Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Powerful leaders aren’t always “good” leaders!

by

We often discuss the terms “successful” and “powerful” in a positive manner – especially when talking about leadership qualities. However – a great leader, when the term is used as an adjective, really just means above average and/or the normal. There were many leaders over the years who were great, successful and powerful yet didn’t do a single positive thing to impact or influence others. Each and every thing they did, while inspirational and influential to some, only hurt others. Some individuals have taken such strong and idealistic traits and abused them in a manner by doing harm. According to Northouse (2016) there were many researchers who chose to study the trait approach, each noting different ones that they believed to be important.

Stogdill (1948) intelligence, alertness, insight, responsibility, initiative, persistence, self-confidence, sociability

Mann (1959) intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance, extraversion, conservatism

Stogdill (1974) achievement, persistence, insight, initiative, self-confidence, responsibility, cooperativeness, tolerance, influence, sociability

Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) intelligence, masculinity, dominance

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) drive, motivation, integrity, confidence, cognitive ability, task knowledge

Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004) congnitive abilities, extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openess, agreeableness, motivation, social intelligence, self-monitoring, emotional intelligence, problem solving

(Northouse, Pg. 22, 2016)

Many of those researchers had very similar if not the same traits that they believed were important to leadership. Again, one may assume that such traits were that of a leader who has positively influenced others, however, that is not always the case. There were multiple leaders, who possessed many of those traits who were not “good” leaders but were “great” leaders…

Pol Pot – “Pol Pot was a Cambodian communist and leader of the Khmer Rouge from 1963 to 1997. He was also the leader of Cambodia for four years, ruling as a totalitarian dictator. During his radical rule, an estimated 1 to 3 million people died due to his policies (out of a population slightly over 8 million).

He attempted to “cleanse” the country with a highly questionable policy called agrarian civilization, where he forcibly moved city folk to the countryside to work in forced labor projects at collective farms. Combining his executions, malnutrition, poor medical care, and forced labor, Pol Pot caused the deaths of approximately 25% of the Cambodian population.” (Barclay, 2014)

Ghengis Khan – “Temujin, better known as Genghis Khan, was the founder of the Mongol Empire, which would become the largest contiguous empire in history after his death. Although he is known as a great military commander, a revolutionary of trade, for encouraging religious tolerance, and as a hero to Mongolia, his conquests vilified him throughout most of history.

Khan killed his brother when he was 10 for stealing a fish he caught. He is known for many wholesale massacres of civilian populations, one of which resulted in the deaths of over 1 million civilians in a single day. The sacking of Urgench, as it is known, was considered one of the bloodiest massacres in human history:  He killed three quarters of the population in the Iranian Plateau (10 to 15 million people), destroyed most of the Middle East, and annihilated all of the major cities of Eastern Europe. It’s terrifying to think just what he would have been capable of if he had the killing technology we do today…” (Barclay, 2014)

Joseph Stalin – “Stalin was the Premier and dictator of the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1953. He started as a Bolshevik revolutionary in 1917, and exercised great political power after that. In 1928, he launched his Five Year Plan, an aggressive industrial and agricultural program which left hundreds of thousands of peasants starving or dead.

He got rid of all of his political opposition through a Great Purge (or “Great Terror” depending who you talk to), aimed at his rivals through trials and secret executions. In Ukraine there is a dark period known as Holodomor, where his policies caused a famine and killed between 2.5 to 10 million people – citizens that he simply let die in order to depopulate the country. Stalin killed more of his own people than possibly anyone else in history (except maybe Mao Zedong). Through massacres, famine, Gulag camps, executions, policies, and military campaigns, it is estimated that Stalin is responsible for the deaths of between 15 to 30 million people.” (Barclay, 2014)

Adolf Hitler – “Hitler actively pursued the genocide of entire people. This man was the fuel and fire behind the most infamous and vile genocides in history, The Holocaust. Nazi forces under his Third Reich systematically murdered up to 17 million civilians – six million of whom were Jewish – during his time as dictator.

By the end of World War II, Hitler’s policies, territorial conquests, racial subjugation and concentration camps caused the death and destruction of much of the world: Adolf Hitler can certainly be considered the most ruthless and evil ruler in history.” (Barclay, 2014)

Each of the above listed leaders were people who displayed intelligence, alertness, initiative, persistence, self-confidence, masculinity, dominance and influence – many of the same traits that are used to also describe memorable and positively influential leaders like Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Theresa, Abraham Lincoln and Dalai Lama.

As said by Northouse (Pg. 19, 2016) “An individual with leadership traits who was a leader in one situation might not be a leader in another situation.” – This relates greatly to the leaders (good and bad) that I have listed above. Just because they possess traits that allowed them to be successful in one situation and environment, does not mean that they could take those same traits and utilize them in others.

Barclay, Cory. 10 Most Murderous Rulers in History. The Richest. http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/10-most-murderous-rulers-in-history/ 2014.

Northouse, Peter G. Leadership: Theory and Practice – Seventh Edition. Chapter 2 – Trait Approach. SAGE Publications. 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

Leadership Hunger Pains

by

The current presidential campaign has been rather challenging for me to watch. I want to stress that I’m not looking at this from a Democratic or Republican point of view, but rather a leadership point of view.  I cannot be the only person in the United States that thinks this thought: this the best that we can do? I mean, we are a nation of roughly 320 million people and we do not seem to have the leaders that we once did.  Putting this into perspective, when the Founding Fathers created the United States there were about three million people in the population, yet six world-class leaders were among the authors including Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, and Franklin (Bennis, 2009, p. 12).  So where did these once great leaders go?   I am starving for good leadership and it is in this hunger that I have realized how important a good leader is and how hard it is for leaders to be developed.

Over the past number of years we have been continuously disappointed by our leaders. From the business world greed of Enron, Lehman Brothers, and Tyco, to religion, the Roman Catholic Church, to politics, were four of the last seven Illinois governors have gone to prison; there are many examples of our leaders disappointing us (ABC 7, 2013).  Have these leaders not taken classes in leadership?  Have they not attended a seminar on leadership ethics?  I’m confused; these leaders are normally the best of the best and the brightest of the bunch, but what is happening?  As Bennis points out our leaders are important for three reasons.  First, a leader is important because “they are responsible for the effectiveness of an organization” (Bennis, 2009, p.5).  Second, our leaders need to be “anchors and guides…inspire us and restore our hope” (Bennis, 2009, p.5).  Third, “there is a pervasive national concern about the integrity of our institutions” (Bennis, 2009, p.5).  Every single example listed above breaks these reasons.  When Rod Blagojevich was selling or trading Barak Obama’s old senate seat in 2009, I do not think he was being responsible for the effectiveness of the government, nor was he trying to be an example for others to follow, and he obviously did not care about the integrity of his institution.  Norman Lear described a potential  cause of these behaviors  as “short-term thinking: ‘It’s asking what the poll is saying, not what’s great for the country and what’s best for the future, but what do I say in the short term to get me from here to there’”(Lear as cited in Bennis, 2009, p.17).  This means that decision making for leaders has come down to when the next earning report is due, what the next Gallup poll might say, or if the voters will nominate the candidate.

By understanding the short term mindset, I think this gives at least a way to help develop leaders in today’s society. Bennis points out that “billions of dollars are spent annually by and on would-be leaders” (2009, p.36) through leadership development courses, seminars, and other offerings.  Yet, more leaders have been “made by accident, circumstance, sheer grit, or will than have been made by all the leadership courses put together” (Bennis, 2009, p. 36).  In the real world, I work as a learning development specialist and we practice what is called the 70:20:10.  In a nutshell, 70% of the time you learn through experience, 20% of the time you learn through others, and 10% of the time you learn through structured learning.  Bennis’ point is extremely valuable because he is saying that the leadership development courses represent only a fraction of the learning (the 10%), yet most people believe that once they go through these courses they are leaders.  Therefore, businesses, governments, and other organizations should look to utilize a more holistic approach through assigning a leader a mentor (20%), giving the leader courses to develop decision making, vision, and other skills (10%), and give the leader a chance to practice these skills in a normal environment (70%).  One downside is that this process could not be completed in this manner in every organization.  Furthermore, I do not believe that all organizations will be able to invest the money that it takes to develop leaders.  Which brings me back to my second point, leadership development is so difficult due to its cost; however, I would argue that organizations, businesses, and governments will pay for leadership development one way (success) or another (failure).

I hope that my leadership hunger pains will be satisfied soon, but it is looking like I will have to wait until 2020.

References:

Bennis, W. (2009). On Becoming A Leader (20th Anniversary Edition).  Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books, Inc.

ABC 7 Chicago. 4 of the Previous 7 Illinois Governors Went to Prison. Retrieved from http://abc7chicago.com/archive/8973798/

Servant leadership, an Interesting Concept

by

servant-leadership

When we as a society think of the word servant the connotations do not particularly lend themselves to thoughts of leadership. In essence the thought could be considered backwards as someone who is lead to serve. What is interesting here is servant leadership fuses the ideals of leadership and servant into one theory. This is found to be quite an effective style of leadership in the sense that those who embody servant leadership style “understand that behaviors either build trust or destroy it, and without trust one cannot generally achieve consistent high employee engagement and high performance.” (Hess, 2013) As can be determined servant leadership can be identified as a more grounded style of leadership. The leader is at a level of understanding with followers that guidance and considerate leadership can produce a mutually productive work atmosphere. “Servant leadership can be attributed to the basic idea that the leader creates a culture so that the process of leadership is always actively engaged and serving the purpose of the organization.” (Penn State, 2015) An article posted to Forbes.com examines this leadership style and refers to some interesting information compiled on the subject. The article states that, “a group of organizational psychologists, led by Adam Grant, are attempting to measure the impact of servant leadership on leaders, not just those being led. Grant describes research in his recent book, Give and Take, and suggests that servant leaders are not only more highly regarded than others by their employees and not only feel better about themselves at the end of the day, but are more productive as well.” (Heskett, 2013)

It is not that far-fetched to identify that to lead from a servant level can produce better relationships. Especially when some characteristics of the leadership style include; healing, empathy, listening, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. (Penn State, 2015) Servant leadership leads in such a way that sets up followers for success. The ultimate goal is to create leaders from followers and enhance the business or group construct as a whole. (Penn State, 2015) Providing others with the information, guidance and tools for them to be able to lead themselves has proven to be a successful model for many companies. Research done by Edward Hess who authored an article for the Washington Post witnessed this style of servant leadership in many large companies including; Best Buy, UPS, Ritz Carlton, Room & Board, Whole Foods, Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, Levy Restaurants, the San Antonio Spurs and TSYS. (Hess, 2013)

Servant leadership places the power at a balanced awareness. The leader identifies with a servant state but is also the person with the knowledge and ability to guide and promote followers . When followers recognize and work together with the leader a cohesive relationship ensues. This is a different stance than the typical empowered leader, even one who is considerate of followers and leads with empathetic awareness. Servant leadership empowers both the leader and follower to produce the best results through a relationship of mutual respect for the achievement of group goals.

 

Works Cited

Heskett, James. (2013) Why Isn’t Servant Leadership More Prevalent?. Forbes.com. Retrieved from, http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/05/01/why-isnt-servant-leadership-more-prevalent/

Hess, Edward. (2013). Servant Leadership: A path to high performance. The Washington Post. Retrieved from, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/servant-leadership-a-path-to-high-performance/2013/04/26/435e58b2-a7b8-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html

Penn State University Course Creator.(2015). Lesson 11: Servant Leadership. Retrieved from, https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa15/psych485/001/content/11_lesson/01_page.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E3btARur60A/VN45XPTs_OI/AAAAAAAAUMc/czotQgqOyoM/s1600/servant-leadership.png (2015) Retrieved from, http://gpacsports.blogspot.com/2015/02/being-servant-leader-what-does-that.html

Future Science: The Reverse Identification of Leadership

by

432 hz brainrhythm

Are the traits of a leader obviously positioned on the surface or underlying deep in the psyche? When we think of a leader the general consensus would be the identification of traits that a leader embodies. Those people that exude emotional strength, intelligence, resolve under pressure, empathy and so forth. But it can be questioned if the leader personality goes deeper to encompass traits such as spatial awareness, influential energies, and a specific aura of life.

Psychology as a science is concerned with affirmed data of measurable things. But beyond the box of numbers, charts and data graphs there is more to the human experience than exuded emotional characteristics. The five factor model gives us an outline of the dimensions of personality; conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion. While science is confined to the available knowledge of presiding time, I wonder if these ‘dimensions’ can be measured on an even more generalized level. Such as the vibrational energies of successful leaders, and if this could be measured in reverse. Such as to say that a leader can be identified before the characteristics are assessed in that person.

Though this may seem a science fictional assumption, I think it is not beyond reason. There is a pattern in the traits of leaders. A sense of strong will, influential emotion and the ability to draw on a knowledge base, all contribute the characteristic dimensions aforementioned. There is a large body of research that shows extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability are all positively correlated with leadership success. (PSU, 2015) If it is continuously proved that these same personality traits are identifiable in all leaders then it would be a correct assumption to say successful leaders would all exude the same living vibrations which allow them to perform in a way which influences those around them.

The issue with this theory is the same brought up for trait approaches such as the Five Factor Model. The challenge that Stogdill (1948) suggested is that there is no consistent set of traits that are different in leaders and followers. Leaders in one situation are not necessarily leaders in another situation. (PSU, 2015) What is the solution to this conflict? Can a leader be pin pointed indefinitely or is it a specific state of being that comes and goes depending on circumstance? Only time will tell in the scientific study of leadership and the progression of methods to gathering data. But on any side of the argument it can be agreed upon that leadership is a state of being and this state of emotional output can be measured. It is my suggestion that leadership’s dimensional output can be measured prior to other means which require cognitive analysis, if only we had the advanced science available to do so.

 

 

Citations

Penn State University Course Creator.(2015). Lesson 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa15/psych485/001/content/02_lesson/01_page.html

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Brianrhythm.png. (2013) Retrieved from: http://humansarefree.com/2011/03/does-conspiracy-extend-to-musical-scale.html

Leading a Multigenerational Workforce

by

I’ve had the privilege of serving as Commanding Officer of two operational units staffed with personnel of different ages, backgrounds, and abilities. One challenge that I’ve had over the years is trying to balance what motivates people of different generations. I’ve had newly reported personnel who are 18 years old and the Coast Guard has been their first real job. On the other hand, I’ve had subordinates that are 40 years old or older who have worked for different leaders over their years and are sometimes stuck in their ways. Within each age group I’ve observed different work attitudes, motivation, and varied reactions to organizational change. As a leader, I found that I would have to address things differently with in each peer group to keep progress towards achieving unit goals moving forward. It is important for leaders to recognize what motivates their subordinates when leading a diverse group of individuals.

I think that the younger generation of employees (Millennials) tend to have a different expectation of the leader / subordinate relationship as compared to those who are older like the Generation-Xers. I’ve found that the Millennials expect greater transparency and are more often going to ask why something needs to get done. They seek instant feedback on their performance and are more aware of how their performance stacks up compared to their peers. According to Gilbert (2011), “traditional semi-annual reviews are too infrequent for millennials.” Conversely, older workers seem to just go about their business when given a task and, in my opinion, care less about supervisor and peer perception. To be clear, I am not pinning one generation against the other rather just noting the differences. My style has always been to be very aware of how each age group reacts to task direction and how individual and team recognition keeps people motivated.

Businessman chatting with co-worker in office

According to Northouse (2013), the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership was developed to describe how leaders support and encourage subordinates to accomplish goals while being satisfied on the job and recognized for their work efforts. I think that this theory can be used to understand how a leader can be successful when faced with an employee workforce made up of different generations of workers. Specifically, the leader needs to understand what motivates people of different generations to achieve peak performance. Removing barriers such as a lack understanding and respect for each age group’s needs certainly strengthens the leader / subordinate relationship.

To explain this, we can look at the different components (leader behaviors) of the Path-Goal Theory and their applicability with both younger and mature workers.

Directive Leadership: We all grew up with a structured routine both at home and at school which sets the stage for young workers entering the workplace. It is important for the leader to be consistent and give subordinates clear task instructions and a time frame for completion. Further, the leader should set expectations for the quality of work which is required for task completion. From my experience, younger workers appreciate having a clear picture of they end goal of their efforts which can be communicated at the onset of a project. While clear task direction is important, I think that millennials appreciate some flexibility in either their schedule or method of task completion which gives them a greater sense of control. Mature workers may enjoy a more structured approach which means that the leader needs to strike a balance with moving towards goal completion.

Supportive Leadership: Here’s where I’ve found the most success with motivating young workers. I made it a point to know as much as possible about my subordinates. I knew where they were from, their favorite sports teams, and a little bit of their cultural background. This not only helped me develop a rapport with them but, when I needed to address an issue or found them having difficulty, I could leverage our relationship and adapt my delivery to the subordinate in order to be as effective as possible when addressing performance issues. Gilbert (2011) discusses that creating engagement strategies with millennials shout be one of management’s big goals.

Participated Leadership: One of the most important strategies to facilitate subordinate buy-in is allowing them to provide input in to how to accomplish the goal. Even if you cannot incorporate all of their ideas, the simple fact that you solicited their input allows them to feel like that have some control over the assigned task and end goal. I’ve found the millennials respond really well to active and involved leadership.

Achievement oriented Leadership: Northouse (2013) explains that this component is characterized by a leader who establishes a high standard of excellence and challenges subordinates to work at a high level. I think that the most important part of this component is that the leader makes sure that when excellence is achieved that the accomplishments are well recognized in an effort to help build employee competence and confidence. The leader should show faith in subordinates which should in turn make the employee want to do his or her best. As previously stated, millennials enjoy instant feedback and the leader should adapt to this by giving on-the-spot recognition versus waiting for an annual or semi-annual formal evaluation. The younger generation has been immersed in technology where information is instantly available at their fingertips. Leaders need to recognize this and provide timely feedback.

The Path-Goal Leadership Theory is not a one size fits all style of leadership rather, it is a combination of different styles and behaviors which a leader can put in to play in various situations and workgroups. Any combination of components may help to reTeamwork Essentialsmove obstacles and clear a path for workers to achieve both personal and organizational goals. With Baby-Boomers transitioning out of the workforce and Generation-Xers filling leadership gaps, Millennials are the future of the workforce and by 2020, they will comprise 46 percent of the work force (Lynch, 2008). It is imperative for leaders to develop situational awareness and find effective strategies to motivate both mature and young workers. As a Commanding Officer, I’ve found success with utilizing the team concept to mesh the different generations which feeds the collaborative nature of the young workers while allowing experienced team members to influence the development of the junior workforce.

References:

Gilbert, J. (2011). Ivey Business Journal. Retrieved February 26, 2015, from http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/the-millennials-a-new-generation-of-employees-a-new-set-of-engagement-policies/

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Lynch, A. (2008). ROI on generation Y employees. Bottom Line Conversations, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.knoxvillechamber.com/pdf/workforce/ROIonGenYWhitePaper.pdf

Skip to toolbar