By: Susan Hicks
You may be faced with power struggles any day and at any time with those who work under you. There is always one person who ‘bucks the system’ or doesn’t seem to want to stay ‘in-check’ with the team or with the leader’s position, power, authority, or ability to influence others toward meeting management goals. We could refer to modernist conflict resolution techniques but what if they don’t always work. Is it possible to look back to the Psychodynamic Theory for help? This is a real-life example of why we should not completely discredit the theory in modern workforce issues.
The scene 6 months ago….
Mary, a middle-management employee in a large company, provides direction for the other offices under which she is responsible. Rena works beside Mary providing support under Mary’s leadership. Mary is in her mid-40’s with less than 10 years with the company while Rena is in her early-50’s with almost 20 years with the company. Mary is a firm, fair, and consistent leader with great responsibility and Rena is a narcissist who rejects being told what to do from someone who is less senior, younger, and who is perceived to be just as stubborn as herself. Power struggles ensue when Mary has to direct Rena to do something vitally needed in the company.
Mary has power given by to her by the company while Rena also has power as she can decide to willfully follow and complete the task with amazing efficiency and accurateness or with lethargy and with no enthusiasm to detail. How does Mary influence Rena to work mutually with her toward management goals and elicit the necessary enthusiasm toward efficiency and precision needed in the organization?
Mary resorted to Conflict Resolution as she attempted to cultivate a collaborative attitude under differentiation that “airs differences” in order to open the lines of communication in order to see differences as “natural and helpful” (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2009). The problem was that differentiation (airing of differences) never led to integration (resolution) because Rena epitomizes a narcissist who took great pride in her own accomplishments aside from that of the group. She had her own concept of her job duties and how she related those duties within the company apart from that relationship with Mary. Rena did not see Mary’s attempt to recognize their difference as helpful, rather she felt it as a personal attack on Rena’s lower ranking position. Mary couldn’t understand how someone could be so defiant and unreasonable so she turned to Psychodynamic Theory.
The Psychodynamic approach focuses on the relationship between the leader and the follower and cannot be taught in a traditional sense (Northouse, 2013). Mary looked at her own leadership personality under the theory but since the theory also looks at the relationship of the leader in congruence with the follower, she looked at Rena. It was found that Mary needed to not get into these power struggles with Rena on an ego level. She needed to relax her power in order for Rena to fulfill her needs yet allow them to flex their power in a way that promotes the collectivity of their knowledge. They needed not to compete. Mary also found through this backward-looking theoretical approach and by being inquisitive, that Rena grew up in an unstable environment with dominating narcissistic parents. She really had a low self-esteem which she overcompensated with her narcissistic behavior. Rena constantly had to tell others of her accomplishments because she was never given praise as a child. Her failure to work within a team framework was her rejection of group congruency that stemmed from the delusions of persecution she experienced from watching her parents fight. She projected to others what she learned as a child. With this information in hand provided by the Psychodynamic Approach, Mary also took another look at the Big Five Personality Factors of leadership. She found that Agreeableness, the “tendency to be accepting…and nurturing” was a part of her personality that she lacked (Northouse, 2013). Although this factor may be considered weakly associated with leadership, this led Mary to developing the leadership trait most valued by her associates.
Today…
We should not only look to those leadership traits and skills that allow us to aspire to, hire, train, and develop leaders to work within an organizational structure. We need to look outside the box toward Psychodynamic Theory in leadership conflict situations, in order to provide us additionally useful tools in which we can see alternative ways in dealing with leadership situations. These tools may be based in a form of psychology that may not be seen as relevant to the organizational needs of today or one that provide us a way of assessing our leaders for their qualities or traits, however, the awareness and acceptance of its existence by leaders can provide a missing link to understanding relational influence necessary in our modern leadership roles.
From the insight of Psychodynamic Theory, Mary and Rena work closely together today in fulfilling the needs of the company with Mary’s instruction and with Rena’s willingness to help. Mary found that her best asset is to be empathetic to Rena’s upbringing and now accepts Rena for how she became who she is. Mary now appreciates the productivity and input that Rena adds to everyday tasks. Mary constantly praises Rena for efficiency and accuracy (fulfilling Rena’s need for accomplishment recognition in which she take great pride) but yet also allows Rena to identify personal vision as being congruent to the visions of the company. Mary is now a highly productive and respected employee of management. Rena is a model employee and considers Mary now to be her leader, her mentor, and most remarkably…her friend.
References:
Folger, J.P., Poole, M.S., & Stutman, R.K. (2009). Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations. (4th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.