So far, this has been my favorite week of study in the MSLD program when it comes to the content. The focus this week was on "power and influence". There is no firm source of the power that we exert over others. There is no set level of influence that we have. It is all subjective but it is important for us to at least have a broad understand of the relationship between power and influence and how we can properly leverage both. Power and influence are very closely linked. Yukl (2013, p. 186) defines power as "the capacity of one party (the "agent") in influence another party (the "target")." Though they are very closely related, that doesn't mean that power is influence. If you read that statement again, you will see that power is the capacity to influence. In other words, power is the actual ability. Influence, then, is the actual act of helping another (a target) reach a decision.
Power can come from multiple sources. Again, remember that power is just the capacity to influence another. It isn't the actual act of influencing. There are two main types of power. First, you have position power which "includes potential influence derived from legitimate authority, control over resources and rewards, control over punishments, control over information, and control over the physical work environment" (Yukl, 2013, p. 193.). This is something that we encounter on a daily basis in the military. The military is set up with a hierarchical structure. Regardless of the level of personal relationships established, those that are above us in the hierarchical structure do exert power over us. They have the ability to influence us simply by their position even if we have never established a personal relationship with them. The other main source of power is personal power which "includes potential influence derived from task expertise, and potential influence based on friendship and loyalty (Yukl, 2013, p. 193). Notice the difference between the two. The position power is based on status. The personal power is based on a relationship. That isn't to say that one is more effective than the other. They are just different. Position power relies on status to influence others. Personal power relies on relationships to exert power.
Personally, I am professionally in a position where I do not have much position power. Though there are those in my work center that I outrank, we are all pretty much equal. I am in a unique work environment where everybody is a seasoned professional. There are no "new" Soldiers here. Therefore, I have to rely on personal power to influence others. I am not in a position to exercise either reward or coercive power. Most of the influence that I need to exercise seems to be up the chain anyway. Therefore, I have three main sources of power. First, I am able to use expert power. That is the ability to influence others by possessing unique knowledge and being an expert in my field (Yukl, 2013). As an Army recruiter, I have to use a lot of the interpersonal skills that I have developed over the course of my life. When we have an applicant that is unsure, I have a very unique ability of convincing them that enlisting in the Army is the correct decision. Though that is related to influence, it isn't the point that I am trying to make. The fact that I have the silver tongue and am an expert "salesman" puts me in a position where I can actually exercise expert power over my peers and my superiors. My managers know that I have the specialized ability so it helps me influence them. Often this results in my ability to adjust the duty schedule to fit my needs. My next source of power is also very closely related. I have the ability to exert information power. Though I don't directly control the actual information, I have the ability to communicate with others in my unit. One of my strong points is networking. I do not understand why people are hesitant or afraid to communicate but it often falls on me to control the flow of information. This gives me direct access to higher levels of management and leadership and the ability to develop personal relationships with those leaders. My final and most effective source of power is referent power. This is "derived from the desire of others to please an agent toward whom they have strong feelings of affection, admiration, and loyalty" (Yukl, 2013, p. 190). I personally feel that this is my strongest source of power in my work center. We take a lot of pride in our camaraderie. We respect one another. We are loyal to one another. We treat one another as family. Therefore, we all are able to influence one another simply from loyalty and respect.
Currently, due to the nature of my work, I realize that I do have very limited position power but I do understand and respect the position power of those over me. As I have already stated, we all do have referent power, though. But I know that this will not always be the case. Eventually, I will promote and I will have position power again. In the meantime, I want to respect the power of those over me. I want them to respect my sources of power as well, though. I already alluded to the fact that I can use the power that I do have to control things such as schedules and even, to a limited extent, assignments. I want to be very careful to never abuse my power, though. My opinion is that when power is abused, it is lost. We have a duty to be good stewards of the power that we do have.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Saturday, August 22, 2015
A511.2.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Supportive Behavior
As we continue to progress through both the course and the degree program, we are learning more about how the role of a leader differs from the role of a manager. In his peer-reviewed article to the Research-Technology Management Journal, Maccoby (2000) goes to great lengths to highlight that managers serve an administrative function. Every business must have a manager. Leaders, however, are responsible for establishing relationships and energizing an organization from within. He proposes that people will either follow a leader within an organization out of fear or out of a mix of positive reasons such as success and trust. Personally, I want to be a leader that is followed for positive reasons.
This week, we were introduced to the concept of supportive leadership which will help us develop those positive traits that will empower us to become effective leaders. "Supportive leadership (or "supporting") includes a wide variety of of behaviors that show consideration, acceptance, and concern for the needs and feelings of other people. Supportive leadership helps to build and maintain effective interpersonal relationships" (Yukl, 2013, p. 63). What that means to me is that supportive leadership means to apply the well-known Golden Rule. Treat others as you would expect to be treated. In supportive leadership, there is no focus on managing a team. There are no administrative functions. Supportive leadership simply builds personal relationships with each member of the team and inspiring loyalty through relationships. It is important to note, though, that supporting is simply a tool for building positive relationships. Just because there is no emphasis on management doesn't mean that a manager cannot use this approach. As discussed in my previous blog, a manager can be a leader and vise-versa.
Yukl (2013) notes that there are four main guidelines for supporting. First, show acceptance in a positive regard. This means to be polite and considerate. Get to know about the activities of your subordinates outside of work such as their family life. The key, though, is to remember that what you learn must be kept in confidence. Second, provide sympathy and support when subordinates are anxious or upset. This does not mean that a supportive leader has to agree with the subordinate but should at least give credence to the feelings of the subordinate. The third guideline is to bolster the person's self-esteem and confidence. You must make them feel that they are a valued member of the team. Remember that they will make mistakes and don't devalue them for that. The final guideline is to be willing to help with personal problems. Bearing in mind that supporting is about building interpersonal relationships, this will reinforce to your subordinates that they are, indeed, valued not just as members of the team but also simply as a human being.
Though I may not have always known that I was following the guidelines to supportive leadership, these are principles that I strive to meet in my professional environment. I don't necessarily do it because I wish to inspire others to follow me. I do it because these are the traits that my parents encouraged in my sister and me. I was raised with a servant-attitude. Since this is how I was raised, it is something that does come naturally to me now. Perhaps that is why I feel empowered to be a positive leader. Even though these traits were ingrained in us growing up, there is still much room for development, especially in the professional environment.
Yukl (2013) does go deeper into the ways to develop supporting. He outlines nine guidelines for developing as well. They are:
I will not say that it is more important to be a leader than a manager. I truly believe that both roles are critical. However, I do believe that I want to be a positive leader. I hope to continue to polish my skills and inspire others to follow me through supportive leadership. I want to treat people as valued members of a team because to me they are family.
References
Maccoby, M. (2000). Understanding the difference between management and leadership. Research-Technology Management, 43(1), 57-59.
Yukl, G. (2103). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
This week, we were introduced to the concept of supportive leadership which will help us develop those positive traits that will empower us to become effective leaders. "Supportive leadership (or "supporting") includes a wide variety of of behaviors that show consideration, acceptance, and concern for the needs and feelings of other people. Supportive leadership helps to build and maintain effective interpersonal relationships" (Yukl, 2013, p. 63). What that means to me is that supportive leadership means to apply the well-known Golden Rule. Treat others as you would expect to be treated. In supportive leadership, there is no focus on managing a team. There are no administrative functions. Supportive leadership simply builds personal relationships with each member of the team and inspiring loyalty through relationships. It is important to note, though, that supporting is simply a tool for building positive relationships. Just because there is no emphasis on management doesn't mean that a manager cannot use this approach. As discussed in my previous blog, a manager can be a leader and vise-versa.
Yukl (2013) notes that there are four main guidelines for supporting. First, show acceptance in a positive regard. This means to be polite and considerate. Get to know about the activities of your subordinates outside of work such as their family life. The key, though, is to remember that what you learn must be kept in confidence. Second, provide sympathy and support when subordinates are anxious or upset. This does not mean that a supportive leader has to agree with the subordinate but should at least give credence to the feelings of the subordinate. The third guideline is to bolster the person's self-esteem and confidence. You must make them feel that they are a valued member of the team. Remember that they will make mistakes and don't devalue them for that. The final guideline is to be willing to help with personal problems. Bearing in mind that supporting is about building interpersonal relationships, this will reinforce to your subordinates that they are, indeed, valued not just as members of the team but also simply as a human being.
Though I may not have always known that I was following the guidelines to supportive leadership, these are principles that I strive to meet in my professional environment. I don't necessarily do it because I wish to inspire others to follow me. I do it because these are the traits that my parents encouraged in my sister and me. I was raised with a servant-attitude. Since this is how I was raised, it is something that does come naturally to me now. Perhaps that is why I feel empowered to be a positive leader. Even though these traits were ingrained in us growing up, there is still much room for development, especially in the professional environment.
Yukl (2013) does go deeper into the ways to develop supporting. He outlines nine guidelines for developing as well. They are:
- Show concern for each person's development
- Help the person identify ways to improve performance
- Be patient and helpful when providing coaching
- Provide helpful career advice
- Help the personal prepare for a job change
- Encourage attendance at relevant training activities
- Provide opportunities to learn from experience
- Encourage coaching by peers when appropriate
- Promote the person's reputation
I will not say that it is more important to be a leader than a manager. I truly believe that both roles are critical. However, I do believe that I want to be a positive leader. I hope to continue to polish my skills and inspire others to follow me through supportive leadership. I want to treat people as valued members of a team because to me they are family.
References
Maccoby, M. (2000). Understanding the difference between management and leadership. Research-Technology Management, 43(1), 57-59.
Yukl, G. (2103). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
A511.1.3.RB_LeeDarrell - Leadership vs. Management
The first week of this course (MSLD 511 - Organizational Leadership) went pretty much as expected. As most first weeks of a new course are, it really just gave us a brief overview of what we will be researching in the class. We discussed the actual definition of leadership and the roles that leaders and managers play in an organization. One of the key points of discussion were the roles of managers and leaders. Though managers often act as leaders, the roles are actually quite different.
There are actually a lot of experts that believe that managers should not be leaders. "The most extreme distinction assumes that management and leadershio cannot occur in the same person (Yukl, 2013, p. 6.). As a relatively new student in the Master of Leadership program, part of me wants to say that it is not my place to say if this is right or wrong. Clearly people that are much more qualified than I am have conducted extensive research to come to that conclusion. Another part of me, however, thinks that perhaps these experts are misguided. For the time being, I will choose to remain neutral and I will respect their point of view. Perhaps there is some truth to it. I am still entitled to my own opinion, though, and my belief is that leadership is not just a role but is a trait/skill that can be learned/sharpened. Regardless, there is no doubt that leadership and management are completely separate roles. I found a pretty great article that I encourage my blog followers to read. In it, three main differences between managers and leaders are highlighted. The first is that leaders innovate and managers administer. In other words, the leader is responsible for coming up with the ideas and the manager is responsible for implementing them. Second, leaders are able to inspire trust whereas a manager relies on control. This isn't to say that control is a bad thing. It is simply a tool. The third distinction is that leaders ask "what" and "why" whereas managers ask "how" and "when". The article closes with an excellent point. She says that "the best managers are leaders" but "you can do both, but you have to take time to cultivate it" (Giang, 2012). (The link to the article is listed in the references at the bottom of this blog. I actually believe that it is part of the American Express website so I did my best to reference it properly.) As I previously stated, my opinion is that leadership is a trait so it can be learned. I didn't simply seek out an article to backup my opinion but that last line is very powerful to me. "You have to take time to cultivate it." As a career military man, we don't have the option to have separate leaders and managers. Of course the top generals don't actually do much administration but I will never work at that level. I am talking about on a local level. We, as managers, are forced to all be leaders. I take a lot of comfort in knowing that I can learn to be more effective.
For this assignment, we were given a video to watch. It is a TED Talk that I have seen numerous times and actually love to share with my center when we need to refocus. In it, the orator, Simon Sinek (2009), discusses how it isn't about the product but rather about the attitude. The focus that great leaders and innovators ask is "why" first and foremost. As a leader, that is what I want to do. Right now, that is a pretty easy question for me to answer. Why am I am Army recruiter? I love my country and I believe that we need to recruit the cream of the crop to ensure that our home is safe. However, I will be retiring very soon. I am not sure what I will be doing in the future but the concept is still sound. I want to work for an organization where I don't have a problem answering this question. If I don't know why (and making money, the video points out, is just a byproduct and not an actual reason), I don't believe that I can lead others. That will be my litmus test.
References:
Giang, V. (2012). 3 things that separate leaders from managers. Open Forum. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/uKV0ER
Sinek, S. (2009). How great leaders inspire action [video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations, 8th Edition. Prentice Hall.
There are actually a lot of experts that believe that managers should not be leaders. "The most extreme distinction assumes that management and leadershio cannot occur in the same person (Yukl, 2013, p. 6.). As a relatively new student in the Master of Leadership program, part of me wants to say that it is not my place to say if this is right or wrong. Clearly people that are much more qualified than I am have conducted extensive research to come to that conclusion. Another part of me, however, thinks that perhaps these experts are misguided. For the time being, I will choose to remain neutral and I will respect their point of view. Perhaps there is some truth to it. I am still entitled to my own opinion, though, and my belief is that leadership is not just a role but is a trait/skill that can be learned/sharpened. Regardless, there is no doubt that leadership and management are completely separate roles. I found a pretty great article that I encourage my blog followers to read. In it, three main differences between managers and leaders are highlighted. The first is that leaders innovate and managers administer. In other words, the leader is responsible for coming up with the ideas and the manager is responsible for implementing them. Second, leaders are able to inspire trust whereas a manager relies on control. This isn't to say that control is a bad thing. It is simply a tool. The third distinction is that leaders ask "what" and "why" whereas managers ask "how" and "when". The article closes with an excellent point. She says that "the best managers are leaders" but "you can do both, but you have to take time to cultivate it" (Giang, 2012). (The link to the article is listed in the references at the bottom of this blog. I actually believe that it is part of the American Express website so I did my best to reference it properly.) As I previously stated, my opinion is that leadership is a trait so it can be learned. I didn't simply seek out an article to backup my opinion but that last line is very powerful to me. "You have to take time to cultivate it." As a career military man, we don't have the option to have separate leaders and managers. Of course the top generals don't actually do much administration but I will never work at that level. I am talking about on a local level. We, as managers, are forced to all be leaders. I take a lot of comfort in knowing that I can learn to be more effective.
For this assignment, we were given a video to watch. It is a TED Talk that I have seen numerous times and actually love to share with my center when we need to refocus. In it, the orator, Simon Sinek (2009), discusses how it isn't about the product but rather about the attitude. The focus that great leaders and innovators ask is "why" first and foremost. As a leader, that is what I want to do. Right now, that is a pretty easy question for me to answer. Why am I am Army recruiter? I love my country and I believe that we need to recruit the cream of the crop to ensure that our home is safe. However, I will be retiring very soon. I am not sure what I will be doing in the future but the concept is still sound. I want to work for an organization where I don't have a problem answering this question. If I don't know why (and making money, the video points out, is just a byproduct and not an actual reason), I don't believe that I can lead others. That will be my litmus test.
References:
Giang, V. (2012). 3 things that separate leaders from managers. Open Forum. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/uKV0ER
Sinek, S. (2009). How great leaders inspire action [video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations, 8th Edition. Prentice Hall.