A511.7.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Self-Awareness

Self-Awareness

We have been studying theories of ethical leadership this week which is very broadly defined. It essentially means “influencing employees through values, principles and beliefs that extensively border on the accepted norms in the organizational behaviors” (Alshammari, Almutairi, & Thuwaini, 2015, p. 108). Ethical leadership, in other words, is leading in a manner than a reasonable person would consider to be acceptable. There are four main theories of leadership that are considered ethical: transforming, servant, spiritual, and authentic leadership (Yukl, 2013). For our purposes here, I want to focus on authentic leadership. Though experts’ definitions of “authentic leadership” vary, they all emphasize consistency in words, actions, and values. Authenticity is derived from Greek philosophy and denotes a humanistic psychological stance, which means “to thine own self be true” (Zielinska, 2012, p.1). Yukl (2013) points out that authentic leaders – those that are true to themselves – “have a high self-awareness about their values, beliefs, emotions, self-identities, and abilities” (p. 351).

In their journal entry to the Human Resource Management International Digest, Goffee and Jones (2006) discuss some of the top business leaders that are self-aware. However, they approach it from a very unique angle. Instead of just focusing on authentic leaders with a heightened sense of self-awareness, they discuss an awareness of differences that these leaders have on which they have capitalized. They note that these effective leaders “become aware of what is different about them that makes them attractive to others” (p. 32). What they mean by this is that effective authentic leaders must be aware of their own uniqueness but must present it in a way that is appealing to others. If a leader’s unique attribute is abrasiveness, that most likely will not appeal to others and draw them to become followers. However, with the right level of confidence, even that can be leveraged to produce effective leadership. One example of someone that fits that bill is Donald Trump. He is well known for being very straight-forward and, often times, a jerk. However, as of this week, he is still the front-runner for the GOP. It is, of course, unknown if he will continue in his rise to political power but what is known is that he has successfully built a multi-billion dollar empire around his abrasive attitude. He found a way to capitalize on that difference and make it somehow appealing to others.

When I examine my own life and consider my own differences, I have to ask myself how I can use my own unique personality to be the most effective leader possible. The character traits that I have that set me apart are my ability to listen, my desire to make other people laugh (sense of humor), and my logical approach to problem-solving. It is pretty easy to see how my ability to listen is appealing to others. Often, people just need to vocalize what they feel. But there is a difference between hearing and listening. I am receptive to what others have to say. When it comes to my sense of humor, the key is to know when enough is enough. There is an appropriate time and place for humor. There are times when even the biggest jester must bow to the king. My use of logic can often seem emotionless. However, I attempt to tie in my ability to actively listen and a touch of humor to remind my subordinates that I understand the situation at hand and that, in the end, we are still going to get through it together.

My traits are unique to me, of course. We all have our own strengths and we need to be aware of what they are and learn to capitalize on them. The key, though, is authenticity.

            There is an almost endless list of differences that individuals might communicate. 

            But any attempt to create the definitive list of leadership attributes is futile. This is                               because the differences must be authentic to you as a leader. They must be significant, real                   and perceived. (Goffee and Jones, 2006, p. 34)

You cannot fake your own traits. They must be genuinely yours. Embrace what makes you different. Figure out how to use that to make you a truly authentic leader.

References

Alshammari, A., N. Almutairi, N., & Fahad Thuwaini, S. (2015). Ethical leadership: The effect on   employees. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(3), 108. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v10n3p108

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Getting personal on the topic of leadership. Human Resource      Management International Digest, 14(4), 32-34. doi:10.1108/09670730610666382

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Zielinska, M. (2012). Developing authentic leadership. Kenexa. Retrieved from                 http://www.kenexa.com/Portals/0/Downloads/Developing%20Authentic%20Leaders.pdf

A511.6.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Meaning

Meaning

            A fairly famous quote usually attributed to Confucius that career counselors love to espouse to their counselees is “do what you love and you’ll never work another day in your life”.  Though this is sound advice for finding the career that best suits a particular personality, it doesn’t guarantee that everybody will end up with their dream career. In fact, when an individual picks a career based on doing what they love, their love of that field often evaporates because it transitions from being a passion to being what every job is – work (Scivicque, 2010). That doesn’t mean, however, that we cannot be fulfilled by our work. Regardless of what career is chosen, the key is not necessarily to do your job because you love the career field. The key, rather, is to find meaning to the job that you are doing. As leaders, it is our responsibility to ensure that those under our charge are able to find meaning in their work in order to achieve maximum efficiency.

            Even in what society would consider a horrible job, there are those that are able to thrive. Imagine careers such as janitors, food service in schools, and subway elevator operators. There are thousands of jobs that society would deem undesirable. However, even in these careers, there are those that are not only successful but find fulfillment. That is people they have found meaning to their work. They don’t just understand what they are doing but why they are doing it. “Those who succeed at creating meaning — either on their own or with the help of their boss — tend to work harder, more creatively, and with more tenacity, giving the companies that employ them a leg up in the marketplace” (Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010). Meaning, however, is rarely just found through luck. It has to be created and cultivated. That is where we, as leaders, must succeed if we wish to affect change. Ulrich and Ulrich (2010) list the following as ways that leaders can assist employees cultivate meaning:

·         Help employees identify and creatively use the strengths, traits, and values with which they most identify

·         Match the purposes that motivate employees to the jobs they do.

·         Foster friendships and key relationship-building to create high-performing, high-relating teams.

·         Promote positive work environments through attention to characteristics like humility, selflessness, order, and openness.

·         Help people identify and work at the types of challenges that line up with their personal experience.

·         Build in time for both individual and corporate-level self-reflection.

·         Encourage civility and delight from little things that personalize and civilize the world of work.

The only way for a leader to truly engage those under their charge, however, is through the building of interpersonal relationships over time (Serdukov, 2012). That does not necessarily mean that effective leaders/managers must soften their authoritative roles but rather must genuinely consider the humanistic elements of leadership. The key to relating meaning is to present it to subordinates in a rational and logical manner. “Cognitive sensemaking processes are important in conducting strategic changes and that the company managers play a key role in this process by providing meaningful interpretations to their organizations” (Serdukov, 2012, p. 425). It is important to note, however, that this still does not guarantee that a member of an organization will immediately find the meaning in their own work. Think back to the example of a janitor. How can a leader inspire a janitor to perform at optimum efficiency? Through the keys listed above, a leader can really only inspire members of the team to begin to embrace the values and vision of the organization. Through that, all functions begin to take on meaning because they are work toward the same goals. Whether the function of a team member is facility cleanliness or manufacturing, a leader is responsible for helping subordinates see how their functions fit in with the bigger picture.

            Since change-oriented behavior is primarily concerned with understanding and adapting to the environment (Yukl, 2013), it is of particular importance for leaders to ensure that those in their organization all have embraced a sense of meaning. Members of the organization must understand why the changes are occurring if they are embrace leadership’s vision for the organization. As leaders, it is our job to first ensure that our mission does have meaning and then ensure that our subordinates understand the value of their individual roles within the organization and how every function, no matter how small, is valued.

           

References

Communication competence improves organizational effectiveness: How communicative leaders influence employee attitudes, well-being and performance. (2014). Strategic Direction,         30(8), 28-31. doi:10.1108/SD-08-2014-0097

Scivicque, C. (2010, September 21). Bad Career Advice: Do What You Love and You'll Never    Work a Day. Forbes.

Serdukov, S. (2012). From the chaos of transition economy to "normalized" managerial     practices: The role of group interaction in creating meaning in managerial work. Journal           for East European Management Studies, 17(4), 423-444.

Ulrich, D., & Ulrich, W. (2010). Getting Beyond Engagement to Creating Meaning at Work.        Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/06/getting-beyond-  engagement-to-c

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A511.5.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Remote Transformational Leadership

Remote Transformational Leadership

            Think about the organization for which you work today. How often do you interact with your leaders directly? How about your second and third tier leaders? Most likely, a great deal of your interaction with them happens through mediums such as e-mail or via text messages. As technology continues to advance, the doors are open for activities such as telecommuting and remote assignments. An employee make work across the country or even across the globe from the hub where his/her supervisor is. In cases like these, the leaders and managers of the organization must still communicate with subordinates. Even in extremely large organizations, though there may not be a geographical separation, the leaders of the organization must be able to disseminate information down the chain. How does a leader effectively communicate in an environment such as these?

            In 1947, Weber (1947) described charismatic leadership as the ability to influence followers not by authority but rather solely on the follower perceptions of the leader. Transformational leadership is very similar to charismatic leadership. In fact, transformational leaders are all charismatic leaders. The difference is that they not only influence their followers’ perceptions of the leader but they inspire the follower to embrace the leader’s vision as their own and drive them to the highest possible levels of performance (Khatri, Templer, & Dudhwar, 2012). How can this be accomplished if an employee has no direct interaction with leadership?

            Remote leadership is defined as “leadership interactions that are characterized by electronically-mediated communication between geographically and physically isolated leaders” (Barling, Kelley, Kelloway, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003). Through their study, they wanted to determine the effects of intellectual stimulation and charisma in remote leadership situations. They hypothesized that “individuals exposed to e-mail messages containing a charismatic or intellectually stimulating message would express higher levels of task motivation, and demonstrate higher levels of performance on a laboratory task than individuals who received e-mail instructions that this not contain these aspects of transformational leadership” (Barling, Kelley, Kelloway, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003, p. 168). They conducted two experiments on Canadian university students in which a message was conveyed through e-mail using three styles – transformational leadership, leadership by exception (which is a very hands-on approach to management), and laissez-faire leadership (which is a minimalist approach). The students were broken into separate control groups – one group for each e-mail leadership style - and then all asked to complete the same task which the e-mails addressed. After completing the task, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire to gather appropriate data. Though this research was completed in a controlled laboratory environment, the intent was to mimic the reality of a field environment. (The actual task that the students had to complete was to first individually rank 12 items by importance that they would need if stranded on a mountain and then to reach a group consensus on the ranking of the same 12 items.)

            After completion of the study, they found that the results consistently showed that both intellectual stimulation and charisma communicated through the tone of the e-mails resulted in improved task performance. However, “there was no significant effect attributable to the combination of intellectual stimulation and charisma” (Barling, Kelley, Kelloway, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003, p. 169). Though the results did not support an effect of charismatic leadership on individual motivation, that doesn’t mean that the lack of findings is unsupportive of their original hypothesis. It is plausible that the laboratory setting was actually ineffective as transmitting the proper charismatic tone. They stated that “it may be that nonverbal cues are important to communicate the motivating aspects of charismatic leadership” (Barling, Kelley, Kelloway, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003, p. 169). Remember, though, that charismatic leadership and transformational leadership are not exactly the same. They still feel that the experiments closely resembled an actual field situation and the results still supported higher performance for those that received the e-mail toned as that of a transformational leader. They closed by stating “the present finding suggest that remote transformational leadership can still have the same positive effects on performance and attitudes that occurs within face-to-face interaction. Moreover, our findings suggest that electronically mediated communication channels may be used to convey the same leadership “message” as in face-to-face interaction” (Barling, Kelley, Kelloway, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003, p. 170).

            As technology continues to advance, we will continue to be exposed to situations that require remote leadership. This is a study that directly relates to the environment faced by any organization that has members that are geographically separated. It also applies to large organizations that rely heavily on modern communication mediums to convey messages. This study proves that it is possible to still be a transformational leader for your remote followers. Leaders should take the time to consider the message they are conveying and how it will be received and perceived by their remote subordinates if they wish to inspire their followers to perform at optimum efficiency.   

References

Barling, J., Kelley, E., Kelloway, E., Comtois, J., & Gatien, B. (2003). Remote transformational leadership.             Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 24(3), 163-171.             doi:10.1108/01437730310469589

Khatri, N., Templer, K. J., & Budhwar, P. S. (2012). Great (transformational)             leadership=charisma+vision. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 1(1), 38-   62. doi:10.1108/20454451211205941

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. Translated by T. Parsons. New YorkL Free Press.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A511.4.3.RB - LeeDarrell - Leadership Traits

The two chapters that we covered this week covered "leadership traits and skills" and "contingency theories and adaptive leadership". A lot of emphasis was placed on managerial motivation, traits, and effectiveness. This week, I have been asked to describe what this means in my own words. First, we have to have a solid definition of some key terms. According to Yukl (2013), a trait can be a variety of attributes that are unique to an individual. They can deal with personality, morals, values, moties - just basically anything that defines who a person is. A skill, on the other hand, is a ability to do something. Think of it like this. A good teacher posses certain traits such as patience, understanding, selflessness, etc. Those are all the things that make a teacher who they are. They also posses the skill of being able to pass knowledge along to the students. That is something that they do and not who they are. Another term that we need to understand is competency which is a combination of skills and traits. This can be the hardest to understand since it is a combination of the other two. Think of it more as a skill that is a direct result of the trait. I have often heard in life that the most professional people in any given field are the ones that do what they do because it is who they are. For example, the best pilots are those that seem to be born to fly. The best mechanics are the ones that love tinkering with engines. Etc.

So let me describe some of the things that we learned this week and what they really mean to me. We first learned about managerial motivation. When you break it down, there really are two things that motivate a manager - either themselves ("personalized power orientation") or the others in the organization ("socialized power orientation"). When a manager uses personalized power orientation, it doesn't mean that they don't care about the others in the organization and it doesn't mean that the decisions being made are poor decisions. It just means that the focus is on the manager. Often, though, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, the decisions made often are made with little consideration for the effect on others within the organization (or even the organization as a whole). The decisions can be rash and impulsive. On the flip-side, you have socialized power orientation. Typically this is a trait possessed/displayed by leaders that are more emotionally mature. These leaders tend to not be manipulative and put the needs of the organization ahead of their own needs and desires. Of course, a leader can slide anywhere between these two motivations at any time.

We studied several specific leadership traits this week. They are not all listed here but I do want to focus on just a few of them. First, there is self-confidence. Usually this is a good trait to posses but the problem is that it can lead to arrogance. I think that we have all met someone that is very good at what they do but they tend to flaunt it. A sign of a good leader is being confident yet humble. This is true meekness. Though that isn't a trait that we discussed this week, it should have been in my opinion. It fits right in with everything else. When you hear the word "meek", what do you think? There is a misconception that it means weak. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Meekness means that one is able to exercise self-control. Though this isn't a spiritual blog, did you know that the Bible describes Moses as being the most meek man? Yes, Moses who called down curses on Pharaoh and led the Israelites from captivity. The same Moses that threw down the 10 Commandments in anger. Again, my point is not to bring religion into this but rather to show that "meek" is so often misused. When we talk about self-confidence and the dangers of arrogance, that is what I think - meek. It means self-control of great power. Another trait that was covered that really sticks out to me is emotional stability and maturity. Those that are more emotionally stable tend to exercise self-control and have a high level of both cognitive and moral development. They are able to take a step back and think things through. But that doesn't mean that we are all supposed to be emotionless like Spock on "Star Trek". We need to understand that emotions are a part of life that we have to accept and control. The last trait that we discussed is actually not a trait but a set of five traits often known as "The Big Five". They are work together. They are surgency (extroversion), conscientiousness (dependability and integrity), agreeableness, adjustment (stability and self-esteem), and intellectance (open mindedness). Along with the traits listed here (plus several others not listed), we studied three broad categories of skills than effective leaders must posses. We need technical skills, interpersonal skills, and conceptual skills. Technical skills are pretty self-explanatory. That means that you have the knowledge necessary to complete the tasks. Interpersonal skills are also fairly easy to understand. Leaders are a part of a team. We, as leaders, must be able to connect with our teams. And last, we studied conceptual skills which basically means the ability to "think outside the box".

As I think about what I have learned this week, I was forced to look inward at my own self and how this applies to me personally. Where am I strong? Where am I weak? First, I think that I have a socialized power orientation. Are there times where I make leadership decisions based on my own personalized power orientation? Of course there are. But overall, I believe that my motivation is for that of my team. When I work late nights or weekends that I am supposed to be off, one could argue that I am doing that for myself (to make myself look good for my superiors) but I know that isn't true. I know that I do put the needs of my team first. But I also know that I have too strong of a need for affiliation. I didn't really discuss that above but that means that a leader is more concerned with being accepted by his/her coworkers than about accomplishing the actual tasks at hand. Sometimes I let that get the best of me. I think that when you work with a smaller team, it is a lot harder to not allow your need for affiliation to affect your decision making process. I currently work with a very small team. In fact, in my actual office, there are only two of us. I honestly hate making the decisions that hurt my coworker. (In my parent office, we have more people but I work in a Forward Engagement Center.) I would say that is my biggest weakness as a leader right now.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.