Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Emotional & Social Intelligence = Global Leadership Effectiveness

by

In the 21st century, more and more companies became globally connected. Even after the initial analysis of COVID-19 pandemic impacts, while the environment has been definitively changed, there is no indication that business globalization is on a significant downward trend. “The bottom line for business is that Covid-19 has not knocked globalization down to anywhere close to what would be required for strategists to narrow their focus to their home countries or regions. Corporate globalization was never easy, but if international opportunities and competitive threats mattered for a company before the pandemic, they will surely continue to matter in 2021 and beyond” (Altman & Bastian, 2021, para. 17). As such, modern leaders must be adept at identifying and navigating the culturally influenced emotional and social aspects of their surrounding environments and relationships to effectively manage diverse global teams.

According to research, effective leaders demonstrate traits associated with both social and emotional intelligence (EI) (Northouse, 2018, PP. 22 – 28). “Zaccaro (2002) defined social intelligence as having such capacities as social awareness, social acumen, self-monitoring, and the ability to select and enact the best response given the contingencies of the situation and social environment” (Northouse, 2018, p. 22). “Emotional intelligence can be defined as the ability to perceive and express emotions, to use emotions to facilitate thinking, to understand and reason with emotions, and to effectively manage emotions within oneself and in relationships with others (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000)” (Northouse, 2018, P. 28).

Research indicates that effective global leaders demonstrate emotional intelligence as well as intercultural competence (Hui-Wen, Mu-Shang, & Nelson, 2010, p. 902). “Intercultural sensitivity is about appreciating the deeper impact of cultural difference on how we interact with other people and the effect this has on one’s own perceptions of other people. Intercultural competence is a measure of one’s effectiveness in such interactions with other people” (SHRM, 2021, paras. 4-5). “The strong correlation between overall EI and overall leadership practices reveals that despite differences between the two comparison cultures, emotional intelligence was perceived as an underlying competency for effective academic leadership in both cultures. In order to lead effectively, high emotional intelligence is required to leverage a sense of self awareness, to manage their own emotions and those of others, and to lead in accordance with the cultural expectations of their organizations” (Hui-Wen et al., 2010, p. 918).

However, studies also revealed that emotional and social intelligence are influenced by individual culture which carries the potential for cross-cultural miscommunication and conflict in leaders’ relationships with diverse global teams (Pathak & Muralidharan, 2020, p. 519). “Cross-cultural differences in EI of managers could lead to conflict. Such intercultural conflicts may occur due to a lack of emotional awareness regarding the differences in behavioral expectations (Ang et al., 2006; Black & Gregersen, 1991; Brislin et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2008; Triandis, 2006) … EI can be critical to the effectiveness of cross-border emotionally intensive areas of human activity, including leadership and leadership styles (Deng & Gibson, 2009; Goleman et al., 2002; Humphrey et al., 2008)” (Pathak & Muralidharan, 2020, p. 519).

A leader who wishes to be successful in managing teams that are culturally diverse should focus their efforts toward educating themselves on others’ cultures as well as being emotionally and socially aware of their diverse teams’ needs. “Effective communication, teamwork and leadership to drive organizational results depend on people of different backgrounds communicating and working well with each other. Success requires intercultural competence” (SHRM, 2021, para. 26). In today’s business world, effective global leadership requires emotional and social intelligence rooted in intercultural competency.

__________________________________

References

Altman, Steven A., & Bastian, Phillip. (2021, March 18). The State of Globalization in 2021. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/03/the-state-of-globalization-in-2021

Hui-Wen, V., Mu-Shang, Y., & Nelson, D. B. (2010). The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership practices: A cross-cultural study of academic leaders in Taiwan and the USA. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 899-926. http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1108/02683941011089143

Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781506362298

Pathak, S., & Muralidharan, E. (2020). Implications of culturally implicit perspective of emotional intelligence. Cross-Cultural Research, 54(5), 502–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120938690

SHRM. (2021). Intercultural competence as a key enabler of organizational growth and success. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/interculturalcompetence.aspx

Leadership Styles of Presidential Candidates

by

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

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

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

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

(Photo cited from: Crockett, 2016)

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

References 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership in Gaming: RPGs and My Introduction to Servant Leadership

by

Image Credit: Iron Realms Entertainment

When I was about eight years old, my grandmother introduced me to my first immersive, multiplayer computer game experience: Everquest. One of the earliest of its kind, Everquest brought people together through the internet to complete quests, form player-sustained organizations (i.e., guilds), and otherwise interact with a host of individuals one rarely met in real life. I was hooked right away. Beyond my love for video and computer games, I also can’t remember a time when I wasn’t a voracious reader, particularly anything in the fantasy genre. Together, these interests led me to the discovery of a special kind of online role-playing game: text-based MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons).

Yeah, I’m about to out myself as a huge nerd.

Text-based MUDs are the equivalent of live-action choose-your-own-adventure novels. Think World of Warcraft, except there are no graphics, just text. Your interactions, your surroundings, your activities—they all take place through words. As a reader and a gamer, I fell immediately in love with its presentation and its possibilities.  As it turns out, one of those possibilities was the cultivation of leadership skills.

Text MUDs are entirely sustained through words. Image Credit: Iron Realms Entertainment

I played one MUD, Lusternia, for about ten years (…I’d still be playing it today, except that the forty-plus hours a week I devoted to it were conscripted in the pursuit of my degree). For the final two and a half years, I served in the capacity of Dark Regent of a forest commune, Glomdoring. During that time, I learned a lot about myself, my leadership style, and how the leadership process impacts others. Online gaming represents a viable way to learn about leadership skills because of its low-stakes, accepting environment—it provides players of all ages a number of opportunities to experiment with approaches and styles (Prax, 2009). The culmination of my own experiences led to the realization that I am strongly attuned to servant leadership.

Servant leadership originated in the works of Greenleaf (1970, 1972, 1977, as cited in Northouse, 2019). The theory’s premise is best defined by Hale and Fields (2007) who describe it as placing “the good of followers over [one’s] own self-interests and emphasiz[ing] follower development” (as cited in Northouse, 2019, p. 227). Servant leaders, then, are those who are other-focused and who lead through acts of service, both for the benefit of others and the whole (Northouse, 2019).

Servant leadership depends on a number of antecedents, or conditions, that influence its application (Northouse, 2019). Three such antecedents are context and culture; leader attributes; and follower receptivity. Because of Glomdoring’s unique nature as an organization, this post will focus on how these three antecedents shaped my application of this leadership approach.

Context and Culture

Culturally, servant leadership was a somewhat surprising fit within Glomdoring. I was preceded as leader by my in-game mother and others who had led aggressively and militantly, as would befit the commune’s credo, “Nothing Matters but Glomdoring!” The commune’s norms ran strongly to the betterment of the whole, yet the one-hundred-plus player base recognized that, like saplings which wither and die when they are trapped beneath the canopy of a great oak, some would survive while others were sacrificed in the name of Glomdoring. By contrast, servant leadership entails supporting and empowering even the weakest of individuals; Northouse (2019) asserts that serving all others by putting them first is the cornerstone of the theory. To reconcile this, I worked to make myself accessible to all members of the commune each day in what I suppose might be equated to ‘office hours’. I took pains to provide the newest members with hunting expeditions and other enrichment in order to make them stronger. By paying attention to the least powerful alongside the most influential players, I not only earned their trust and loyalty but effectively strengthened the commune by increasing the number of capable, contributing members.

Two supporting factors that permitted me to be successful in shifting Glomdoring’s culture without sacrificing our identity were, first, the support I had already summarily garnered from the most tenured and powerful players in the commune, and second, my reframing of Glomdoring’s entity focus. Without carrying the support of the influencers, it is unlikely that their resistance would have facilitated any such outreach efforts I might have tried. Without being able to justify the benefits of strengthening the weak (namely, asserting that we were all of Glomdoring and thus required to serve each other to the greatest extent possible), the commune’s nature would have characterized my actions as counter to Glomdoring’s best interests.

Leader Traits

As the second antecedent of servant leadership, traits rest within the leader themselves. Several traits have risen to the top with their prevalence and popularity in the style (Northouse, 2019). These traits include emotional intelligence, agreeableness, and humility (Northouse, 2019). As I’ve already shared my thoughts on humility in an earlier blog post, I will focus on emotional intelligence and agreeableness.

Emotional intelligence is defined as a “leader’s ability to monitor the feelings, beliefs, and internal states of the self and followers” (Northouse, 2019, p. 233). Unlike the complex reasons that people engage with their real-life organization (pay, of course, chief among them), figuring out core beliefs in the gaming world is in many ways a simpler proposition (Prax, 2009). Because players engage with the organization of their choice (and play because they wish to play rather than because they must), commitment to organizational beliefs and processes is much less ambivalent.  It does require maintenance, however, to encourage and sustain appropriate group morale and effectiveness. In addition to my ‘office hours’ dedication of time to the commune, I was also consistently present at every major event and competition between Lusternian nations. This meant that I had firsthand experience of the thrills of success and the lows of defeat. I was enabled by my presence to write summaries of each major event that could echo the feelings experienced, creating a stronger emotional connection and cohesion among members. By creating value in this way, I had ample opportunity to link our purpose (to glorify Glomdoring in all things) and goals (to spread Glomdoring’s influence and ideology across the world) to the efforts and actions of its members (Northouse, 2019). I was thus closely attuned through my individual and collective interactions with the commune and well-positioned to understand forces at play beneath the surface.

One player’s portrayal of Narynth, Dark Regent of Glomdoring. Wearing a face covering before it was cool!

Agreeableness is more challenging to quantify in my experiences in gaming because Glomdoring was not a soft place nor was I known for avoiding conflict and simply getting along—manifestations commonly connected with the trait (Northouse, 2019). In reality, I’m probably the least agreeable person I know! Within the confines of my role, however, I developed the skills to negotiate with foreign powers and to influence the high court of commune officials. This required a willingness to work with others and compromise.

Follower Receptivity

According to Northouse (2019), follower receptivity refers to the desire of all followers to be part of the servant leadership process. Research suggests that follower receptivity is directly tied to outcomes in that those who embrace the personalized attention, empowerment, and familiarity that come along with servant leadership demonstrate stronger performance and organizational loyalty; those that do not tend to experience the opposite result (Northouse, 2019, p. 234). By contrast to the assertion that servant leadership can be construed as micromanagement in the eyes of some due to the level of investment of the leader, my experience was that the few who felt more apart from the whole were not a cultural fit and soon moved on. Beck’s (2010) take is that followership receptivity is a byproduct of the servant-follower relationship because, in the process of engaging in servant leadership, the goal is to ensure that the motives of both parties are aligned. In other words, while follower receptivity sets the stage for servant leadership and its viability, in an environment where there is alignment between the leader and followers’ motivations, receptivity is more or less a foregone conclusion. Such was the case within Glomdoring—our motivations, by virtue of our culture, were closely tied to the wellbeing of the whole. In uniting and empowering the individuals of Glomdoring, I could reinforce our shared vision and sustain receptivity for my methods.

 

As Northouse (2019) points out, servant leadership is not about adopting a specific style of leadership but instead is focused on the execution of other-centered behaviors. Put another way, that I may not have effectively demonstrated agreeableness as we define it, for example, was not a bar to my adoption of the servant leadership approach; instead, it directly influenced the tactics and skills I employed to maintain a focus on my followers. Antecedents lay the foundation both for the viability of the approach and the ways in which it will ultimately manifest.

My time playing text MUDs prepared me for real-world leadership experiences and provided me with a fun way to figure out the types of leadership that best fit my personality and strengths. Many of the qualities I have described from my time in Lusternia have translated over to real life. For instance, I can’t imagine a better way to practice the art of carefully couching criticism so that it will be well-received and fair. Studies support the idea that students of leadership can learn a lot from “trying on” the role of leadership, and that the areas one would typically need to target for development (such as administrative, social, and political concerns) can be faithfully replicated and attempted within the world of gaming (Prax, 2009).

What do you think? If given the chance, would you be willing to “try on” your own leadership approach in a role-playing game like Lusternia?

References

Beck, C. D. (2010). Antecedents of servant leadership: A mixed methods study. Retrieved at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=aglecdiss

Iron Realms Entertainment (2021). Lusternia [Images]. Retrieved at: https://www.lusternia.com/

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

Prax, P. (2009). Leadership behind the screen: New theory about leadership in online role-playing games. Retrieved at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:201021/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Learning leaderships through movies.

by

As the internet became more and more advanced, it allows people to access everything very easily. As the pandemic hits, a lot of people have no choice but to stay home. With that, the use of streaming services has increased even more. Nowadays, a lot of movies and documentaries not only have entertainment purposes but also have educational purposes. With the eye-catching content, it is a good way to learn leadership through movies.

The famous novel and movie, To Kill a Mockingbird, demonstrated the story of a local lawyer Atticus Finch who was hired to defend an African American man accused of raping a white woman. As Atticus Finch being the leader in the movie, his children are his followers. Scout, her daughter, used her perspective to show Atticus Finch’s leadership. Atticus Finch’s traits are very vivid. He has empathy and his interaction with his followers are very positive. The movie shows a Trait approach to leadership through Atticus Finch.

The classic and the one and only, The Godfather, is a movie about the Corleone family’s use of power across several generations to control the Mafia business in NYC. In the movie, every character has strong traits in their own leadership while working in the mafia business. The trait approach was strongly applied in the movie. Also, the path-goal theory was applied when Vito Corleone and Michael Corleone assigned goals for the followers. The mafia has a strong connection with each other, the family bond is hard to break. Hence support leadership is also in the movie.

The Queen’s Gambit, a mini-series movie shows that Beth, a gifter chess player’s story. Throughout her life, she has been trying to achieve her goal alone. However, her trait and personality is the key factor of building up her leadership and having people helping her out along the way. Leader-member exchange is also applied with her support to her followers and even stronger support from her followers. The interaction between the characters is a big factor to learn.

Overall, movies can be a very easy way to get access to the base understanding of leadership. However, like the three movies mentioned above, movies usually have a trait approaches more due to the building of a character. Yet, there are also a lot of leadership theories that can be easily learned with movies.

References:

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 7th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Northouse, P. G. Suggested Films | Online Resources . Leadership: Theory and Practice. https://edge.sagepub.com/northouse7e/instructor-resources/suggested-films.

Sarfaraz, N. (2020, May 5). Must See Films to Learn more about Leadership. Cinemagic. https://www.cinemagics.com/post/must-see-films-to-learn-more-about-leadership.

Skip to toolbar