Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

The Great Man Theory

by

How do one become a leader? How do you define a leader? Who is an example of a great leader? People have been fascinated by leadership for hundreds of years. A relatively obsolete but effective  approach that has been used to define leadership is the Great Man Theory. Researchers focused on the study of personality in order to determine what made certain good leaders (PSU, World Campus). Researchers concluded “only great people have specific personality qualities that were innate in leaders. Leaders were born rather than created. (Northouse). The findings were proven to be a misconception as some individuals can emerge as leaders while others are born with natural leadership abilities. The trait approach was one of the first attempts to study leadership and identify  the correlation between personality and leadership. 

Ralph   Stogdill argued that a successful leader’s characteristics must be relevant to the demands of the leadership situation(  Northouse, 2021, pg28). After grasping a great understanding of leadership and factors influencing leadership, Stogdill (1948) concluded from his surveys that these traits were common in the average leader

  • Intelligence
  • Alertness
  • Insight
  • Responsibility 
  • Initiative
  • Persistence
  • Self- Confidence
  • Sociability

In (1974), Stogdilll finalized the 10 traits in which he believed influenced leadership after conducting his second survey.

  • drive for responsibility and task completion
  • vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals
  • venturesomeness and originality in problem solving
  • drive to exercise initiative in social situations
  • self-confidence and sense of personal identity
  • willingness to accept consequences of decision and action
  • readiness to absorb interpersonal stress
  • willingness to tolerate frustration and delay
  • ability to influence other persons’ behavior
  • capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand

However, several researchers were conducting studies in order to discover the appropriate traits of leadership adding and taking away certain factors. Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) observed that leadership traits differ among individuals . Kirkpatrick and Locke stemmed from the Stogdill approach identifying 6 traits between leaders and nonleaders.

  • Drive
  • Motivation
  • Honesty and Integrity
  • Self-Confidence
  • Task Knowledge

 

The trait approach provided a gateway for researchers to develop conclusions on whether or not leaders are born with specific traits that distinguishes them to be great leaders. Even though individuals may be born with leadership attributes, researchers have proven that leaders can emerge. Since our environment is continuously changing, the traits within our leaders are also changing. The trait approach is only a small part of ways in which leadership can be observed. What it takes to be a leader will change a hundred years from now, but the approaches we use today will be a part of the factors in which leaders are identified.

 

References

 

Northouse, P.G. (2022).  Leadership: Theory and Practice (9th Ed). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2023).  PSYCH 485 Lesson 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcapus.psu.edu/canvas/sp23/22311-16647/content/03_lesson/printlesson.html

Stogdill, R.M. (1948). Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A review of the Literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71

Stogdill, R.M. (1974).  Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.

Kirkpatrick, S. A. & Locke, E, A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executive, 5, 48-60.


Self-Confidence as a Leadership Trait

by

The trait approach to leadership “empathizes that having a leader with a certain set of traits is crucial to having effective leadership” Northouse, 2022, p. 41).  Leadership defined from a personality perspective (p. 6) state that certain traits are inherent in people that allow them to be leaders.   There are five major leadership traits; “intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability” (p. 34).  Self-confidence, of these five traits, is the most important trait because it instills confidence in followers that the leader is competent and capable.

I started working on my Organizational Leadership degree about three years ago.  The more I learn about leadership, the more I find myself observing not only our current leaders but also potential leaders around me.  In monthly all-staff meetings, I pay close attention to the volunteer speakers who are not in assigned leadership roles.  In particular, I take note of their self-confidence.  The more confidence the speaker projects, the more charismatic that person comes across.  To me, that person will be the next to be promoted.  I base this assumption on another observation I have noted.  All of our leaders that have been promoted within our department had at one point volunteered to speak at these all-staff meetings and that they spoke with high levels of self-confidence.

Northouse describes self-confidence as the “ability to be certain about one’s competencies and skills” and the self-assurance “that one can make a difference” (p. 33).  It’s not necessarily that the person is actually capable of doing the things that will influence others but the self-confidence that those things can be done.  The example given of Steve Jobs as a self-confident leader underscores the importance that this trait plays in being a good leader.  The term “good leader” in this blog is not tied to a moral definition but rather the capacity to influence others.

Sociability is closely tied to self-confidence more than the other three traits.  You have to be social on some level to display your self-confidence.  Newhouse defines sociability as a “leader’s inclination to seek out pleasant social relationships” (p. 34).  Likeability would be a simpler way to describe it.  To me, sociability and self-confidence are interchangeable traits.  In our last all-staff meeting earlier this month, I focused on the leaders who gave updates and noted their traits. I then wrote down what we as a department thought of them as far as leadership was concerned.  I asked a group of my peers for their input to ensure that the results were not my opinion alone.  The more self-confident and sociable the leader was, the more confidence we had in that person being a good leader.

Another term that is closely associated with self-confidence and sociability is charisma.  Conger & Kanungo noted that when groups of people work together to attain group objectives “observations of the influence process within the group help them determine their status” (1987, p. 639).  It is within these interactions that leaders are identified.  Individuals who exude self-confidence, either through verbal or nonverbal processes are identified as leaders more often.  Self-confident leaders are often perceived to be charismatic leaders.  These leaders communicate their self-confidence “in order to give credibility to what they advocate” (p. 643).

Interestingly enough, the leader whose turn it was to lead the meeting for this month, was the one we ranked the lowest, or the worst leader.  This leader sounded grumpy, disinterested in the meeting and came across as somewhat disorganized.  The leader didn’t engage with the group other than following the meeting agenda point by point.  There was no social interaction.  We didn’t find this leader to be at all charismatic.

Self-confidence is a leadership trait that is a crucial component in leadership.  It instills confidence in their followers and therefore it influences them to work together on a common goal.  Which is at the heart of leadership.

 

References

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic Leadership in Organizational Settings. The Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.2307/258069

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

 

How has the Covid-19 Pandemic Impacted Followership?

by

 

Mask or anti-mask. Vaccine or anti-vaccine. Hoax or reality. The world was spinning on its head and left in much uncertainty and fear. How was the world to combat this? Who could we rely and depend upon? Historically, perilous times have relied upon kings and governments and empires to exercise decisions and solutions to remedy and reassure the public. Time and time again, powerful figures and civilians have interacted in numerous ways to combat plagues and catastrophes. In ancient times, leprosy was a highly contagious disease. Lepers were often bandaged and instructed to carry bells, as to warn others from approaching. They were also placed in leper colonies, which led to their ostracization from communities. The black plague was said to be resolved through the implementation of quarantines, where the infected would be isolated from the healthy, and government officials would go door to door carefully inspecting and “cleansing” affected households. Effective leadership was necessary to combat these perilous times, yet it failed to be the only factor at hand. This past lesson emphasized the role of followership in the leadership process. Of course, without leaders, there is no followership and without followers, there is no leadership. However, as opposed to historical accounts, there was something novel about these interactions in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. One which altered the course of leadership effectiveness and behavior. This blog will examine these effects in a detailed manner. 

At the beginning of the pandemic, the United States was in a stage of uncertainty. There was much confusion over the origins of the virus, and on whether it was that severe or even deadly. The public was searching for answers and guidance, and one figure emerged as the leading expert. This was Anthony Fauci, the former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Chief Medical Advisor to the President. Before the pandemic, Fauci was not very well-known, and this factor played considerably into his credibility as a leader. At the start of the pandemic, Fauci became the voice of medicine. Although the guidelines and relevant information were supplemented by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Fauci became the communicative voice for the American Public. It is at this point where the concept of assigned versus emergent leadership can be applied (Northouse, 2021). It seemed as though the CDC was the assigned leader in formulating educated knowledge in response to the pandemic. Their resources were acknowledged because of “their formal position in the organization” (Northouse, 2021, p. 44). Even so, Fauci was on every news media outlet, on every Health Department hearing and briefing, and he was quickly gaining the eyes and trust of the public. The public was perceiving Fauci as the most influential member of the group through emergent leadership (Northouse, 2021). Not only did he achieve this through a period of communication and guidance, but also through his personality. Stogdill’s second survey (1974) proposed a number of traits that positively correlated with Fauci’s leadership personality characteristics. From these traits, Fauci’s “self-confidence and sense of personal identity, and his capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand” (Northouse, 2021, p. 65) proved to be most effective in his emergent leadership. His guidelines for social interactions in certain spaces uttered the beginnings of a “new normal”, one which heavily influenced interactions among individuals in a manner that has never been seen before in the 21st century. In analyzing the subsequent events of the pandemic, this second trait proved to have many implications to the matter of followership. 

Over the course of the pandemic, Fauci’s interviews and briefings led to a number of controversial beliefs on the nature of his medical advice, and on his full transparency. According to Powell and Prasad (2021), Fauci mentioned in an interview that he felt that community mask usage was not necessary, which confused many individuals in its effectiveness. Additionally, in a phone interview with the New York Times, Fauci reportedly adjusted his target range for herd immunity based on the surveys and polls of the American public to promote vaccine uptake (Powell and Prasad, 2021). As a result, there was a level of distrust that arose among the public, which subsequently influenced followership theories and their factors. 

In response to the pandemic, both leaders and followers played a role to achieve the common goal of health and safety, as well as a moral obligation regarding these goals (Northouse, 2021). Elements of the Zaleznik typology (1992) were represented from the beginning, since the public was very unaware and uninformed regarding the situation, which elicited the withdrawn, submissive/passive type of followership (Northouse, 2021). Yet at the same time, according to Chaleff’s typology (1995), the public took on a responsibility through serving a common purpose along with the leaders, which in turn made them more responsible, and “changed their internal estimates of their abilities to influence others, and develop a greater sense of agency” (Northouse, 2021, p. 445) Both of these typologies were present in the public at the beginning of the pandemic, and display the engagement of individuals in the leadership process. However, as the pandemic continued and revelations of Fauci’s inconsistencies were revealed (as mentioned in the previous paragraph), there was a point in which a new form of followership could be examined. The theoretical framework of reversing the lens (Uhl-Bien, 2014) played an enormous factor in the leader/follower relationship (Northouse, 2021). Specifically, this critical period emphasized that followers could be change agents through the “impact of the leaders’ perceptions and behavior on followers’ behaviors, and the impact of both followers and leaders on followership outcomes” (Northouse, 2021, p. 451). In application, the public was heavily influenced by leaders’ inconsistent behaviors and actions. People started to congregate more, schools opened, and states opened up many of their public facilities and relaxed Covid-19 guidelines. Fauci was put on the hot seat, and there were many hearings questioning his decisions and authority over the course of the pandemic, all which concluded with his resignation in December of 2022. From this perspective, some dark-side personality traits can be examined which are attributed to his unsuccessful downfall (Northouse, 2021). It can be argued that Fauci exhibited a degree of impulsivity and narcissism. Fauci tested limits in a variety of ways, and at some points neglected to see the consequences of his actions. He also seemed to be overly self-confident and had a strong sense of entitlement, which was seen in his rigid responses in hearings and interviews. His public health messaging was predicated on trust, which created an opportunity to communicate initiatives effectively. When that trust was shattered, messaging was no longer clear and straightforward, and the followership perspective took a different meaning with a number of factors and implications. 

When comparing the trait approach and the theories surrounding followership in the leadership process, and taking into consideration its effect on Anthony Fauci and the Covid-19 pandemic, it becomes apparent how much of an impact these theories have on effective leadership. It begs the question of how the public and government will interact if we ever have another pandemic. 

 

References

Northouse, P.G. (2021).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2016). PSYCH 281 Lesson 2: Introduction and History of I/O Psychology. Retrieved from https: / / courses.worldcampus. psu.edu/psych281sp1oxo3/ content/lessono2/printlesson.

Powell, K., & Prasad, V. (2021, July 28). The U.S. government’s noble lies about COVID-19. Slate Magazine. Retrieved January 27, 2023, from https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html 

The Dark Side of Leadership

by

I recently saw this documentary about a woman who fooled the world into thinking that she had created this new product that would revolutionize the way health technology and medicine worked for the every day person. This elaborate scheme turned out to be a total fraudulent company and it ended with the CEO under massive scrutiny and has charges against her. Now, this has me wondering how this situation got his far and why was it as successful as it was up until the very end?

Elizabeth Holmes, CEO and founder of Theranos; what used to be a blood-testing startup company that screened blood in a more “efficient” way for different medical conditions – is now a woman behind bars who committed fraud. She was described by many as a successful entrepreneur and that even at a young age she excelled as a top student. Her university teacher stated [Holmes] was a silent leader who carried herself with poise (Dunn, 2019). Yet in a 2019 documentary about the rise and fall of her multi-billion dollar company – in her adult life, she was seen as a demanding, manipulative, narcissistic and ultimately unethical. Holmes not only conned her way into fraud but also manipulated her employees and everyone around her into believing that what she envisioned would come to fruition and be something for the greater good but advertently disregarded those of her peers and employees.

Now this seems to me like Holmes had specific traits that distinguished her from the rest but ultimately not in the best way. While she was a very successful person, to what cost? How far did she go to get her way? An article by Malone (2021) states that Linda Neider, the current chair of the Miami Herbert Business School’s Management Department referenced a Gelsinger article on leadership style in which he notes that a culture must be developed where teams feel comfortable enough to express divergent viewpoints. “Clearly that was not the case at Theranos, where teams were not even allowed to communicate transparently, let alone raise issues that might go against what Holmes hoped to hear.” This is only tell-tale sign of the other side of a good leader.

As I stated before, Holmes was seen as a narcissistic person, amongst other things. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary (n.d.) defines Narcissist as, “an extremely self-centered person who has an exaggerated sense of self-importance.” Being narcissistic is known as one of the dark-side personality traits that leaders tend to possess which in return leads them down this path of failure. Holmes depicted traits of narcissism as well as very masculine mannerisms in all of her interviews and as how she represented her company. And it may get confusing at times because narcissism tends to merge with the traits of the Five Factor Model which are considered to be positive and that of a good leader. The dark-side traits usually only become obvious after a leader has been in the position for a period of time (PSU WC, 2021, L02) which in Holmes’ case became more obvious as she became more engulfed in becoming this powerful CEO billionaire and her finally came to light.

How does one become self-aware that we may be going down the wrong path into a world of no return? I think that we must take a step back and honestly analyze the choices we make as leaders. I always feel like there is a very thin line between being a good leader and a bad one and it only takes a wrong word or move to put you in either of those directions. Holmes steered closer to narcissism and way from self-confidence. Northouse (2019) uses Steve Jobs as an example to identify what self-confidence looked like. It is stated that Jobs was never doubtful of his capabilities, of his products abilities to change the world even if everyone else thought different. Holmes, oddly enough, looked up to Jobs and aspired to be a female version of him but unfortunately she lacked integrity and the traits to make her a successful and valued CEO and leader. She possessed some of Stogdill’s surveyed traits (Drive to exercise initiative in social situations, vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals, to name a few) which ironically enough were identified during a time where male leadership was prevalent (Northouse, 2019) which has me wondering if she too, studied certain leadership traits to fit in to the male dominant society! If only Holmes was able to pinpoint her “dark side” in leadership and have insight of her own personality and how to properly and effectively use her power and influence to do good.

 

 

 

 

References:

-Dunn, T., Thompson, V., & Jarvis, R. (2019). ABC News Network. ABC News. Retrieved October 4, 2021 from

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/theranos-employees-describe-culture-secrecy-elizabeth-holmes-startup/story?id=60544673

-Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Narcissist. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved October 4, 2021, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narcissist

-Malone, M. (2021). Theranos Trial Highlights The Dark Side of Leadership. Retrieved on October 4, 2021 from

https://news.miami.edu/stories/2021/09/theranos-trial-highlights-the-dark-side-of-leadership.html

-Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership. Theory and Practice. Trait Approach. (pp.19-41). Sage Publishing.

-Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from

https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790516

Inside-Out Perspective on Leadership

by

Since I was 18 years old, my career has been groomed around the concept of leadership. I made the decision to join the United States Army shortly after high school and I flew off to Ft. Benning, GA for 14 weeks of basic/advanced training. Aside from the stereotypical images of young men and women navigating obstacle courses, beating each other up with pugil sticks, and marching in formation, we were all taught to live by the seven Army core values: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage (LDRSHIP) (US Army, n.d.).

Figure 1

Army Confidence Tower

These values are instilled in every soldier because collectively they define and provide a foundation for the process known as leadership. According to Northouse (2018), leadership is a process of influencing a person or group of individuals to achieve a common goal. The United States Army (and other branches alike) trains and develops the world’s best leaders to inspire and influence people to accomplish organizational goals (The University of Akron [UA], 2008). I was trained and groomed over the course of six years for leadership, whether I was a machine gunner within an Infantry weapons squad or was a Non-Commissioned Officer leading a fire-team in Baghdad, Iraq.

Figure 2

US Army Infantry

I officially left the military in 2010 with these developed competencies, attributes, and real-world experience only to find myself entering the civilian world with limited transferable hard skills, unless I wanted to be in law enforcement, a government contractor, or apparently a teacher according to Gross (2019). It wasn’t easy finding a job during The Great Recession (Boyle, 2020), but my transferable soft skills combined with a recommendation from a close friend got me a job as a manufacturing technician for a startup solar company. These soft skills are hard to quantify because they are also what are known as “people skills” or “interpersonal skills” (Doyle, 2020).

Some common soft skills are effective communication, flexibility, leadership, motivation, problem solving ability, teamwork, and time management (Doyle, 2020). I worked as an individual contributor for a little more than a year before I was promoted to a lead position and subsequently to other leadership positions as the years followed. After seven years I had held six distinct positions, three of which were responsible for inspiring and motivating groups of individuals. I often questioned myself on why I was chosen for certain roles or attempted to look deeper within to understand why I felt comfortable to lead people. Was it because I was born this way? Was it based on those six years I spent in the military? Or was it just the right fit given the situation and circumstances?

Figure 3

Leadership Traits

According to Northouse (2018), Ralph Melvin Stogdill conducted two surveys to analyze the traits associated with effective leadership. The first one concluded that the traits a leader possessed must be relevant to the situations in which the leader is functioning, and the second study argued more in favor of both traits and situational factors being an equal determinant of leadership (Northouse, 2018). This view of the trait theory of leadership appears to be accurate with what I have experienced and how I view my successes and failures as a leader. I have been able to develop traits that are most commonly associated with effective leadership, such as courage and resolution, assertiveness, decisiveness, need for achievement, self-confidence, and task competence, but they haven’t always translated perfectly from one team, company, organization, or industry to the next, which is why it’s important to analyze the working relationship between yourself as the leader and your followers (Cherry, 2021).

Recognizing my talents and strengths, I opted to take on a new leadership position within my current organization, a leader in the aerospace and defense industry. This seemed fitting because our customers were those among the U.S. federal government (something I was familiar with) and the role specialized in manufacturing, another specialty area that I had the ability to become proficient in. I succeeded in this role for almost five years before making the decision to finally try something different, join the ranks, and learn to follow rather than lead. This was easier said than done because I had become so accustomed to feeling responsible for the lives and successes of others and quite frankly, it’s what I had become to know.

Northouse (2018) mentions that being a follower and the process of followership has negative connotations for many people. I think many would agree there is a perception in the workforce that being a supervisor, manager, leader, or executive is more compelling or glorified than being an individual contributor. Conversely, I would argue that it is situation dependent like most things. I’ve worked with many manufacturing, electrical, and material engineers who prefer technical/hands-on work, as opposed to being tied up in endless meetings, budgets, reports, and dealing with never-ending personnel issues (Zenger, 2014). Nevertheless, I stepped away from being a leader in my organization and wanted to focus on new hard skills.

Five months into being a project engineer with zero leader/manager responsibilities, I find myself questioning the transition I made. Somedays I feel ecstatic to arrive at work, look at my inbox with a manageable number of unread emails, and the comfort of knowing that I can focus on my work and tasks at hand without interference from personnel/behavior issues. Other days, I find myself and my other teammates lacking motivation because we aren’t receiving the support, guidance, leadership, or even personal connection from our leadership team. This insider-look (and reminder) of what it means to be a follower again has been eye opening for me, allowed me to see what I may have done right, what I did wrong, and how the smallest actions and behaviors can have a dramatic effect on motivation, inspiration, and performance.

 

 

References

Boyle, M. J. (2020, October 23). The Great Recession. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/great-recession.asp

Cherry, K. (2021, March 8). Understanding the trait theory of leadership. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-trait-theory-of-leadership-2795322

Doyle, A. (2020, January 20). Hard skills vs. soft skills: What’s the difference? The Balance Careers. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/hard-skills-vs-soft-skills-2063780

Gross, N. (2019, December 15). Jobs for infantry vets: What you need to know. Military Times. https://www.militarytimes.com/education-transition/2019/12/15/jobs-for-infantry-vets-what-you-need-to-know/

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.) [VitalSource Bookshelf version]. vbk://9781506362298

The University of Akron. (2008). Introduction to Army leadership [PDF]. https://www.uakron.edu/armyrotc/MS1/24.pdf

US Army. (n.d.). Living the Army values. goarmy.com. https://www.goarmy.com/soldier-life/being-a-soldier/living-the-army-values.html

Zenger, J. (2014, February 27). Individual contributors are ‘forgotten leaders’: Are you developing them well? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackzenger/2014/02/27/individual-contributors-are-forgotten-leaders-are-you-developing-them-well/?sh=5826b6d47469

 

 

Skip to toolbar