Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Long Distance Leadership

by

Remote working

The coronavirus outbreak that began almost two years ago forced millions of Americans to work from home due to workplace shutdowns and consequently created a significant shift in the way most organizations operate (Parker et al., 2020). Everyone has been affected by the transition to teleworking whether you personally had to pack up a banker’s box with your essential items needed to accomplish your job from home or are a leader of a team that has some employees who telework out of necessity and others who are required to be physically present. I can say from personal experience that I experienced both sides of the coin; I lead a team of essential workers who have been working in-person since day one of the outbreak and now I am a member of a 100% remote team that is based all throughout the U.S.

More than half of employed adults (54%) who can execute their job responsibilities from home report that they would like to continue teleworking most or all the time once the coronavirus outbreak is over (Parker et al., 2020). That should not be a surprise to most people, in fact, remote work and geographically dispersed teams will only increase in comparison to pre-pandemic levels. Virtual teams provide many benefits to include flexibility, convenience, increased diversity, and better task accomplishment (Pennsylvania State University World Campus [PSU WC], 2021), but leaders need to change their management style, take advantage of technology, establish rules of engagement, encourage remote social interactions, and show flexibility to ensure success.

Zoom call

Having only worked within a 100% remote team environment for the past five months has definitely been an adjustment for myself as an individual and I know is also a challenge for leaders who must juggle the daily priorities of accomplishing tasks, staying in constant communication with team members across different time zones, and ensuring the team is social interactive with one another. Many of my team’s meetings are now via Zoom (thankfully because Skype for Business is outdated and has way less features) and the one expectation that my senior manager has set for all of us is we are to have our webcams turned on while actively in the meeting. It is quite easy to disengage and hideout within virtual meetings and by establishing this rule of engagement, it forces us to connect with one another, and it also supports engagement strategies (Gleeson, 2020).

Another new tradition for us has been our weekly team meeting on Wednesdays via Zoom. From an individual contributor’s perspective, this new rhythm allows my teammates from California, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Alabama to interact with one another for 30 minutes and focus on team building and morale. From a leadership perspective, that weekly scheduled meeting is accomplishing all eight principles of mastering virtual leadership of teams (Deloitte Denmark, 2020):

  1. Re-igniting team purpose
  2. Establishing a new rhythm
  3. Tracking progress
  4. Leveraging technology to collaborate
  5. Be visible and check-in frequently
  6. Strategically over-communicate
  7. Empower and promote self-leadership
  8. Ensuring the well-being of all the team members

Leading virtual and geographically dispersed teams is challenging because it goes against the grain of what many organizations are accustomed to – traditional face-to-face interactions. If there is any kind of silver lining to the covid-19 outbreak, it is the unexpected success and resilience from remote-working teams and the leaders who are developing better strategies to lead them (Sills, 2021).

 

References

Gleeson, B. (2020, August 26). 13 tips for leading and managing remote teams. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brentgleeson/2020/08/26/13-tips-for-leading-and-managing-remote-teams/?sh=226b84fc577b

Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., & Minkin, R. (2020, December 9). How the coronavirus outbreak has – and hasn’t – changed the way Americans work. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/12/09/how-the-coronavirus-outbreak-has-and-hasnt-changed-the-way-americans-work/

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 9: Team leadership – geographically dispersed teams. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2132629/modules/items/32790622

Sills, D. (2021, July 2). 17 tips for leading virtual teams. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/202107/17-tips-leading-virtual-teams

Directive Management and Stress at Work

by

Leadership and management share similarities, yet are very distinct in nature. One is to ensure order and the other is to inspire (Northouse, 2016). The directive management style in particular is very controlling, allowing for little in the way of follower input (Flavin, 2018). While this style does have some benefits for particular industries, it comes at the expense of many negative consequences. The combination of a lack of leeway for followers, high workload and an authoritarian supervisor come together to create a high stress environment which can be harmful in nature (Garcia-Campayo, Puebla-Guedea, Herrera-Mercadal, & Dauden, 2016).

Working in the US Navy, this style of management is the dominant way of leading others. Often times a very high workload exists with little time to accomplish it. As such, there is no time for discussion about how to complete the given task at hand. Furthermore, many tasks that are performed follow strict written procedures on how to perform them. This also eliminates any need for follower input as no discussion is required to perform the work. The very nature of the military necessitates a very dominant style of management to accomplish the varying tasks.

A key design of management is the direction of simply coordinating the activities of his or her followers to complete a task (Northouse, 2016). The higher concerns of real leadership such as motivating and enabling growth within their followers are not found in a strict management role. A fundamental piece of realizing these higher goals is to hold active discussion regarding work processes and how to improve daily operations. A lack of this discussion will create stress amongst followers due to a lack of clarification regarding the “why” behind what is being accomplished.

Placing an excess amount of work on a group is also counter to how to reduce stress within the organization (Garcia-Campayo, Puebla-Guedea, Herrera-Mercadal, & Dauden, 2016). I have personally experienced such a workload many times and it can be very overwhelming, insurmountable even. As a worker, it is incredibly frustrating to be told that you have to complete so much by days end. Naturally, this results in very long hours. While stationed onboard a submarine, twelve-hour work days were the norm. Unlike a leader, a manager is not concerned with your well-being. They are only concerned about completing whatever tasks that must be done that day. This further creates the level of stress within the organization.

Last is the authoritarian leader who is in charge with ensuring everything is accomplished on time. Such a style will limit the innovation of their workers. However, in the military innovation is not required as everything is guided by a procedure. The primary concern of this management style is that orders are simply executed with no questions asked (Flavin, 2016). This is what I have been used to for the past eight years, and it can be incredibly frustrating when you are not allowed to suggest a different way of completing a task. I understood why things were done this way, but it all came together to create an especially stressful working environment.

The directive management style, while containing some elements of leadership, is largely controlling and suppressive in nature. This style prohibits follower creativity, resulting in stagnated personal growth. Coupled with a high workload, this can result in some very stressed individuals and organizational climate as a whole. This style has its place in the military, but it prohibits real leadership and personal growth from occurring within an organization.

References:

Flavin, B. (2018). The pros and cons of 7 different management styles. Retrieved from https://www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/business/blog/different-management-styles/

Garcia-Campayo, J., Puebla-Guedea, M., Herrera-Mercadal, P. & Dauden, E. (2016). Burnout syndrome and demotivation among health care personnel. Managing stressful situations: The importance of teamwork. Dermatology (Actas Dermo-Silifiograficas, English Edition), 107(5), 400-406. Retrieved from https://www-clinicalkey-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/#!/content/journal/1-s2.0-S1578219016300178

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

A New Era in Leadership

by

Team leadership has become a very popular form of leadership and work experience in recent years, especially when examining companies in Silicon Valley.  Many of these companies utilize teams for “maintaining a competitive advantage.  Team-based organizations have faster response capability because of their flatter organizational structure” (Northouse,2015, pg. 363).  A team can be defined as, “a type of organizational group that is composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals” (Northouse, 2015, 363).  One of the most successful at utilizing teams and team leadership has been Google.  Google has taken the team leadership theories and researched them significantly to try to determine what makes the best team.

Google surveyed and researched their own teams within the company to determine what made a team successful, and what made some teams unsuccessful.  Their research very closely matched up to the model of Team leadership discussed in the Northouse textbook (2015, pg. 367).   The textbook claims that the conditions that enable team excellence are clear, elevating goals, results-driven structure, competent team members, unified commitment, collaborative climate, standards of excellence, external support, and principled leadership (Northouse, 2015, pg. 368-372).  Google found that the things that enable successful teams are psychological safety, dependability, structure and clarity, meaning, and impact (Kim, 2017).  When you read into the research done by Google, it bares an eerie likeness to the research discussed in the textbook.

From all the research listed above, it seems that effective teams want team members that they can count on to show up, do their fair share of the work, and have a basic understanding of the goals and expectations.  Groups also need structure, stability, and support provided by the overseeing company to make sure that they know what the end-goal is, and that they have the resources to reach them.  Groups also want their work to produce results and make a visual impact in the field.  When a team has these things, it is almost sure to be successful.  The team leadership model is a very complex model meant to be used in complex situations and allows for different situations and people which is a very big strength of the model (Northouse, 2015, pg. 384).  There are few criticisms of the model other than that due to the fact that the leader of a group may change over time, it requires each individual member to have a diverse skills set including leadership (Northouse, 2015, pg. 384).

Google has taken the research of Hackman, Larson, and Lafasto and made it mainstream.  The interesting thing is that most companies did not even consider team organization until the innovative and flashy companies like Google and Apple decided to do it.  The more interesting thing is that the companies that have really made a push for team-based work, are almost always on the cutting edge and seem to be leading the way in their industries.  When employees understand their goals and roles in the team, and are able to interact with a group of like-minded individuals, the impact is immediately seen.  Teams and team leadership seem to be the way many of these millennial companies are going, and it seems to be working out so far.

 

Kim, L. (2017, November 08). The Results of Google’s Team-Effectiveness Research Will Make You Rethink How You Build Teams. Retrieved from https://www.inc.com/larry-kim/the-results-of-googles-team-effectiveness-research-will-make-you-rethink-how-you-build-teams.html

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Introduction to leadership. concepts and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.

Breaking Leadership Stereotypes

by

Stephanie Reynolds
PSYCH 485
Dr. Williams

In many areas of this course so far, the people behind the leadership roles have been categorized into males and females. It was mentioned in another blog post that women take care and men take charge. Boiled down to its essence, it means that men should be in charge in the workplace while women are only working to take care of their families. I find this perception offensive and demeaning not only to women but men as well.

Our textbook speaks of emotional intelligence and five main factors of leadership (Northouse, 2016). In this reading, while gender is mentioned in passing, it is not the focus of the actual definitions. In fact, the factors are extremely genderless and broad. It is us who associate particular traits, such as assertiveness with men and compassion with women, to a gender.

Are we as a society telling men that they are bad leaders because they care for the people they work for? Are we telling women they are bad leaders because they take a job where they are away from their families for lengthy periods of time?

Society is coming around more with the institution of laws and policies where either gender can take leave under the FMLA, although you will still find an exponentially larger proportion of women taking this leave over men.  A 2000 study by the Department of Labor found that 42.6 % of men “did not take leave because of a concern their job advancement may be hurt.” Another 31% “feared they would lose their jobs.” (Rossiter, 2009)

We as a society need to break the stereotypical thinking in the workplace. Each individual brings their own uniqueness, skills, and insight to the table. While I am speaking of gender in this post, the same things apply to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation/presentation and religion. We as a society need to stop living with the mindset of fixed gender roles and embrace what each individual has to contribute to society.

References:

Northouse, P. (2016) “Leadership: Theory and Practice.” Washington DC: Sage Publications. pp. 58-59.

Rossiter,  M. (Dec 2009) “FMLA: Is It Equally Beneficial to Today’s Dads?” Retrieved from https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/fmla-is-it-equally-beneficial-for-todays-dads

The Situational Approach in Action

by

Situational Leadership II Model Photo

 

Northouse (2013) states that studies have not completely validated the prescriptive nature of the situational approach; however, I have used many of its aspects at work.  The situational approach involves leaders being able to adapt depending on the needs of subordinates.  This approach is illustrated by the Situational Leadership II Model developed by Hersey and Blanchard (Northouse, 2013).  The theory states that different leadership styles are required in different situations.  Then, depending on the development levels of the subordinates, leaders should use varying levels of directive behaviors and supportive behaviors in order to reach the goals of the group (PSU WC, 2014, L. 5).  Directive behaviors are those that emphasize tasks and schedules in order to attain goals.  Supportive behaviors are used to help subordinates feel comfortable and reach goals.  According to the approach, there are four combinations of leadership styles that the leader can choose from, and four different development levels that determine which style a leader chooses (Northouse, 2013).

Leadership styles are varying combinations of directive behaviors and supportive behaviors.  The first style is called directing style (S1).  It is characterized by a leader using directive behaviors rather than supportive behaviors.  The next style, coaching (S2), is characterized by a leader using high directive and supportive behaviors in order to communicate goals and then help subordinates reach them.  The supporting (S3) style is characterized by a leader who uses supportive behaviors rather than supportive behaviors, giving control to subordinates while still being involved to help make them feel comfortable.  Lastly, the delegating (S4) style is characterized by a leader who does not use directive or supportive behavior, trusting subordinates to get the job done.  The development levels of a group of subordinates determine which style a leader should use.

Development levels are the degrees to which subordinates are competent and committed.  A leader needs to know the levels of all his employees in order to determine how to manage each of them individually.  When employees are on the first level, D1, they are not competent in the task, but they have confidence that they will complete it.  D2 employees are somewhat competent, but not committed.  D3 employees are mostly competent, but lack commitment to the task.  Lastly, employees that are on the level D4 are very competent and have high commitment to the task.  Clearly, employees on each level need different management styles in order to be the most effective and perform the best.  For example, an employee who is on the D4 level with high competence and high commitment would only require a delegating style of leadership.  The leader would feel comfortable giving this type of employee control over the task without much direction or support.

When I was working as the general manager of a pizza restaurant, I had a staff of about 20 different employees.  Each of these employees had a different work ethic, as well as different strengths and weaknesses.  Thus, each employee required different levels of direction and support from me.  Thinking back on this job experience, I had no idea I was utilizing the situational approach so practically.  I did not think in terms of leadership style or development levels; however, I did recognize that certain employees needed tasks specifically delegated to them while others were self-starters.  In the same vein, some employees needed more of my time and support than others – some needed me to hold their hand during their shifts in order to make them feel confident and motivated.  There was one employee in particular that I utilized a coaching style with on a daily basis.  She needed a great deal of direction and tons of support in order to reach the goals of the shift (i.e. stocking and prepping food supplies, and customer service).  I would have categorized her as D1, and D2 with some tasks that she was more familiar with.  Not only did she need almost constant direction, but she also needed unending verbal support from me.  This went on even after her “new employee” phase had ended – she did not seem to be grasping the skills needed to complete tasks.  This could entirely be because she did not feel committed to the job, and lacked motivation. It was hard to work with someone like this who required so much of my time and energy.  I eventually had to let her go in exchange for someone who started as D1 or D2 and grew to become D3 and D4, so that I could focus my energies on my own tasks, trusting my subordinates to successfully complete theirs.

I can understand why this approach is the most widely recognized leadership theory.  One of its major strengths is that it can be used by any level of management in any organization.  I think that it is used way more often than people would think because of how intuitive it is (Northouse, 2013).  Looking back on all my managerial experience, I needed to be flexible constantly; especially with new employees and promoted employees who were going back and forth between development levels.  I bet that most people can name a time when they had to manage two different employees differently.  The most universal aspect of this theory is that flexibility is the key to effective management, and I have seen this in action.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2014). Psych 485 Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/fa14/psych485/001/content/05_lesson/printlesson.html

Skip to toolbar