelson Mandela. Her intelligence isn’t noteworthy like Edison or Tyson. Most famous women are known for either hyperfeminine personalities, like Marilyn Monroe, or hypermasculine personalities, like Margaret Thatcher. As a part of my american culture I want a leader to have expert power, where they got their position at least partially because of a skillset or knowledge they possess, but Queen Elizabeth became ruler at the young age of 27 without a formal education. What is it about her that is so beloved and noteworthy that her relevance exceeds England into the rest of the world?

Before I get started analyzing her leadership, I would like to also identify that I believe there are multiple sources of Queen Elizabeth II’s notability, including the historical imperialism of Great Britain as well as the global reach of the Catholic church. For the purpose of this essay I want to focus on solely the Queen, from a psychological perspective.  

First, I want to talk about the source of the Queen’s power. As like any monarchy, her power is not expert power. Since the creation of the English Parliament, who are now voted upon by the people, the role of the queen is highly symbolic. So where does she get her power? A lot of it is Legitimate Power. Basically she was born a princess and became a queen and it is accepted. Traditionally monarchy was seen in many cases appointed by god, but it can also be seen as a representative of the Church. While this is still true, I would argue the power she possesses that makes the crown functional is her referent power, and if it was just legitimate power the Queen’s reach would be lessened greatly. When she became a Queen it was acknowledged that the country would be her greatest priority, and her personal life of herself and her family has suffered because of that. It is still traditional for women and children to take a man’s family name, but as a part of the royal family they took the Windsor name. Historically many members of the family couldn’t marry for love, and the Queen’s own uncle abdicated the crown to marry a divorcee. The Royal family always had to reflect the opinions of a country, or they would lose the support of the country that their leadership relied on.

The Queen is also an excellent Authentic leader. While there is no standard definition of an authentic leader, we are going to use the 2003 Approach version. This involves 5 topics: purpose, self-discipline, values, relationship, and heart(Hamel, 2021). There is no need for perfection in each category, instead they are seen as opportunities for improvement. As the monarch of Great Britain, she is going to have one major purpose- the prosperity of the Country. This role has so many perks but Country above all can be a set back too, and not a sacrifice every citizen can make. The fact that the Queen upholds this ideal for the rest of the country cements her as a leader. As the Matriarch of the royal family, she above everyone else has shown the self-discipline needed for the prosperity of this role. The values of the general public in England is on the end of more reserved compared to other cultures globally, and the Queen presents a reserved as well as other traits held by Great Britain not only currently but historically. 

As far as the relationship between the Queen and her people, it is the second greatest trait that makes her a great leader. Her father was ruler during World War II and both her parents were incredibly involved with both the soldiers and the factory workers back home, raising morale. This extended to the Queen herself, as she gave radio speeches as young as 14 and has had a history of volunteering for her country. She came into power after her father’s death when she was 27, and next year will be her 70th year reigning. The relationship between her and England has not always been perfect, but it has been reliable. Since WWII and all the change to come after, Queen Elizabeth II is a comfortable constant. Finally, what I think gives the Queen the global notoriety she has now, is her heart. I wouldn’t say that it is something the Queen is known for, and most of the time she presents as reserved and serious. This was highlighted when she met with the charismatic Kennedy’s, and something the Queen has faced criticism for in the past. But the best moments of the Queen is when she is more human than monarch- a product of WWII, a proud mother and grandmother, a lover of horse racing. The crown forced her into a very important role which she dutifully fulfills for her people but her moments of humanity, that shows that no matter how power she becomes at the very core she is just a person who is trying her best for her country, makes her the most endearing and earnest. This authenticity is something that inspires others and gives power behind an otherwise superfluous role.

Queen Elizabeth is intriguingly mundane. While most public figures with her notoriety appear larger than life, she is astoundingly human. Even her reserved personality is relatable, as Queen she leads for England and the role comes with the spotlight, but most people will understand not wanting to be so vulnerable to the world. She is authentic even in her class distance from her subjects, and gets her power from her relationship to the people of Great Britain and across the globe. Her being a Queen was not an act of greatness, she isn’t larger than life. On the contrary many times she comes across just as she is- a woman doing her best for her country. And because of this, she is a great leader.

References 

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 7: Power and Influence

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 12: Authentic Leadership

How Barack Obama’s Absence made way for Donald Trump

by

I was young when Barack Obama first came into office. I remember in fourth or fifth grade as a learning opportunity, our teacher sorted us into groups and we each acted as members of either McCain or Obama’s election campaign. We made slogans, researched their beliefs on topics, wrote speeches, and made posters. And the entire class knew that Obama was going to win because of one simple reason- John McCain was so old that if he got voted into office he would die and then we would have no president! Looking back now the concept was comical and juvenile, and also highlights how much I didn’t understand the election. But to the credit of younger me, it also acknowledges something I did understand- elections aren’t only about policy. Two people could have identical policies, and vastly different outcomes. It’s about the individual, their personality, their leadership. 

Obama was a leader. Just watching interviews of him it’s clear. He is well spoken and articulate when he speaks, and the way he talks makes it apparent that he is well educated. Interpersonally he is friendly and charismatic, and even if you don’t agree with his policies it is harder to have a problem with the man. He was a model husband and father, and seemed like he got along with everyone. It is clear that Obama was a fantastic leader, but a key identifier of his leadership was his followership. Election season is always analyzed in the United States, and broken down by demographic, and while Obama had the demographics common with his party he also had African Americans supporting him in waves. He fought stereotypes, and he and his wife both were powerful influences during their time in office. He got reelected and his charm never wavered. 

Then Donald Trump was elected. Trump seemed to highlight everything Obama was not. Obama has a traditional nuclear family, while Donald Trump is on his 3rd wedding. Obama is polite and charming, Trump is outgoing and does not follow social rules. Where Obama speaks eloquently, Trump is inarticulate. But he was elected, and for the same reason Obama did- followership. Partly because of the hole left by Obama, and partly by his own follower-base.  

As stated early Obama was a force. Besides his traditional credentials, he was a candidate who was young, cool, and energetic. And for African American voters, he brought hope and created faith in a system that wasn’t created to benefit them and often victimized them. It would be hard for anyone to replace him, but the fact that he was replaced by a more serious middle-aged white woman who was constantly criticized for her inability to seem ‘hip’ made the already growing deficit even deeper.

Donald Trump, in turn, was everything for the white lower class that Obama was for African Americans. For elections because of the electoral system, political parties tend to focus on highly-populated urban areas, and the rural lower-class got overlooked. Hot topics for urban areas like terrorism, immigration, sustainability, and social rights weren’t issues that often oversected with more isolated rural areas. Trump focused on this, giving a voice to those who felt overlooked. His less than educated speaking style worked well for a population of people who on average were less educated. He focused on the fact that he was an outsider in politics and instead knew how to run a business, which was appealing to those who felt taken advantage of and unrepresented by the more-than-wealthy governing class. He created a follower base that rivaled that of obama’s, and the Democrats didn’t have an answer. He took the presidency in 2016, and almost took the presidency in 2020, this time beated not by the followers of an opponent but in protest of himself.

While morality should always be the first thing considered, lessons can be learned from both of these men. Namely, that while leaders are a special type of people, functional leaders are only the product of their followers. There have been leaders that are Kings who have no followership that very quickly lose their crown. The relationship between a leader and their followers are invaluable, and while the flip from Barack Obama to Donald Trump in 2016 seems bizarre, the theories of their leadership and in turn the followership were actually more similar than you would think. 

 

References 

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 3: Followership

Celebrating Us: Leadership Myths and Psych485

by

As we near the end of our course, I wanted to find a way to celebrate all we’ve learned without regurgitating the copious amount of information we’ve digested over nearly five months. If I’m avoiding a complete survey of the semester and our lessons (and let’s be honest, I’m not known for my concision), what better way to engage with the topic of leadership than to tackle some popular leadership myths?

Each of these myths represents an idea or belief we’ve no doubt all encountered in progressing through our personal and professional lives; I know I certainly have. Let’s take a look and see how what we’ve learned supports or refutes these pervasive beliefs.

  1. Leaders must be extroverts. Lesson two introduced us to the trait theory of leadership; trait research represents one of the earliest organized attempts to study the phenomenon of leadership in the 20th century (Northouse, 2019). Even today, many are entranced with the idea that leaders are special—that they possess extraordinary qualities that others possess only in moderation or not at all—and with such assumptions comes the belief that leaders must fit a certain personality type as well (Northouse, 2019).

    Research suggests that there are certain traits that tend to be associated with accomplished leaders (Northouse, 2019). Extroversion in particular was called out by Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2017, as cited in Northouse, 2019) as an important attribute for success, yet individual traits are so narrowly focused on the leader and their qualities that the approach often fails to take into consideration the entire leadership process. Northouse (2019) defines leadership not as the province solely of the leader, but instead as a process “whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 4). In other words, leadership is a process that involves inputs related to the leader, followers, and the situation.

    Trappist monks are known for their few words, among other things. Image credit: Jan Petr Molitor

    While it is intuitively appealing to point toward a characteristic such as extroversion when one is conceptualizing what ‘great’ leadership looks like, to exclude a consideration of followers and a given situation is to strip away leadership’s potency as a process suitable for many different applications (Northouse, 2019). How might Trappist monks, for instance, fare with an abbot known for extroversion?

    For a more in-depth discussion on Trait theory, you can check out my earlier post on the topic here.

  2. One leadership style fits all, forever. In lesson five, we tackled style and situational approaches. These approaches emphasize the importance of understanding situational and follower constraints when exercising the process of leadership (Northouse, 2019). One of the best-known approaches within this genre of leadership was developed by Hersey and Blanchard in the 1960s and is known, naturally, as Situational Leadership (Northouse, 2019).

    Situational leadership is a great example of why this myth is a poor representation of the leadership process because it demonstrates both the importance of individualized consideration (in other words, meeting followers where they are) and an acknowledgment of the circumstances surrounding the leadership situation at a given moment in time (Northouse, 2019). The approach describes, in-depth, four distinct leadership styles that correlate with four levels of follower development; together, leaders can make decisions about how best to support a developing follower as they progress through stages of motivation and capability (Northouse, 2019).

    Perhaps if leadership truly was all about the leader this myth might hold water. Given the diverse array of follower needs and situational considerations, however, leaders must be prepared to adapt and change their approach to leading.

    For a closer look at situational leadership, check out this detailed blog entry that discusses the approach here.

  3. Only the boss can lead. Team leadership was a rather expansive topic we covered in lesson nine; in today’s global business environment there is higher demand than ever before for teams that can function autonomously and share leadership responsibilities (Northouse, 2019). Sometimes discussed as shared or distributed leadership, this type of leadership is supported by strong research that suggests such delegations of power not only empower team members to make decisions but lead to more nimble responses to challenges in the business environment (Northouse, 2019).

    Hey, followers aren’t sheep!

    An implicit assumption in this myth is that only an appointed leader is equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to meet the needs of a given business or unit. This paints leadership as a process that is contingent upon, first, a designated leader and second, positional power (Northouse, 2019). By contrast, team leadership theorists recognize the importance of diagnosis and action-taking as fundamental pillars of leadership; this approach capitalizes on the information power that can be cultivated in strong teams for greater performance capabilities (Northouse, 2019). If the whole is to be greater than the sum of its parts, work units must be empowered to cooperate, leverage members’ strengths, and share knowledge to achieve their aims.

    For a practical discussion of team leadership, check out a blog entry dedicated to this topic here.

  4. Management equals leadership. This myth is a definite throwback to our very first lesson in the course, and a number of leadership scholars have come out in favor and against the use of ‘manager’ and ‘leader’ as synonyms (Northouse, 2019). Bennis and Nanus (2007, as cited in Northouse, 2019) frame the difference as a fundamental if mechanical one: whereas managers are concerned with routines, processes, and accomplishing tasks (i.e., the “doing”), leaders are concerned with influencing others, creating change, and establishing visions (i.e., the “dreaming”) (p. 13).

    While some argue that good leaders wear both management and leadership hats (and perhaps they should—if leaders only dream, what happens to the “do”?!), most research supports conceptualizing the two terms as entirely separate constructs (Northouse, 2019). Semantics aside, the bottom line is that transactional relationships, often the purview of management, runs the risk of alienating an organization’s biggest resource: its people. Both tasks and relationships are crucial to meeting and exceeding organizational goals.

    For an amusing example of management versus leadership from the perspective of followership, check out my earlier blog entry on these topics here.

  5. Leaders must eliminate mistakes. Lesson ten toured the research bases for the emergence of transformational leadership as a viable, ethically desirable style of leading that works through the influence of the leader and impacts followers through charisma and inspiration (Northouse, 2019). Most important for the consideration of this myth are the styles of leadership that run counter to transformative hallmarks, notably transactional leadership behaviors.

    Where transformational leadership behaviors support the creation of a shared vision and goals between leaders and followers through an emphasis on individualized consideration, transactive behaviors prioritize scalability and broad acceptance from followers on the basis of their self-interests (Northouse, 2019). One type of transactional leadership is management by exception, defined as leadership that “involves corrective criticism, negative feedback, and negative reinforcement” (Northouse, 2019, p. 172). In active management by exception, leaders are narrowly focused on punitive consequences; put another way, mistakes or violations are viewed as an opportunity to take corrective action in the moment (Northouse, 2019).

    Management by exception helps with quality control, but what about building quality relationships?

    The greatest problem with this myth is the potential for such management tactics to stymy the creativity that helps drive businesses forward (Northouse, 2019). If leaders are narrowly focused on eliminating errors, they are unlikely to inspire their followers to be part of the problem-solving and innovating functions of their unit. Further, research suggests that these types of transactional relationships prevent leaders from being able to form trusting, mutually beneficial exchanges with their followers (Northouse, 2019). Innovation is a risk-taking venture; leaders must balance efficiency with calculated risks in order to get the most out of followers’ potential.

    For an insightful exploration of transformational vs. transactional leadership, check out this blog entry here. To revisit another way of building strong exchange relationships, check out my earlier blog post related to leader-member exchange theory here.

Five leadership myths, several weeks of lessons, and myriad reasons why research emphasizes the importance of leadership theories over the individual experiences that leadership maxims offer us (PSU WC, 2021, L. 1). Based on your own experiences this semester, which myths do you think are most concretely busted? Which might have a few kernels of truth tucked in?

References

Jan Petr Molitor. (1756). Cisterian monks [painting]. Retrieved at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Petr_Molitor_-_Cistercian_monks,_murals_Cistercian_Abbey_Osek.jpg

Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Retrieved at: https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781506362298/

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 1: Introduction to leadership. Retrieved at: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110257/modules/items/30960543

Skip to toolbar