Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Study of Leadership in Athletics: How an Athletic Director’s Traits Affect Their Ability to Lead?

by

When one thinks about leaders in sports, their mind almost instantly settles on the coach, or maybe even the team captain.  However, in college and high school athletics, the true leader of a team and/or a group of teams can be found in the school’s athletic director (AD).  According the website, learn.org, AD’s are defined as “administrators who supervise and oversee athletic programs at a college, high school or private institution. They are responsible for budgeting, promotion, and scheduling for sports teams. An AD may coordinate with student academic departments, though they rarely work directly with athletes. Instead, they act as athletic managers, organizing transportation, supervising coaches, and guiding sports teams to success indirectly. They are charged with the task of hiring and firing coaches, as well as other athletic staffers in their organization.”  In psychology terms, athletic directors fit the academic definition of a leader.  They are “individuals who influence a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p.6).

Focusing in on the relationship between AD and coach is where we see the leadership styles of AD’s, especially the trait approach, weigh heavily on the success of the coaches, and in turn, the entire program.  Utilizing the “five major leadership traits” described in Northouse (2016, p.23) of intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability, we can attribute these traits to the success of the leader of an athletic program.  The trait approach to leadership has been studied for decades, beginning in the early 20th century, and is “one of the first systematic attempts to study leadership” (Northouse, 2016, p.19)   In the interest of narrowing the emphasis for this post, we will look at the combination of intelligence and sociability, and how they are key traits in a successful AD.

Social intelligence is a relatively new area of study in the history of leadership trait theory and is part of the larger area of emotional intelligence research (PSU, WC, 2020, L2).  According to the lesson commentary (PSU, WC, L2), social intelligence is comprised of two factors:

  • Social awareness, which is basically being able to be empathetic to others situations.
  • Social facility, which is the ability to act on that empathy in ways that change the situation for the better.

A recent study by Robinson et al (2019) has described social intelligence as “political skill”, specifically in the area of an athletic director’s leadership skills.  The study went on to describe the impact of political skill and the influence that it had on leader influence.  Furthermore, the researchers evaluated how the effectiveness of the leader, lead to job satisfaction amongst the followers (coaches), as well as, the overall affect this had on the program.  The researchers were able to reach a conclusion by interviewing hundreds of AD’s across the United States and having them complete a Political Skill Inventory as part of a Qualtrics survey.  The corresponding coaches of the AD respondents were then given a survey to evaluate effectiveness of their leaders.  They answered based on a scale system regarding items such as job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment (Robinson et al, 2019).  Robinson was able to accurately conclude that political skill or social intelligence has a direct correlation to effective leadership based on job satisfaction and the positive affect this has on the followers (2019).  A diagram of this relationship can be seen here:

Source: Robinson et al (2019)

In conclusion, studies like the one above and the others through the history of leadership theory have proven that there is more to being successful leader than being “born” with the correct traits to lead.  There is a multi-pronged approach involving intelligence (social and emotional), as well as, traits such sociability and extraversion (Northouse, 2016).  Although some traits may be inherent, it is important to remember that some traits can be trained further for success.

 

References

Northouse, Peter G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2020). PSYCH 485 Lesson 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2040131/modules/items/28001674.

Robinson, G. M., Magnusen, M., & Kim, J. W. (2019). The socially effective leader: Exploring the relationship between athletic director political skill and coach commitment and job satisfaction. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 14(2), 197-204. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1177/1747954119834118.

Website- Learn.org: https://learn.org/articles/What_is_an_Athletic_Director.html.

Leadership Adaptation in Complex and Rapidly Changing Environments

by

Twenty years in the military have taught me a myriad of things.  Of note, I’ve witnessed the different sides of the leadership spectrum and learned that you will get the good leaders with the bad ones.  I’ve also seen that effective leadership often begins with great followership, and I now realize that great followers learn from all of their leaders – again, from the good and the bad.  In the past two decades, the environments in which our military forces operate have become more and more complex.  Increasing demands are one of the many challenges while funding, personnel and resources continue to decrease.  These rapidly changing environments forced us to adapt and fortunately, our leaders and our teams have proudly stepped up to the challenge.

We recently covered team leadership in our class, and it felt that every line in the textbook reminded me of someone I had met or something I had seen.  In the profession of arms, we simply cannot function without effective teams.  We operate with deliberate approaches in planning for centralized decision-making and decentralized execution.  Discipline is not what makes these operations work; rather, it is our adaptive teams and their creative members who always succeed against the complex environments we face today.

As I read the lesson contents, I could not help but to think of the time when I was deployed to the Horn of Africa as part of an international military task force.  Two weeks ago, we learned that task forces are formed to solve problems and need structures emphasizing trust; this applies both in and out of the military (PSU WC, 2019, L. 9).  Deliberate structure design helps with accomplishing goals.  Just as task forces need trust, creative teams need autonomy so that their members can take ownership and accept risks at the appropriate levels.  Similarly, tactical teams must have clarity so that everyone knows exactly what to do and when to do it (PSU, WC, 2019, L. 9).  Certainly, our team in Africa had every one of these things, but most importantly, we had trust.

Trust is a critical component of a collaborative climate in team leadership and ensures that team members can effectively work with and trust in one another.  Within this collaborate climate, shared and participative leadership are what make teams more adaptive and capable of succeeding in rapidly changing environments.  In participative leadership, the leader involves other members in the decision-making process and consults with them before final decisions are made (PSU WC, 2019, L. 6).  This certainly builds trust, but it also makes all members feel valued, lets them see how decisions are made and, most importantly, it interlaces the team into the leadership process.

Similarly, shared leadership is a process in which all members of the team participate and contribute to leadership.  This process occurs when “members of the team take on leadership behaviors to influence the team and to maximize team effectiveness (Bergman, Rentsch, Small, Davenport, & Bergman, 2012 as cited in Northouse, 2016, pp. 365)”.  According to Pearce and Sims (2000), teams with shared leadership were more effective than others without (as cited in PSW WC, 2019, L. 9).  Shared leadership builds trust, develops individual leadership abilities and increases team adaptability.

Our team in Africa and other military task forces are not the only examples of trust and shared leadership, there are many other organizations and groups at national and international levels.  In fact, virtual teams such as the ones we have in online classes are the perfect examples; nowadays and in today’s rapidly changing environments, it is virtually impossible to operate without trust and without the distribution of leadership roles and responsibilities.  Research indicates that such shared leadership “has become more and more important in today’s organizations to allow faster responses to more complex issues (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Pearce, Manz, & Sims, 2009; Solansky, 2008 as sited in Northouse, 2016)”.

Looking back on my deployment, I now realize that our successes were not attributed to one member or one leader.  We all came home safely and were successful in our mission because we built trust, we built teams and we built leaders.  Like us, there are many others in military and civilian organizations that must constantly adapt to ever-changing environments.  Trust and team leadership is what will help us all in maximizing the flexibility and collaboration we need to achieve success.

References

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

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 9: Team Leadership. Retrieved October 23, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 11: Servant Leadership. Retrieved November 5, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Sports Team Stages

by

When reading our lesson there was one idea that stuck out to me a lot. This idea was Tuckman’s (1965) idea about group stages of development. This stuck out to me because I actually learned about this in a previous class which if I remember correctly was sports psychology. Tuckman’s idea involves four and sometimes five stages; forming, storming, norming, performing, and sometimes adjourning (PSU WC, L9, 2019).

I experienced these stages last spring when I played intramural soccer. My team consisted of me, my friends, and some friends of friends. Everyone didn’t know each other and so before our first game we entered the forming stage. This stage is when group members, or in my case team members, gather information about each other (PSU WC, L9, 2019). Before the start of the game we all got in a circle and introduced ourselves. After learning names, we then discussed our experience playing soccer and areas of our game that we excelled at and areas that we weren’t all that good.

The next stage my team entered was the storming stage. This is when a group or team may experience some conflict. It involves discussing how the task will be accomplished (PSU WC, L9, 2019). With my soccer team, we experienced this when discussing how we would win the game. Each of us offered ideas on different styles of play and different formations we could use to help us win the game.

Norming is the next stage and that is when a group leader emerges and group norms develop (PSU WC, L9, 2019). After playing a few games, a leader did arise on our team. Since most of us didn’t have much soccer experience, this leader happened to be our best player. He became the leader because he did the most for the team and also he knew the most so he was qualified to be telling us what to do and how to do things. Group norms also developed. We got into a groove of who would play and with who on the field. After a few games, we also found out what aspects of the game our team was good and bad at.

The performing stage is group members play functional, interdependent roles in an effort to reach a goal (PSU WC, L9, 2019). Our goal was winning games and after each of us learned each others playing styles we got better at knowing how to play functionally together. The fifth and final stage of Tuckman’s (1965) group stages is called adjourning. Adjourning is when the group splits up, either because the task is completed or through attrition, such as someone quitting (PSU WC, L9, 2019). This happened to our group when we played our final game. After our last game we all took off our cleats and went home and have yet to get everyone in that exact group back together again.

References:

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 9: Team leadership. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules/items/27074716.

The Warrior and the Magician – Contrasting Leadership and Competing Priorities

by

The Warrior and the Magician – Contrasting Leadership and Competing Priorities

Leading people is not easy and a single approach will not work every time.  As situations change, so do the leaders, followers and organizations involved.  It is therefore critical to recognize the different impacts these variables can have on leadership effectiveness.  I have recently been involved in senior leadership discussions in my organization that made me realize you can have great leaders clashing over competing organizational priorities, even if they are ultimately trying to achieve the same goal.  On one hand, you may have those thought to be strong “warriors” while counterbalancing with caring “magicians” on the other.

The psychodynamic approach to leadership considers archetypes amongst other factors.  Archetypes, according to the Penn State World Campus (PSU WC, 2019, L. 3, p. 7) are “strong patterns in the human psyche that persist over time.”  There are many relevant archetypes in leadership, but the Warrior and the Magician are two of the most popular considered in business thus far.  On one side, the warrior is the stereotype that most people have of a leader – one who is strong and effective.  Warriors are competitive and confident, and they swiftly attack when faced with danger; they impose their will on others and work hard to achieve goals (PSU WC, 2019, L. 3).  Although stereotypical and certainly effective, a warrior leader is not always ideal in every situation.

In contrast, a magician is someone who is adaptable and encourages flexibility amongst the team.  Some consider this archetype as the ideal leader; under their guidance and leadership, teams engage emotionally, forego personal gains and strive to achieve collective goals.  As opposed to the warrior, a magician does not work for monetary gains and instead sees the goal as its own reward (PSU WC, 2019, L. 3).  Leadership approaches and organizational priorities between a warrior and a magician cannot be more different from each other.

Recent discussions with decision makers in my organization cement the fundamental concepts of these leadership archetypes.  On one side of the negotiating table, I have a senior leader who is concerned about the relationship between the military base and the local community surrounding our installation.  He is a warrior who exhibits task behaviors and directive leadership when leading the team to achieve goals.  Additionally, he is commanding and strictly drives people in the same direction.  Directive leadership is commonly characterized by instructions, clear standards, rules, expectations, schedules and norms (PSU WC, 2019, L.5; PSU WC, 2019, L. 6; Northouse, 2016).

On the other side of the table, I have a magician who exemplifies supportive leadership and is concerned about the needs and well-being of his subordinates.  He encourages involvement at every level and empowers members of the team; undoubtedly, he exercises participative leadership which is a leader’s way of involving others in the decision-making process (PSU WC, 2019, L. 6; Northouse, 2016).  A supportive leader respects their followers and a participative leader values their opinions.  Fortunately, we have this type of leader sitting on the side of negotiations opposite to that of the “warrior” senior leader.

The most recent competing priority was a military event at risk of cancellation due to forecasted inclement weather.  One of the leaders wanted to postpone the day prior so that he could provide the soonest notification to the local community, while the other wanted to wait for cancellation until the day of the event in case the weather got better (which was a possibility based on forecasts).

With contrasting leadership came competing priorities.  The directive, commanding warrior is risk-averse and wants to be seen as confident and respected.  Although he is very effective and his concerns are considerably valid, his priority is saving face in front of the local community.  The supportive magician was concerned about how much work his team had already accomplished towards the event, how much more work it would take to break everything down and how much it would cost to postpone now and execute later.

Our organization is certainly fortunate because regardless of their contrasting styles and having concerns on opposite sides of the spectrum, both of these outstanding leaders have something in common – the goals of doing what’s right, finding common ground and making the best decision for the team and for the community.  After considering inputs by the many experts involved in the planning process (to include local weather forecasters), the event was kept on schedule and executed as planned.  Albeit rainy, it was exciting and memorable for everyone who came out that day.  Undoubtedly, leadership and goal accomplishment are both difficult but recognizing impacts on different levels certainly helps.  It is extremely valuable when building teams, especially if you have both warriors and magicians involved in the fight!

References

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

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 3: Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved September 12, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 5: Style a& Situational Approaches. Retrieved September 25, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/modules

Switching up Leadership Styles is Important

by

This past summer I began working at an auto detailing shop. I am a “team” manager and help the other employees with detailing cars and it can be very difficult at times. It can be difficult because the shop I work at is centered around hiring adults with cognitive disabilities. This makes it difficult for me to manage them because there is not one specific way to manage them, each employee requires different needs. Some of them need more direction and attention while others need more of a relationship style leader to help maximize their productivity.

When I first started, I struggled with managing the workers because I was too focused on getting the tasks completed. Based on the Leadership Grid, I was managing with more of an authority-compliance leadership style (PSU WC, 2019, L. 5).This was because I had not been around the workers enough to understand what they needed and how I could help them. I would often just tell the workers how to do something and then tell them to do it while I went and worked on something else that had to be done in the detailing process. Even if that worker would get distracted or didn’t do the task correctly, I wouldn’t say anything and end up just doing it myself. My boss noticed this and told me that I need to put more effort into getting the other workers to do the tasks instead of letting them slack off. To do this, I began to form more relationships with the workers so I could learn how to help and guide them.

After learning about the workers, I realized that each one needed different things and I was able to give each one the guidance that they needed. Based on the leadership grid, I soon became a team management style leader and had much more success. While I was still focused on the tasks at hand, I also began putting more emphasis on my relationships with the employees(PSU WC, 2019, L. 5).For my job, the team management style was very effective at getting the workers to be productive, but sometimes I had to change my style depending on the person. One worker for example, can’t really talk all that well so he decides not to most of the time. It was hard to develop a relationship with him and get him to do his job. He also would get distracted and space out a lot of the time. Using a different style approach, like the authority compliance style was more effective for this person. I had to often keep an eye on him and remind him that he needs to stay focused and continue working on his task (PSU WC, 2019, L. 5).

There is another worker who really likes to talk. When I first started working, I wouldn’t engage with them enough and instead would remind them what they needed to be doing and this didn’t work because this person began to get upset and annoyed with work. Taking this class helped me realize that I needed to switch up my leadership style for this particular employee. For this employee I decided to try the country club management style from the Leadership Grid and focus more on the social needs of this worker (PSU WC, 2019, L. 5).I began to engage more with this person and talking to them while working. This helped the employee to remain happy and because they were happier their work performance improved and they stayed focused much longer on their tasks.

 

References:

 

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2019). PSYCH 485 Discussion 5: Style and Situational Approaches [Video file]. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2008237/discussion_topics/12613428?module_item_id=27074668.

Skip to toolbar