Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

The Tale of Two Assistants, a Style and Situational Experience

by

This is a true story but the names have been changed to protect, well… Harriet.

Harper is a very successful mortgage lender. He has been in the banking industry for over a decade and enjoys his field. After a few hard years starting up as a mortgage lender, he now has more than enough volume to need an assistant. His first assistant, Sarah, was great, but sadly she chose to quit after having a child. His second assistant, Harriet, was not as successful.

His first assistant, Sarah, was a go-getter. She was excited to be working for Harper. She brought a great enthusiasm to the roll and although she was new to the mortgage world, she was ready to learn and make some great commissions. She was the quintessential developmental level four (D4), as she was willing and able to take on this new job (PSU WC, 2018 L. 5). She breezed through training and had no problem bringing innovation to Harper so he could focus on making more deals, attending closings, and actually enjoying nights and weekends without being glued to his laptop. He delegated tasks to Sarah and she had no problem completing the tasks and finding new things to do to help Harper achieve his lending goals, such as posting their VA lending details on military relocation groups on Facebook and ordering exciting closing gifts for his clients. Harper did not get involved with Sarah’s goal achievement and did not get heavily involved with her personal life. He enjoyed his delegating behavior and her D4 follower status (PSU WC, 2018 L. 5).  It seemed to be a great balance and Harper was very sad to hear that she wasn’t coming back after the birth of her daughter. His style was middle-of-the-road management, which is a balance of tasks and relationships. He preferred to avoid conflicts between Sarah and the other assistants, and while he knew that she was possibly going through a divorce and difficult pregnancy, he was not comfortable bringing that dynamic into their office relationship. He preferred to exchange pleasantries and discussions on the weather, than hear about drama occurring in her life. These middle-of-the-road managers want moderate levels of production and interpersonal relationships, which was a great situation for Sarah and Harper because he is so results driven. (PSU WC, 2018 L. 5)

Photo credit: One Virtual Global Business Solutions

After Sarah left, Harper had a difficult time finding a new assistant that was as detailed oriented as Sarah. Upon recommendation from his former assistant who is now a local bank branch manager, he hired Harriet. Harriet received more detailed training than Sarah not only from Harper but also the loan processing staff and underwriters upon Harper’s request. He was trying to get another Sarah working for him. Sadly, Harriet was not up to the task of being another Sarah, and in fact was not a good fit as his assistant at all. She was D2 follower status, where she was unable to complete the tasks, she unwilling to learn despite multiple training opportunities, and definitely was not confident in completing tasks (PSU WC, 2018 L. 5). He started with middle-of-the-road management with Harriet but over time he moved more towards impoverished management. He had invested so much time and training into Harriet without seeing any results. Harper even sat Harriet down to ask if he enjoyed working for him, what he could do to help her grasp what was needed for the position, and that she had two weeks to decide if this is the right position for her or not. After that conversation and she did not improve, he wasn’t concerned with the tasks that he assigned her or and there was no interpersonal relationship, including small talk in phone calls and office visits. As the impoverished manager, he became very laissez-faire about her entire employment, and became non-committal whenever she asked about future files. He became very resigned and apathetic whenever she would text him with file updates because he knew that the work was done incorrectly and he was going to have to redo a majority of every file she touched (PSU WC, 2018 L. 5). Sadly, coaching Harriet with a high-directive and high-supportive style needed for a D2 employee (PSU WC, 2018 L. 5) was not conducive for what Harper needed in an assistant or what he could supply as a manager due to the nature of his business. He even commented that he wasn’t sure what she did throughout the day when he wasn’t there to give her written instruction on how to do something he had trained her on during her first week of employment.

Sadly, the leader and follower dynamic did not work out between Harriet and Harper. Due to the restrictions on Harper’s time, he had a specific style of leadership behavior that was necessary for him to excel at his position and while Harriet did not do well under this style of leadership, Sarah flourished. Harper had to fire Harriet on Friday but thankfully, Sarah has decided that she missed working with Harper and has decided to come back as his assistant in two weeks. It’s unclear who is happier about Sarah’s return: Sarah, Harper, or Harper’s girlfriend who had to listen to the whole drama unfold.

Resources:

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2018). PSYCH 485 Lesson 5: Style and situational approaches. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1942231/modules/items/25010808

 

Style and Approach to Motivating Subordinate

by

Some of the most widely recognized methodologies in leadership theory are style and approach (Northouse, 2016). The reason that style and approach are so important is because they pertain to motivating a subordinate. At this stage, we are no longer just addressing the leader’s abilities, but how effective they are at influencing their subordinates. Style and approach should vary based on the situation and people involved. An effective leader knows how to identify the situation correctly and react appropriately.

According to Northouse (2015), there are three main leadership styles—democratic, authoritative, and laissez-faire. Depending on the situation, one of these styles may be better suited than the other. For example, the democratic style is effective in most any instance as it gives an employee direction without limiting their creativity. An authoritative style is effective in high stress, up-tempo environments where quick action is required such as a newspaper or in the military. The Laissez-Faire style, while often least effective, can be useful in situations where the hard decisions or time crunches are not an issue. Such as in a library, where a librarian does not need a lot of supervision or authority to do their job.

When motivating others it important to maximize subordinates satisfaction. Three major factors related to motivation are the job itself, recognition, and advancement. The type of work one does is very important. If someone feels that the job they are doing, the project they are working on, or the goal they are striving towards is worthy, they will work harder. Recognition is also a great motivational tool. While it is important to give constructive criticism so that subordinates improve, it is equally if not more important that you acknowledge when they do something right. Positive reinforcement is a psychological theory that has been proven time and again (Burke, 1992). Advancement is another form of recognition but equally as important. People want to know that they are learning something and making themselves better. Promoting them is a way of showing that a leader believes in them and trusts them to succeed. This is shown through promotion in workplaces, graduating from school, or being awarded captain status on sports teams. There are lots of ways to promote a subordinate to let them know they are doing a great job.

When applying these two philosophies together a leader can provide effective support for the subordinate. These allow the leader to adapt to the situation and the people. It also encourages positive behavior while minimizing negative or ineffective behavior.

 

Works Cited:

Burke, J.C. (1992). Decreasing classroom behavior problems: Practical guidelines for teachers. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc

Northouse, P. (2015). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

Situational Theory and Coaching

by

I recently recall hearing an author give advice to aspiring writers who weren’t sure which direction to go with their writing. She related that often times, the first book someone decides to write tends to be about something they are well versed in and comfortable writing about.  In her case, it happened to be bed bugs.  In other instances, maybe it could be the brain, knitting, or even architecture that the writer is most comfortable with.  I’m still not entirely comfortable with the blog concept, and I don’t yet claim to be enough of an expert in leadership theories that I can apply them masterfully in various intriguing ways.  So I’m going to take this particular author’s advice, and stick to what I know.  I know sports, particularly baseball.  Luckily, I believe the coaching aspect of baseball tends to go hand-in-hand with the idea of leadership, and I’d like to examine that a little further in this blog post.

I would argue that the leadership theory best suited for coaching baseball players is the situational approach.  As we’ve learned, leaders use directive and supportive behaviors, and they should adjust their behavior depending on the followers and the situation (PSU WC, L. 5).  A baseball team typically consists of a 25 man active roster.  On this roster, a coach could have to manage a 10 year veteran with all the confidence and skills in the world, or a naturally gifted 21 year old rookie who is unsure whether or not he belongs, and everything in between.  Clearly, an appropriate ad effective use of the situational approach to leadership can be potentially vital to successfully managing a team.  I’d like to run through a couple examples of typical players, and according to the situational approach, the best way to lead these players.

Before I get into that however, I’d like to call attention to one of the leadership styles associated with the situational approach, coaching.  The name might mistakenly suggest that this would be the style used in all coaching situations.  While it may be true that the coaching style might work with some players, you will shortly be aware that it most certainly does not generalize across the board to all the players a coach will be leading.

Consider a highly touted player entering his first year at the major league level.  Often times these players enter the big leagues with high levels of confidence and the willingness to take on their new challenge.  These players often have high levels of confidence because they’ve only experienced success to this point.  They typically dominate at the minor league levels, which in turn fills them with confidence upon arrival to the major leagues.  However, the reality is that most highly regarded young players do not have the refined skill set and ability to succeed immediately upon their arrival.  These players often fall into Development Level One, which is characterized by being unable, but confident and willing to perform the new task (PSU WC, L.5).  In this first example we see a scenario where a coaching style already isn’t the best fit.  It’s more important for the coach (leader) to use the high directive-low supportive directing style.

It’s also worth illustrating in a baseball context how players (followers) can move back and forth along the developmental continuum.  It is very common for players who have proven to be capable, particularly pitchers, to go through a rough patch (sometimes completely attributed to bad luck).  These stretches are known to turn capable and confident players into players who are able but lack confidence.  A coach must be able to recognize this and adjust his leadership style to meet the new developmental level of the player.  A player fitting the description I just gave, might go from Developmental Level 4, where he was both able and confident, to Developmental Level 3, where he is able but lacking confidence (PSU WC, L.5).  The coach should account for this by using a supporting style, or high supportive-low directive.

I don’t know that the situational approach perfectly applies to coaching, but it’s definitely interesting to at least examine it in that context.  For example, there are situations where this approach might suggest a leader display low supportive behaviors toward a young rookie, when I would argue all young players, regardless of their confidence level, could benefit from some level of support.  However, as a fan of the game it was at least satisfying for me to take a deeper look into the coaching aspect using the situational approach.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015).  PSYCH 485 Lesson 5: Situational Approach.  Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa15/psych485/001/content/05_lesson/04_topic/01_page.html

There is more to leadership than leaders

by

The trait approach and the skills approach are both important pieces of the leadership process. Combined they show that many successful leaders start out with desired traits (trait approach) and that those traits can be developed and behaviors can be learned to make the leader more effective (skills approach) (Northouse, 2013). But what about the follower? These two leader-centric approaches can only be a piece of a bigger puzzle because leaders are only a piece of the leadership process. A leader cannot be a leader without followers no matter what they have for skills and traits. And what about the situation? Again, the trait and skills approaches are missing a major factor in the leadership process–context. Leaders and followers react differently depending on the situation. There are some situations in which one person is the leader and there are some situations where a different person is the leader. The process of leadership includes not just leaders, but followers and situations as well.

 

I think that for leaders to be successful they have to understand both the followers and the situation, meaning leaders must be able to identify what response the situation invokes in themselves and their followers. Leaders who look to be effective in many situations must be prepared to identify the needs of their followers in a specific situation and adapt accordingly. That’s what I like about the situational leadership and path-goal approaches. The situational leadership approach mandates that leaders “match their style to the competence and commitment of the subordinates” in a specific situation (Northouse, 2013, p. 99). In the path-goal approach the leader determines his or her behavior depending on the characteristics of the follower and the characteristics of the task being performed (Northouse, 2013). If only the leader’s traits and skills are taken into account two entire sections of the leadership process are ignored. For example in the path-goal leadership diagram below, taken from Northouse 2013, there would be no way for a leader to reach the level at which he or she can motivate subordinates to reach their goals and be productive without insight on the characteristics of the subordinate and of the task being performed.

pathgoalleadership.png

I think that leader-centric leadership approaches are a good start and combined with other theories leader-centric approaches are very effective. However, leader-centric approaches like the trait and skills theories can never and should never be the sole leadership theory applied in producing leaders. Effective leadership cannot exist without the consideration of the leader, the follower, and the situation.

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Take what you need and leave the rest

by

My first office job was working for a small, local bank that employed about 250-300 workers and had just under a billion in assets. During my last couple years there the bank implemented the situational leadership approach using Situational Leadership II (SLII) (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2012). By that time, I was an assistant manager, so I witnessed the change from the staff side and from the manager side. Neither side took the switch all that well at first (change like that never really goes well in the beginning!); however those in senior management made it very clear that they were 100% behind the SLII method. Any manager or staff member reported as not participating in SLII would receive the corresponding consequences. So we all took part in mandatory training, the managers to learn how to guide their staff through different development levels, and the staff to learn how to communicate which development level they are in when completing a particular task (Northouse, 2013). Initially, I think a lot of people were turned off by the idea of being labeled and labeling themselves with development levels. We can’t all fit so simply into four categories! However, the bigger picture that the situational approach and specifically SLII address is facilitating–sometimes forcing (arguably in a good way)–communication between managers and their staff.

 

In addition to the basic SLII structure, as part of the program, managers were required to meet with their employees one-on-one for 15 minutes once a week every week. That is another piece that people countered. Who has time to meet that often? And what can you get done in a 15-minute meeting? However, these one-on-one meetings were a central part of implementing the SLII method because it was during these meetings that staff and managers discuss development levels (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2012). The difference between these one-on-one meetings and other more traditional meetings was that they were run by the staff member. In these meetings, staff members were to proactively communicate what development level they were in by telling their managers what they needed. “I need more direction in this task” or “I need this specific tool to complete this task”. “I need” became a familiar prompt around the office (I believe I have a keychain from that era that says, “I Need…” on it!). It was stressed over and over that these one-on-one meetings were supposed to be run by staff. If managers tried to take over the meeting, staff members were encouraged to interrupt and let the managers know that they were hijacking the meeting.

 

Thinking about some power-hungry managers I’ve worked with since then this technique sounds a little crazy, but it was actually very useful. So often staff members are afraid to talk about what they need and managers don’t have the sense to ask, both of which hurt productivity not to mention morale. The structure of these one-on-one meetings aimed to open up the lines of communication up and down the corporate ladder. Still there were objections. Doesn’t that shift the power completely away from the manager? It could, but it doesn’t have to. Just because staff members are encouraged to voice what they need doesn’t mean they will always get it. There are many reasons why employees can’t always have the best tools they need to do their job, including budget constraints, federal policies, company policies, and general feasibility of the request. The important piece is that the conversation happened; theoretically the manager and staff member are on the same page, and together they can figure out a way to get the job done.

 

Honestly, I don’t think the specific language of SLII matters all that much in theory. It’s really just a structured way of facilitating communication. However, in practice the specifics of the SLII method serve as the concrete process for people to hold on to while they navigate unfamiliar leadership waters. I think one of the most important pieces of the situational approach and specifically SLII is that they can help break down communication boundaries. It’s just important to know when following the program too religiously is counterproductive. When applying the situational approach, as with all the styles of leadership we’ve read about so far, I think it’s important to take what you need and leave the rest.

 

 

References:

The Ken Blanchard Companies. (2012). Situational leadership II (SLII). Retrieved from http://www.kenblanchard.com/Effective_Leadership_Solutions/One_to_One_Talent_Management/Management_Situational_Leadership_Training/

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage

  Publications, Inc.

 

Skip to toolbar