Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Leadership in Interdependent Advocacy

by

It is evident that we have learned thus far from the lesson commentary along with the Northouse’s definition of leadership that followers are just as important in the leader-follower relationship. As Hamel states in the lesson commentary, “…leadership is understood as something created through the social interactions and dynamics between leaders and followers (Hamel, 2021).”  I wanted to discuss this relationship in how it relates to people of power in government, from those that are representative of various districts, to those in power running our country as a whole. 

The candidates we elect have a relationship with us, their followers. For example, for a person representing their district in congress, those elected must work with the community to understand their needs. This is important for the leader, or the representative in this case, because without the communication with their communities, they cannot truly lead. They are not able to lead without first listening to pressing issues such as housing, healthcare, or community funds. 

Leaders should also be those whom we can hold accountable, not just to be elected and mindlessly praised. This ties in with the relational-based perspective of followership described in the commentary. It is defined as “a constructionist approach, where leadership is created as a result of the interactions between the follower and the leader (Hamel, 2021).” This concept emphasizes that leadership can only be attained with the cooperation of followers, and vice versa, which is demonstrated with the leaders a community elects into office and its constituents.

In this relationship between an elected official and members of their district, it is just as important for the follower to choose the best candidate that reflects their needs, concerns and ideas for improving their representative area. Most elected officials also host town halls, which are also an important factor in the leader-follower relationship. When events like these occur that are meant for productive discussion, it is again important to elect a leader with attributes that represent a charismatic leader, as the trait approach suggests. In a study included in the Northouse textbook, it states that it “found that charismatic leaders consistently possess traits of self-monitoring, engagement in impression management, motivation to attain social powers and motivation to attain self-actualization (Jung & Sosik, 2006).” This demonstrates all the qualities that any political member should have prior to serving the members of their communities.

Conclusively, we can hold our congress members, mayors, and especially our presidents, accountable and view how we can use these traits and approaches to choose people that best reflect our needs as a whole.

References 

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 3: Followership.

Northouse, P.G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Leader or Follower: Who is Really in Control of this Relationship?

by

Reflecting on Northouse’s “Followership” chapter, I feel that I have suddenly been slapped in the face with a revelation: the power and control we thought to be managed by a leader has actually been governed by the follower all along. As I try to make sense of this new realization, I am quickly reminded of Sally Field’s iconic Mrs. Doubtfire dinner scene where she responds to a surprising discovery with the following: “the whole time? The whole time, you were – THE WHOLE TIME?!” (Columbus, 1993). Northouse (2019) noted that we are groomed to believe that leadership requires specific skills and qualities either innately within us or capable of being developed during our childhoods. This type of upbringing rings true, especially in my personal life. I cannot remember a moment from my upbringing where the spotlight was removed away from the characteristics of a leader and placed on the typology of the individuals allowing the leader to guide, direct, and influence them.

Could it be true that followers have always possessed the power to regulate the role a leader plays in their lives? Based on the trait approach, one may surmise that the skills and qualities of a leader not only affect but dictate how followers will respond to a leader’s directive. This concept seems to imply that a leader will ultimately determine and establish the types of relationships, boundaries, and behaviors complied with by their followers (Northouse, 2019). However, Northouse pointed out that even if a leader measures up to their role, checking off every leadership quality considered most prominent based on the trait approach, these leadership qualities’ values diminish if weak interactions exist with their followers. As a result, this has now created a shift in the role of leadership.

A leader’s role is not primarily dependent on the personalities, characteristics, or qualities of the individual occupying the leader role; it is contingent on whether the followers permit them even to lead. This approach of “reversing the lens” has now empowered followers to effect change in their leadership (Northouse, 2019). The shaping of a leader not only rests on those personality traits they were born with but on the traits and qualities followers expect them to develop and exhibit. Surprisingly, it seems there is now a swapping of roles; leaders find themselves responding to their followers by adapting to their followers’ expectations. Furthermore, this role exchange indicates that the power of influence is shared between the leader and the follower.

There is no question that leadership requires influence, which is the ability to persuade others to achieve a unified and desired outcome (Northouse, 2019). Although influence is ordinarily linked to a leader’s ability to persuade followers, extending that influential power to followers produces what Northouse referred to as “the leadership co-created process.” This process creates an environment where negotiations occur between the leader and the follower. The follower now has a voice at the table that forces both the leader and follower to recognize and accept their positions, which allows the follower to reject an individual’s position as a leader (Northouse, 2019). Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as followers tend to conform to various roles exuding behaviors that suppress the power of influence they potentially could have on their leaders.

Passive or ineffective followers can cause leadership to go unchecked and create a path for leaders to become toxic and pernicious. Without a proper challenge to their authority, leaders with bad intentions can become powerful, leading to coercion or intimidation tactics by leaders to exert their control. According to Northouse (2019), coercive leaders like Adolph Hitler, the Taliban, Jim Jones, and Rodrigo Duterte used threats and punishment to force followers to participate in harmful activities. The key to these types of leaders is how the power they exerted over their followers was tolerated. Northouse (2019) observed the different roles a follower can take on that might not feel the need to protest a leader’s decisions including, passive, conformist, resource, and bystander. These types of followers are usually withdrawn, apathetic, indifferent yes men, and ineffectual in maintaining a balanced relationship with their leaders. In order for a leader to be productive, they need the participation and engagement of their followers to guide them.

Effective leaders only exist when effective followers are present; therefore, it is imperative that followers uphold the types of roles that challenge their leaders (Northouse, 2019). As leaders have expectations of their followers, so should followers of their leaders. That means that followers need to exercise voicing their opinions and confronting any unethical practices performed by their leaders (Northouse, 2019). Leaders must be held accountable for their actions, and followers must understand that their active engagement with leaders will help govern and ensure this is maintained. Of course, this is easier said than done, but the reality is that followers have more influential power than they may think to urge leaders to live up to their own leadership roles. Therefore, control is no longer managed solely by leaders but is now a shared responsibility with followers.

Considering the contributions researchers have made to the study of the type of leader-follower relationship shared in the preceding paragraphs, this knowledge resonates with me on a personal level. As mentioned before, my upbringing was tailored around the office of leadership. The role of being an effective follower was never a priority. It was always about honing the skills and qualities, which aligned to Stogdill’s eight traits: (a) intelligence, (b) alertness, (c) insight, (d) responsibility, (e) initiative, (f) persistence, (g) self-confidence, and (h) sociability (Northouse, 2019). Additionally, I was taught to respect the office of leadership regardless of who held that role. This instruction meant that I was to do as I was told without question and be what leaders like to repeatedly refer to as a “team player.” This ingrained ideology is why I blindly followed managers without much dispute early in my career.

Unfortunately, there came a time in my career where this ideology shifted out of necessity. I found myself challenging a leader who was performing unethical practices with the company’s reporting. I was constantly questioning the type of retaliation I would face by exposing this act. It is in moments like these where morals are tested, and as Jean Lipman-Blumen claimed, there is a natural desire for security over the possibility of being outcasted (Northouse, 2019). Regardless, I knew that I had an obligation to do what was right, and I reported the issue, accepting any backlash coming my way. To my surprise, what I did was the start of an investigation that came with support from other followers. My willingness to come forward encouraged these followers to do the same. In the end, this leader was terminated. It seemed that I, as a follower, had more power than I initially thought.

As Northouse (2019) wrote, the type of relational-based interaction between leaders and followers described above still requires more research. However, it serves as an insight into how followers heavily influence the process of leadership. For too long, followers have mostly been dismissed and pushed off to the side. Now, leadership is no longer leader-centric but focused on the exchange that occurs with followers. It seems followers may perhaps retain more control of their relationships with their leaders than previously thought.

 

References:

Columbus, C. (1993). Mrs. Doubtfire. Twentieth Century Fox.

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

How I became a leader and why

by

Leadership and empowerment have been the most incredible realization I have had in my life. I am the founder of a small company and have always known that I was doing something right because every year I have had profit and have grown. I wasn’t sure really what was my special key to success but am now recognizing that it may be because I empower the people that come in my workspace. Reading about leadership and its definition I am recognizing that I empower, therefore; move my followers to accomplish more than what is expected. (Northouse,7th ed, pg.5) Leadership is described as a process involving influence in a group situation to achieve common goals. (Northouse, 7th ed, pg.6). The legitimate question I ask myself, is why am I a leader? Was I born with some special intelligence, is it because I am confident? Do I have respect because I have a beautiful workspace and I am the boss? Is the reason I have succeeded a little bit of both?

The trait perspective toward leadership is what I always valued as the reason why I was good at leading. The trait perspective suggests that certain individuals have special innate or inborn qualities that make them leaders. (Northouse,7th ed, pg.7) Explained in Northouse these traits are what enable me to induce others to accomplish tasks. My personality has shown strong Cognitive complexity. Cognitive complexity is comfort in dealing with uncertainty. The extent to which a person comprehends, utilizes and is comfortable with separate elements or situations and can draw connections or relationships among them. (Friedman & Schustack, 7th ed) A trait that I was born with is shown in my comfort in dealing with situations. Having high self-esteem; Therefore, being self-confident in resolving problems and situations that are uncertain, makes me feel that I am assuring my colleagues and influencing them. (Northouse, 7th ed, pg.24)

Although the capacity to influence someone is described by Northouse as a concept of power. Power being the capacity or potential to influence. (pg.10) Kellerman introduced the idea that power is no longer the synonymous of leadership. With French and Raven’s work power has been categorized in two major kinds: position power and personal power. The first derives from rank or position in this case me being the boss and having constructed the beautiful building we work in. The second derives from being seen by followers as likable and knowledgeable. I have been recognized as having personal power because I have resolved client’s issues as promised. Besides resolving issues, I have made a name for myself for my skills and trustworthiness. (Northouse, 7th ed, pg. 12)

The position I am currently in now may be viewed as Position power; that like legitimate power, is associated to my status and my authority. (Northouse, 7th ed, pg.10, table 1.1) I direct clients to the colleagues that I believe can take care of them best. I am in charge of payments and payroll and according to my discretion I can hire or fire my followers. Because I am identified as a teacher, my competence is sought for by my followers, I can recognize this as a definition of referent power position or expert power. Being seen as likable and knowledgeable by one’s followers like in this case is defined as having personal power. (PSU WC, 2020, Lesson 2)

Power can be displayed or used in many ways the way I use “my” power, is to influence the individuals that work with me towards attaining common goals. By teaching them and wanting them to be better I respect them and set myself at their level. My leader’s intellectual ability in this way does not differ from my subordinates/colleagues. (Northouse, 7th ed, pg.24) I also apply Social Intelligence this is a theory that finds its importance in the interactions of people. This means using my intelligence with the environment, my colleagues. (PSU WC, 2020, Lesson 2) The reason I apply my social intelligence allows me to be an effective leader without necessarily displaying power.

 

The responses I have given in certain situations, the way I have influenced in a confident way yet being mutual, have been the determinant factor of having followers that are trustworthy and loyal. The loyalty has been the result of empowering my followers of tools so they can attain goals in common interest and feel satisfied. My interest in making work hours and being flexible has shown my trust in them. Social Intelligence has been displayed in my awareness and has been shown in the different contingencies that have been presented in my 11 years of business so far. If I can evaluate myself and say I found the key to my success, I would say that being a boss and my position as a leader, has come thanks to a strong fellowship. So, my leadership is the consequence of a Transformational process; this is described by Northouse (7th ed) as what moves followers to accomplish more that what is expected of them. (pg.5) This fellowship has given me the strength to build my business and be trusted. Leadership has come from the role I have built for myself over the years using my qualities and traits, in the correct situations.

 

References:

Friedman, H. s, & Schustack, M. w. (n.d.). Personality classic Theories and Modern Research (7th ed.). Pearson.

Northouse, P. G. (n.d.). Leadership: theory and practice (7th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2020). PSYCH 485 Lesson 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2040131/modules/items/28001674

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.

Voldemort vs Dumbledore: Marked as a Leader From Birth

by

Who you associate with might be what determines what your leadership style is as a human. That being said, the trait approach of leadership suggests that some people were born (or reborn) as a leader based on traits that they had from the beginning (Northhouse, 2016). “Good vs evil” aside, I feel that analyzing the effectiveness of Voldemort vs Dumbledore based on their given traits is insightful in seeing who may have been the better leader of their given side. I will be utilizing the Big Five traits associated with leadership to assess the strength of Voldemort and Dumbledore.

Extraversion, a trait of the Big Five, is most strongly associated with leadership (Northhouse, 2016). Both Voldemort and Dumbledore seem to have extreme strengths based on extraversion alone. That being said, looking at Voldemort’s past as a quiet and shy child may be necessary to follow the trait approach. Perhaps he wasn’t born with extraversion, and I feel that this continued into his teenage years at Hogwarts in which he was more of an observer. Dumbledore, however, seems to have always expressed high levels of extraversion in his life.

The second trait associated with high leadership skills is conscientiousness, or the ability to be organized and decisive. In this sector, I feel that Voldemort has significantly higher conscientiousness than Dumbledore. Though they are both dependable and thorough, I feel that Dumbledore’s own kindness gets in the way of his organization and thoroughness. Voldemort follows through with a plan that he has set, though I feel that Dumbledore’s agreeableness (another Big Five trait) interferes with his leadership. Agreeableness is only weakly associated with leadership, meaning the kindness of Dumbledore may actually be to his detriment (Northhouse, 2016).

The last two traits of effective leaders are openness and low neuroticism. As far as low neuroticism, Voldemort absolutely fails. Neuroticism refers to an individual’s hostility and anxiousness, which I feel is something consistently impairing Voldemort’s leadership abilities. He is a vulnerable individual with a tragic backstory, regardless of his strength in conscientiousness and openness. Dumbledore also has his own neuroticism, also with a tragic backstory and consistent insecurities based on these. However, I feel that his neuroticisms impair his leadership less than Voldemort. Both Dumbledore and Voldemort are equal in my eyes in terms of openness.

Voldemort clearly runs his sector based on a cult mentality and fear, while Dumbledore’s Army is more so based on his agreeableness. That being said, I feel that based simply on the Big Five alone, Dumbledore may have the upper hand. Dumbledore’s strength in agreeableness is only slightly related to leadership, while Voldemort has the strength of conscientiousness and openness. However, Dumbledore has the natural extraversion that is highly associated with leadership. Perhaps they both have their own strengths, though based on the trait approach alone, Dumbledore seems to have greater strength as a leader.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Seventh ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Skip to toolbar