Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

The Human Side to Leadership

by

When looking at Robert Katz’s Three-Skill Approach to leadership, he states that the three skills necessary are technical skills, human skills, and conceptual skills (Northouse, 2019). Technical skills have to deal with an individual’s knowledge with specific activities (Northouse, 2019). Human skills are about your ability to work with people, and conceptual skills are your ability to work with ideas (Northouse, 2019). The approach states that technical and conceptual skills are needed at varying levels depending on your level in the organization, but human skills are needed at high levels all the time (Northouse, 2019). If human skills are so important to leadership it is important to really understand what human skills even are.

Human skills are also referred to as people skills. Most of us probably already have an idea of what this is. Our ability to interact with other people and be effective in group settings. Yet we spend so little time developing them. We go to a vast array of schools to improve upon our technical skills, we even take upper-level courses and have internships and co-ops to help develop our conceptual skills. It would make sense to also have ways to develop our human skills but we do not, especially since they are needed in every level of an organization.

Human skills, as defined by Katz are, “being aware of one’s own perspective on issues and, at the same time, being aware of the perspective of others,” (Northouse, 2019). How does one develop this capacity to understand and react to others’ emotions? The answer could simply be to start engaging in the behaviors that people with high human skills do. Then, it eventually turns into a habit and automated response that you intuitively do without thinking about it. Simply put, you practice in your everyday life and your interactions with friends and family.

You can practice human skills by doing a variety of things. For instance, by focusing on your body language and ensuring that it is open and you smile, is a good place to start (Sharrieff, 2017). In addition, asking open ended questions, and actively listening as people talk, rephasing people’s emotions so they know they are understood, and being empathetic are all things that go into human skills (Sharrieff, 2017).

Overall, human skills are highly important to any leader no matter the context. Therefore, since we are not given a lot of formal training on how to improve our human skills we need to take it upon ourselves to improve them by practicing the behaviors associated with good human skills in our daily lives.

References:

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

Sharrieff, M. (2017, November 21). How do I Improve People Skills at Work? Retrieved from https://smallbusiness.chron.com/improve-people-skills-work-3191.html

 

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.

Next Level Leadership

by

Are there different levels of leadership success? When considering leadership outcomes there must be. Leaders of different companies in the same industry have different results all the time. Of course, we can analyze success in different areas like profit margin or employee retention rates but let’s keep it simple and use overall effectiveness. There are plenty of companies that sell the same product but have different financial outcomes. Should we attribute these occurrences to luck or leadership? You may be thinking, “well one company may have a better marketing department, or better customer service, etc., etc.”.; but isn’t it the leader of that company who holds ultimate responsibility. This post intends to offer the “why” for different levels of leadership and then explain the “how” in taking leadership to a higher level of success. (Although, this premise can be used in leadership outside of business, I will be focusing on business leadership in this discussion).

In explaining “why” I believe there are different levels of leadership success, I will start by simply pointing out the differing effectiveness levels of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. “Transformational leadership is a better predictor of organizational effectiveness than transactional or laissez-faire leadership” (Williams, 2018, Less. 10). Does organizational effectiveness translate to revenue earning effectiveness? I think it does, ceteris paribus. Using earnings as our measure, I think it is fair to say that transformational leadership is most effective, transactional leadership follows, and least effective is laissez-faire leadership. We have 3 levels already! To reinforce my point; Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam (1996) “found that people who exhibited transformational leadership were perceived to be more effective leaders with better work outcomes than those who exhibited only transactional leadership” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 116). It is how the leader behaves that changes the level of leadership effectiveness. “Transformational leadership behavior that elicits second-order changes in employee efforts is more highly associated with effectiveness than the traditional first order changes resulting from transactional behaviors. (Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam, 1996, pg. 420).

Explaining every leadership theory that suggests why leadership has levels of success is beyond the scope of this blog. I’m merely scratching the surface to show that different levels of leadership effectiveness exist. Effectiveness promotes success. And success is measured in levels. I’ll offer one more connection that has its roots in the skills approach: social intelligence. “Successful leaders have as individual characteristics two components of social intelligence, social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility” (Zaccaro et al., 1991, pg. 317). It is proposed that leaders with advanced skill in these two characteristics (of social intelligence) will be more effective in leadership. This theory holds the potential of many levels of leadership success.

Now on to the “how.” How can a leader elevate to a higher level of success? If you’ve read this far, the answer should be apparent—focus on the “why.” My argument is that if an individual learns the exact reasons that one leader functions on a higher level than another, than it simply follows to develop in those reasons to raise that level. The “why” is peppered throughout all the leadership theories and the “how” is to internalize and develop. “Patterns of abilities, motives and personality characteristics associated with higher skill and knowledge levels are positively related to leader performance” (Mumford, Zaccaro, Connelly, et al., 2000, pg. 159). I’m convinced leadership can be learned and developed. “Leadership development address observable, conscious, and rational phenomena” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 296). Developing an individual’s leadership leads to next level leadership.

In conclusion, knowing “why” certain skills, behaviors, situations, relationships, etc., work in leadership is what I propose is the most important factor in leadership success. “And it’s those who start with ‘why’ that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them” (Sinek, 2009, 17:40).

 

References

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Connelly, M. S., & Marks, M. A. (2000). Leadership skills: Conclusions and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 155–170.

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

Sinek, Simon. 2009, Sept. TEDtalks. How great leaders inspire action. Retrieved at https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action

Williams, Jason. (2018). Pennsylvania State University. Lesson 10: Transformational Leadership. A Model of Transformational Leadership – Research. Retrieved at https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1940315/modules/items/24597570

Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J., Thor, K. K., & Mumford, M. D. (1991). Leadership and social intelligence: Linking social perceptiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 317–331.

 

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.

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