Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Leadership and Diversity

by

My family and I moved to Indianapolis about 6 years ago, and as you move from state to state, you have to find new day cares, schools, doctors and so on. So as an African American, my tendency is to try to find as many African American professionals to show patronage to as possible. Am I a racist for doing this, absolutely not, I’m the farthest from that. But as a minority in this country, you feel an obligation to support those who are within your culture. You can look at people of Asian descent and see how they support their businesses, you can look at the Hispanic community to see how they support their business, as well as people from any minority culture. So, I began asking around for an African American Pediatrician for my daughter and we collected many names. One person gave us the name of a doctor who they had taken their kids to, they loved her, and she just so happened to live in my neighborhood. So we took their advice and became patients of this recommended doctor. During our first visit to the doctor, I sensed something was not quite right. When we walked into the office, there were no African Americans in sight. When we went to the front desk to check in, we didn’t see any African American nurses, the receptionist wasn’t African American, and there weren’t any minority employees on the staff that could be seen on that day at all…..My wife and I checked in and had a quick conversation. I said, “I don’t think this doctor is African American”. My wife said, “Why do you think that?” My answer was, “If the doctor was African American there would at least be one employee who is a minority.” Twenty-minutes later, we are called back and the doctor was a Caucasian female. My wife and I just laughed because my “spidey senses” were right.

I share this story with you all because it falls right in line with the theories of lesson 13. As an African American, I purposely searched for an African American doctor. Did I do this because I’m uncomfortable with other groups, or I have racist motives, absolutely not (for the second time)? I did this because that’s who I relate with the most and I wanted to support MY culture. In the lesson commentary, one of the barriers that put women at a disadvantage is the preference for gender similarity (Lesson 13: Leadership and Diversity, Houston). Much like this, my preference for racial similarities guided me to seek out an African American doctor. There weren’t any hidden agendas or dislikes for any other group, but in-group favoritism was practiced (Lesson 13: Leadership and Diversity, Houston).

In corporate America, I believe a lot of our diversity issues are caused by in-group favoritism. The majority of hiring managers are White and Male, and they tend to hire male Whites who they relate to more. Even before taking this class and reading about these concepts I always knew that we hire who we have the most in common with. If two students have the same credentials and there is a choice between hiring an African American or hiring a non-minority, I will hire the African American because of in-group favoritism. Also, if my choice is between two African Americans and one of them belongs to the same Fraternity that I do, I’m more likely to hire my Fraternity brother. Is it wrong, yes, is it done to show social dominance…absolutely not (for the third time). It is, the way it is.

My youngest daughter will be headed to the doctor for her checkup before she beings Kindergarten in a week and we will be making an appoint….with…..the same doctor who we originally thought was African American. She is great and we won’t leave here just because she’s not of African American.

References

Penn State World Campus. (2014). Lesson 13: Leadership and Diversity. Retrieved August 1, 2014, from Psych 485: Leadership in Work Settings: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych485/002/content/13_lesson/printlesson.html

Certified Real

by

After reading the lesson commentary and Northouse chapter on authentic leadership, I couldn’t help but to look at myself and put myself through the authenticity test.  By nature, I am a quiet person.  In settings where there are many people in the room I may have a question or a comment but due to my quiet nature most of the time those questions or comments never come out.  I was once told that I’m “too nice” and in order to become President or CEO I would have to be a little more mean at times.  I’ve heard this on more than one occasion and can’t help but to always respond that if I “act” mean then I’m not being myself.  I cannot “act” and be genuine, people will see right through it.  A lot of how I am is based on how I was raised.  I was raised to never interrupt, to wait until the other person is speaking to talk, not to be rude, and to be polite and kind.  When reading the lesson commentary, I was refreshed to learn that the concept of authentic leadership falls in line with my principles.

I rely heavily on relationships in order to get what I need to get done and to help others achieve their goals.  The three ways to define authentic leadership of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and development are all used when I’m leading (2014 Northouse, p. 254).  I know who I am, I know how to form genuine relationships and I’m aware that training is needed to shore up my weaknesses.  There’s nothing more disheartening to find out that a person you look up to really isn’t who they portray to be.  In my opinion, this is the quickest way to lose respect and in turn lose the ability to lead.

Although I’ve been told that “I’m too nice” on numerous occasions something has been working.  I’m an Executive in my organization and I was able to do it by proving over and over my ability to lead change.  It’s easy to look at others leadership styles and think to yourself, “if I had that, I’d be…”, but the refreshing things is that this course has taught me that there are different leadership styles.  I’ve always thought to myself, I can’t force myself to be someone I’m not.  If I did that I would be true to myself and I would not be able to put on the “hard face” when perceived to be appropriate and then take it off after the show is over.  Who would want that?  I wouldn’t be able to look myself in the mirror everyday.  When you review The Authentic Leader wheel characteristics, the inner ring lists purpose, values, relationships, self-discipline, and heart as the key to being an authentic leader (2014, Northouse p. 259).  I guess I’ve been certified real.

 

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Sixth ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

 

Give a Fish or Teach to Fish that is the Question

by

 

Give a Fish or Teach to Fish that is the Question

Servant LeadershipAfter reading the Lesson 11 commentary and the Northouse chapter on servant leadership I thought about a criticism of the theory that wasn’t addressed in the readings. Are servant leaders taken advantage of and in certain instances seen as pushovers rather than true leaders? If we review the basic concept of servant leadership, my definition would be a leader who does what’s necessary to ensure his followers are successful. Is this what you really want from a leader? In my opinion that answer is no, you want a leader to exhibit these “I will help you by all means” characteristics in certain situations, but not all of the time. If this is done all of the time I see this “leader” as a targeted pushover. The lesson commentary referenced the role of parenthood as an example of servant leadership. “Parents serve their children’s needs so that the children can develop into healthy adults…so that they can help their own children develop” (Lesson 11 Commentary, p. 2 Houston). For us parents out there, we know that this can be a slippery slope. If you always come to the rescue of the child, they will not learn how to overcome that hurdle themselves and you will always be their crutch. There’s a quote that’s been taken and re-phrased over that originated by Anne Isabella Ritchie in a story she wrote in the 1880’s that read, “…if you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour; if you teach him to catch a fish you do him a good turn” (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/give-a-man-a-fish.html). This has been rephrased over time to “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Isn’t this what we are ultimately dealing with here? How much service do you give before it begins to hurt the requestor? Untitled2One of the 10 Characteristics of servant leadership is foresight (Northouse, 2013). Shouldn’t the leader also use this foresight to see that if they continue to remove the hurdles that will do nothing but ultimately hinder the follower? In a 2010 article of management-issues.com, author Mitch McCrimmon wrote, “The servant leadership bandwagon is still on track but needs to be derailed. It’s a bad idea because it’s paternalistic and gets in the way of employee engagement.” I would have to agree with this statement. Although it is good to help when the person really needs help, I believe it is detrimental to both parties if you continue to bail someone out time after time. Eventually, you must allow someone to fall on their sword so they can learn a life lesson that they will then never repeat; this I believe is a “commitment to the growth of people” (Northouse, 2013). As many others have done to in the past to Anne Isabella Ritchie’s famous quote, I will put my own spin on it to close this article. It’s OK to give a man a fish when he’s really in need, but if you continue to give that man a fish every time he asks for one, he will become dependent on you and will never even consider learning how to fish on his own.

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Sixth ed.). (pp. 221-222). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Penn State World Campus. (2014). Lesson 11: Servant Leadership. Retrieved July 25, 2014, from Psych 485: Leadership in Work Settings: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych485/002/content/11_lesson/01_page.html

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/give-a-man-a-fish.html

http://www.management-issues.com/opinion/6015/why-servant-leadership-is-a-bad-idea/

Situations…on my Mind..But I gotta be Smart about it!

by

Being a parent to two young girls is challenging. I have a five (5) year old and a seven (7) year old and their personalities couldn’t be much more different than oil and water. But as a parent, the old concepts of “treat them both the same” and “what you do to one you must do to the other” couldn’t be more wrong. What I’ve learned over my past seven years of fatherhood is that you have to treat each child differently based on their personality and the SITUATION. My parents would call me a hypocrite. How they were raised is if you punish one for stomping away, you punish the other for the same thing. Before kids, I would have agreed with this philosophy, but afterwards I can completely throw this theory out of the window (I already threw it out exactly five years ago). Before going any further let me explain the personalities of my girls. My oldest girl, Nyah, is the poster child for how you would want your child to be. She is very kind mannered, she cares what you think about her, she is success driven, she is competitive, she is extremely intelligent, she is mindful and she aims to please. Nyah is the girl that will cry if I discipline her by saying, “Daddy is disappointed in you”. Now let’s talk about the five year old. Mia is the princess, the fashion icon, the play shoe heel wearer, the caring, loving, sharing, and emotional girl. Mia however does not aim to please, she doesn’t care about what you think and she has no sense of authority. If you tell Mia to clean her room, she might get to it 15 minutes later…might.

girls fighting

 

My girls are a classic case study of situational leadership for a parent. As the leader of my household, I must adjust my leadership style to each child depending on the situation and which child it is. Keeping the same military approach to both girls will not work based on their personalities and I think this is the mistake of some less effective leaders within our organizations. As leaders in the organizations, a way size fits all approach does not work because you have different personalities. Being critical to one person may not affect person A, but person B may be devastated and their work performance may get worse. Personally, I’m the type of person that needs to be pushed. Tell me I’m not doing something to the best of my ability and I’ll go without sleep for days to prove you wrong. The directive and supportive behaviors discussed with the situational approach are very important concepts to know and to understand. You never know you may have a Nyah or a Mia and you have to know their personalities in order to effectively manage them….and one sizes does not fit all.

References

https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych485/002/content/05_lesson/printlesson.html

The Leadership Factory – Can You Really Make a Leader?

by

My opinions on leadership haven’t changed much just yet but the further I delve into the scholarly concepts and case studies of leadership my mind is beginning to change directions a bit. For instance, the topic of leadership skills being taught to an individual is intriguing. Do we really think a leader can be made? Someone is thrust into a weeklong classroom training session and out comes a leader! I find this concept very hard to believe….on its own. The Skills Approach to leadership states that leadership behaviors can be learned (Lesson 4, p. 1). I agree that leadership skills can be learned, but how effective will that “leader” be at utilizing those classroom situational skills and translating that to the real world? The most educated person in the world may still be a poor leader because he or she may not have the people skills to use what they learned; at the right time and during the right situation. So a leadership factory theory doesn’t work for me.

Leadership

A concept that I do think is headed in the right direction is the skills approach by Mumford, et al. This approach bridges the gap for me and attributes 5 factors that make up a good leader (Lesson 4, p. 4). Those factors are individual attributes (traits of the person), competencies (learned classroom skills), leadership outcomes, career experiences, and environmental influences (Mumford, et al). This model mixes both the skills approach with the trait approach (although the authors argue that it doesn’t) and concludes with a solid theory. Yes, a leader can be taught, but that person’s individual skills, experiences, and the environment they are in will dictate how effective they are.

The more I read about leadership, the more confusing it gets. By the end of my semester in Psychology 485, I hope this is not the case. I hope I have a solid foundation, the light is turned on, and I can generate my own theory. I like the term “the leadership factory” theory maybe I’ll use that. Well, I just googled the term and someone has already beat me to the punch…

References

1.https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych485/002/content/04_lesson/printlesson.html

2. http://www.highcapacityleader.com/team-training/the-leadership-factory/

 

Skip to toolbar