Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Anybody Can Be a Leader

by

Earlier this semester we studied the trait approach, which assumes that all leaders possess certain innate abilities that make the uniquely gifted to lead (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2, p. 1). The majority of research into the various traits postulates that individuals must be born with these traits, they cannot be taught or learned later in life (Northouse, 2019, pp. 21-22). Organizations utilize this approach in order to predict who among their staff may be able to serve as leaders in the future, or to identify which job candidates possess desired traits through tests based on the Five Factor Model (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2, p. 3).

In my blog post from that lesson, I explored how the leaders in my professional life all had traits that made them successful in their situation, but would not have experienced that level of success in other environments (Turfa, 2021). I now realize that not only had their personality impacted their effectiveness as a leader, but they had also dedicated themselves to developing related skills which they were able to incorporate into their leadership. These individuals actively worked towards improving their leadership, rather than believing that their personal characteristics were enough. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman (2000, as cited in PSU WC, 2021) identified three areas of skills that they believed high-performing leaders were proficient in (L. 4, p. 4). The first area, individual attributes, comprises an individual’s: general intelligence, ability to gather knowledge, willingness to accept being a leader, and personality. The second category includes various skills related to judgement and effective decision making, also referred to as competencies (Northouse, 2019, p. 47). Leadership outcomes refer to how effective the individual’s problem solving abilities are, as well as how well they are able to perform as a leader. These three categories comprise a variety of skills that leaders can seek to improve on through training and practice. The exception to this is an individual’s motivation, or willingness to be a leader (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4, p. 4). Individuals are either willing to accept a leadership role, or they are not. If an individual who does not desire to lead is placed in a position where they must, they will most likely be ineffective, regardless of their proficiency in any of the other skills.

Within my first year at my current job, seven of our ten supervisors quit, three within a month of each other. This led to a scramble by management to identify which officers could be selected to fill these positions as soon as possible, with individuals who would be capable of not only leading current staff but training the new hires. My organization prefers to promote internally for supervisory role, as our facility has many unique procedures that must be followed, and officers who have experience with these tend to be the most effective at complying with them. Management elected to fill one of these positions with James, surprising to many of us. James did not seem like the ideal choice to many of us. He had never held a leadership role prior to this, while other candidates had military or law enforcement backgrounds. He also did not seem overly intelligent, or particularly driven to move to positions of higher authority. Many of us were unsure that he would be able to lead at all. In retrospect, we were wrong. After taking over second shift, James displayed a high level of crystallized cognitive ability (Northouse, 2019, p. 47). He understood what he did not know, and placed great effort into filling these gaps in his knowledge, and then applying it to his decision making. James was clearly willing to lead, and possessed a personality that made him a perfect fit to interact with others. He seemed to understand the correct way to explain issues to each individual, in a way that made it easy to process decisions or other changes. He was also quite adept at identifying what the root cause of problems were, evaluating potential solutions, and applying the one which best fit the problem and the situation at hand (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4, p. 4). In addition to being a gifted problem solver, James was a great judge of social cues. He realized when he needed to modify his behavior to achieve a desired outcome, such as being harsher with employees who attempted to undermine our procedures. Finally, James was able to persuade others to implement decisions that were unusual, but often made our work more efficient. The combination of James’ individual attributes and competencies made him into a highly-effective leader (Northouse, 2019, p. 54). The only times I remember his problem solving being ineffective were when he was not provided enough information to make a decision, or the situation was poorly explained by others. James became one of the best supervisors I had prior to my being promoted off of his shift, and is now a regional manager for another security organization.

To me, James is the greatest example of how the skills approach is effective. James actively worked to improve his abilities as a leader. This was achieved through his realization of his own shortcomings, identifying ways to improve, and seeking constant feedback from both his followers as well as his leaders. James proved to me that anybody can be a leader, and that the traits an individual possesses are less important than their willingness to learn.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publishing

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 2: Trait Approach [Online Course]. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110258/modules/items/30985871.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 4: Skills Approach [Online Course]. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110258/modules/items/30985902.

Turfa, A. (2021, February 1). Traits and Situations. Penn State Leadership: PSYCH 485 blog. https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2021/02/01/traits-and-situations/.

Are leaders born, made or poorly chosen?

by

            I have been in the military for nearly two decades and have followed many leaders throughout my career.  To this day, I contemplate about memorable supervisors in an effort to gain a fundamental understanding of why they did some of the things they did.  I remember them for different reasons and even try to emulate the qualities I most admired from each one.  Amongst the great ones, I also remember the bad, the indifferent, and those who often times made me wonder how they even got to influential leadership positions in the first place.  I have worked for the anecdotal natural born leaders, others who appeared well trained and some who were simply the by-product their superior’s power and influence.

            Leadership traits were of high interest throughout the 20th century, and their studies resulted in “great man” theories that focused on identifying characteristics and qualities possessed by great leaders (Northouse, 2016).  Scholars suggested that social, political and military leaders all had similar innate traits that only “great” people were born with.  Throughout the years, characteristics such as intelligence, confidence, motivation and sociability have been linked to leadership effectiveness.  Indeed, I have come across the charismatic supervisor who effortlessly outshines others, and excels at most things as if it all simply comes “naturally” to them.  They certainly appear to be born, natural leaders who people gravitate to as if they had no other choice.

            On the other hand, I have also had supervisors whose leadership skills were sharpened by experience, education and coaching from mentors who deliberately focused on their development as military leaders.  Albeit effective, leadership did not seem to come natural to them; instead, they had a polished approach that often times seemed scripted but was effective nonetheless.  In contrast to the “great man” theories that suggest leaders are born, the skills approach to leadership focuses on capabilities that can be learned and developed.  More recently, Mumford and colleagues developed a skill-based model of leadership using the results of a study founded by the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense.  They concluded that capabilities can be developed through education and experience, and that problem-solving skills, social judgement skills, and knowledge can account for effective leadership performance (Northouse, 2016).  Leadership is therefore, or perhaps, something that many people can do and not an opportunity only reserved for the gifted few.

            Often times, my most memorable supervisors integrated traits such as intelligence and confidence with acquired skills such as knowledge and problem-solving.  However, I also worked for ineffective “leaders” who had neither traits nor skill but held a key position assigned by someone with greater influence and power to make it happen.  I once heard the term “legacy child”, which referred to someone whose father was a high-ranking officer in the military.  As such, he had been vectored or “chosen” for jobs that would likely catapult him up the military chain of command even if he lacked the skills or abilities to lead high-performing teams.  I now realize that instead of skills, some people can learn and exhibit the right behaviors to come across as an effective leader in front of others.

            The behavioral approach to leadership focuses on the actions of the leader, on what they do and how they act (Northouse, 2016).  There are five basic styles: 1) country-club management, 2) team management, 3) middle-of-the-road management, 4) impoverished management, and 5) authority-compliance management.  Furthermore, there is another concept under this theory that encompasses all five styles.  Opportunism, according to Northouse (2016), refers to someone “who uses a combination of the five basic styles for the purpose of personal advancement (pg 77).”  It is likely that some legacy children and others in the military may see, learn and exhibit behaviors to gain personal advancement.  Consequently, they are chosen for jobs they do not deserve and placed into positions for which they are ill prepared.

            Decades of experience have taught me that we must learn as much from the bad leaders as we do from the good.  Through the study of leadership, I have fortunately gained a better understanding of how and why my most memorable supervisors acted the way they did to effectively lead and manage their teams.  Like other things, leadership is something people may be naturally good at, but that doesn’t negate the fact that we must also be intentional in honing the skills and abilities we need to become better, more effective leaders.           

References

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Self-efficacy in relation to leadership skills acquisition and retention

by

Successful leadership is a complex and dynamic process that requires the “artful application of various conceptual, technical, and interpersonal skills” (McCormick, 2001, p.28). Instead of considering the inherent traits of great leaders, it seems more reasonable to address the knowledge and abilities that are necessary for leadership development. In fact, by doing so we are moving beyond an indefinite list of potential leadership traits and focus on a set of developable skills (Northouse, 2016); an approach that seems to find more application within real-life organizations. This approach includes a regimented selection of technical, human, and conceptual skills (Katz, 1955 as cited in Northouse, 2016) and a more dynamic skills model that encompasses individual attributes, achieved competencies, and leadership outcomes (Mumford et al., 2000 as cited in Northouse, 2015). As such, the skills, or competencies that individuals develop over their lifetimes can be viewed as being directly related to leadership outcomes.

While it is argued that the skills approach is primarily descriptive (Northouse, 2016), its main premise lies in the fact that an individual can theoretically achieve some mastery of key skills in order to become a successful leader. At the same time, as Bandura (1993) argues, “there is a marked difference between possessing knowledge and skills and being able to use them well under taxing conditions” (p.119). It is easy to imagine scenarios where people with similar sets of skills and knowledge arrive to entirely different outcomes, with some people failing to adapt and develop entirely. Thus, there must be more to the skills approach than the incremental development of the individual skills. As Northouse (2016) suggests, the skills approach lacks significant predictive value, which would otherwise allow us to explain how the variations in some skills affect the leadership outcomes. Therefore, the skills approach as described in Mumford et al. (2000 as cited in Northouse, 2016) should focus more on the interrelatedness between the variables as opposed to mastering each factor independently.

In my experience, the main link connecting both my individual attributes and competencies to the ultimate performance has been the level of self-efficacy I possess at any given moment. In his introduction of the concept, Bandura (1993) describes the contributions of self-efficacy to skill utilization as it affects the human perception of their own ability to perform tasks based on the combination of inherent characteristics, experience, as well as the ability to adapt to challenges and ambiguity. In its widest interpretation, efficacy influences people cognitive perceptions and behavioral tactics (Bandura, 1993). Regardless of my level of both inherited general cognitive ability and acquired crystallized cognitive ability, I can function effectively only if I believe in my own capability to control my own level of functioning (Bandura, 1993). Unfortunately, in many ways I tend to be low on self-efficacy, which significantly disrupts my ability to develop consistent leadership behaviors. For example, while I have developed a great set of social judgement skills, particularly in social perceptiveness, via my work as a family support advisor, I often fail to see how these skills would apply to other, potentially more difficult leadership situations. In other words, my competencies do not fully extend to effective problem solving of ambiguous situations. Simply, as Bandura (1993) points out, “it is difficult to achieve much while fighting self-doubt” (p.118).

When considering self-efficacy as the linkage between individual skills and knowledge and leadership outcomes, we are still lacking better understanding of how to overcome the obstacles of self-depreciation. On the one hand, research suggests focusing on a large selection of abilities that can be learned and developed through effective training; on the other hand, we might be stuck in one place should our level of self-efficacy not develop with accordance to the newly acquired competencies. Clearly, it would seem that the individual capacity for leadership implies a systematic and lifelong approach to human development that should include both cognitive and behavioral modifications. Perhaps, as Northouse (2016) suggests, taking periodic skills inventories could allow people to gain a better perspective on their own leadership competencies. In my case, it would be an extremely beneficial strategy in mitigating the effects of low self-efficacy thus reinforcing the self-perception of myself as a capable leader.

 

References

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.

McCormick, M. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: Applying social cognitive theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 22-33.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. 7th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Skills Approach Theory – Military

by

While reading through the skills approach theory in Northouse I couldn’t help but think of how familiar it all sounded.  I kept racking my brain on why it sounded so familiar but it didn’t click until I got to the end of chapter three in the criticisms portion.  “The skills model was constructed by using a large sample of military personnel and observing their performance in the armed services,” (Northouse, p. 59), and immediately said ‘bingo, Air Force leadership doctrine.’  In the military we are required to go to Professional Military Education (PME) courses at different stages of our careers.  I started my career as a 2nd Lieutenant by attending Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base, AL and taking a very basic leadership course called; Air and Space Basic Course (ASBC).  It was required for 2nd Lieutenants and the first PME of our careers.  We learned how to work as a team, learned a little bit of Air Force doctrine, and a little bit about leadership.  However, it was just a refresher course of all the things we had learned in ROTC, Officer Training School (OTS) or at the Air Force Academy.

Further into our careers, sometime after an officer becomes a Captain, we attend another PME course called Squadron Officer School (SOS) in which we dive a little deeper into Air Force doctrine and leadership.  You may be saying ‘Ok, cool Cotton, but how does this relate to the skills approach theory?’  The three-skill approach directly relates to how Air Force leadership doctrine was written.  Air Force leadership doctrine looks a lot like the components of the skills model.  Attached on this link is model that shows leadership levels and institutional competencies according to the Air Force, https://www.scribd.com/document/82751360/Doctrine-Update-for-AFDD-1-1,  it also looks very similar to Figure 3.1 in Northouse.  The three levels that you see are Tactical Expertise, Operational Competence, and Strategic vision.  They all tie into the individual competencies of Personal, People/Team, and Organizational which I will explain next.

So we remember from our reading that the three-skill approach encompasses Technical Skill, Human Skill, and Conceptual Skill.  As a young 2nd Lieutenant through a junior Captain you master the technical skill in your profession which for me was learning the ins and outs of the B-52, learning to employ weapons, and becoming a tactical warrior.  I spent many hours in the weapons systems book and tactics books to try and become the best tactician I could.  During this time I did not lead a lot of people but the human skill was there because I also needed to work as a B-52 crew member and be able to communicate effectively during training and combat sorties.  All this ties into the Air Force leadership doctrine model as to be a tactical expert, have a sense of leading and being a follower, but not focusing on being a strategic thinker in the organization, or for me my bomb squadron.

Next is human skill which “is the knowledge about and ability to work with people,” (Northouse, p. 44).  This become increasingly important as you move from to a senior Captain to a Lieutenant Colonel.  You should have mastered that tactical skill by now and now you move on to taking larger leadership roles.  For me I was the flight commander of our scheduling shop in my bomb squadron.  I had build relationships with maintenance personnel and higher ranking officers for them to trust me I could lead my people/team to get our job done.  I also had to understand the bomb wing’s vision to understand organizational competence, for example knowing how my bomb squadron would fight against a near peer threat.  In keeping with the Air Force doctrine model that example opened more of the door to strategic thinking and the bigger picture Air Force organization.

Next we have the conceptual skill where you are meshing that technical and human skill as a leader of many people.  Also important to note is that “conceptual skills are central to creating vision and strategic plan for an organization,” (Northouse, p. 45).  In Air Force doctrine this is where as a Colonel and into the General Officer ranks you are in the strategic vision portion in the Air Force.  You now focus on little of the technical skill, less on the human skill, and way more on the organizational skill.  You become and expert in knowing how to employ all Air Force weapon systems to achieve the a common Air Force goal whatever it may be.

A leader also needs individual competencies as seen in the skills model on figure 3.2 in Northouse and relate to the institutional competencies of Air Force leadership doctrine.  We need these problem-solving skills, social judgement skills, and knowledge to put all those levels of leadership together.  As I finished up chapter three I see so much of what was taught in my leadership classes at the PME courses I attended.  While this research and theory was built off military members I believe that it still relates to the civilian world as well.  The three-skill approach I believe is part of stepping stone that will make a great leader, it just takes time.

 

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2016).  Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

 

Captain Sully’s Hero Skills

by

On February 8, 2009, Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger sat with Katie Couric for an episode of 60 minutes (CBS, 2009). He was there to discuss his miraculous landing of U.S. Airways Flight 1549 onto the Hudson River in New York City, New York. The airplane had only been in flight for 90 seconds when Captain Sully noticed that birds were hitting the windscreen and being sucked into the engines (CBS, 2009). Within three and a half minutes, Captain Sully knew he had to make an emergency landing(CBS, 209). With the lives of 150 passengers and the plane’s crew members in his hands, Captain Sully made some quick decisions that led to a safe landing on NYC’s Hudson River.

In the short video above, Captain Sully explains his thought process while managing this life treating emergency. The CBS interview reveals the skills Captain Sully employed while making his landing. He conducted a rapid troubleshoot of all mechanical alternatives and quickly discovered none were available; he had to manually take control of the aircraft. Captain Sully then had to find a place to land the plane, figure out how to conduct multiple simultaneous operations, and keep himself calm enough to execute the procedures within seconds. His skill in manually flying and landing the plane, quick problem solving, and technical accuracy demonstrate Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, et al.’s (2000, as cited in Northouse, 2012) “skills model [which] contends that leadership outcomes are the direct result of a leader’s competencies in problem-solving skills, social judgment skills, and knowledge.”

Captain Sully has the individual attributes of  general cognitive ability, or intelligence, as demonstrated in his rapid perceptual processing of the problem the birds were causing as they flew into the plane’s engine; reasoning skills that led him to troubleshoot for mechanical alternatives; and creative and divergent thinking capacities and memory skills that enabled him to quickly find a place to land and recall the protocol for such a landing (Northouse, 2012). General cognitive ability is a biological skill, but crystalized cognitive ability explains his acquired skills. His ability to problem solve so effectively is because he acquired intellectual ability over time (Northouse, 2012). His motivation to land the plane safely came from the third attribute in the model which requires a leader to “be willing to tackle complex organizational problems” (Northouse, 2012). Captain Sully appears to have the fourth attribute of personality that contributed to his successful landing. His management of the emergency demonstrates “openness, tolerance for ambiguity, and curiosity may affect a leader’s motivation to try to solve some organizational problem. Or, in conflict situations, personality traits such as confidence and adaptability may be beneficial to a leader’s performance” (Northouse, 2012).

The outcome of Captain Sully’s leadership skills was a safe landing. The skills model describes leadership outcomes such as effective problem solving and performance. It is clear that Captain Sully effectively resolved the problem and performed well. He managed to land the plane without injuring any of the passengers or crew members. In fact, in my research of this incident I was unable to find evidence that he caused any additional damage to the plane in his landing.

Captain Sully had 30 years of experience as a pilot. In his interview he said that he thinks all of his work and training up to the point of the flight were to prepare him for that moment (CBS, 2009). He didn’t doubt himself once; he was certain he could land the plane safely. When his body wanted to physiologically react to the situation, he focused on the task and kept calm. He said it was easy to keep calm (CBS, 2009). He was self confident and demonstrated a great deal of technical and conceptual knowledge during his interview. Northouse describes this high level of proficiency in our textbook, “Career experience helps leaders to improve their skills and knowledge over time. Leaders learn and develop higher levels of conceptual capacity if the kinds of problems they confront are progressively more complex and more long term as they ascend the organizational hierarchy (Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly, et al., 2000 as cited in Northouse, 2012).

The external environmental influence of the failed engine event “provide[d] a unique challenge” (Northouse, 2012). This is a fact that is part of the skills model but out of the leader’s control (Northouse, 2012). Instead of allowing the challenge to negatively impact him, he recruited his skills and valiantly brought the plane to a safe landing against all odds. Captain Sully is a hero and a great leader. His handling of U.S. Airways Flight 1549 is a great example of how leaders use the skills approach to solve problems and lead effectively.

CBS (2009, February 8). I was sure I could do it Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ5HnyEQg7M

Northouse, P. G. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice, 6th Edtion (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Skip to toolbar