A640.6.4.RB- Authentic Leadership

Authentic leadership is proposed as the core of effective leadership needed to build trust because of its clear focus on the positive role modeling of honesty, integrity, and high ethical standards in the development of leader-follower relationships (Wong & Cummings, 2009).

Critics attribute authentic leadership as a way to manipulate and deceive followers. Martin and Sims (1956) and Bailey (1988) wrote that all leaders must be manipulative to succeed.

These two statements are two very different streams of thought. How could a form of leadership that advocates honesty and ethics be related to manipulation? A quick google search for the words “deceive and manipulate” renders articles about psychopaths.

After binge watching Marvel’s Jessica Jones all weekend the first thought I had went to the character, Kilgrave, who manipulates people using mind control. In order to have power he usurps control by force, constantly claiming he wants Jessica to have freewill in her decision making but always has a failsafe in place in order to keep her in check and in line with his demands, even going as far as harming other people so that she remains compliant. When leaders use manipulations tactics are they trying to keep control by any means possible because they realize they do not have true leadership?

One component of authentic leadership relies upon interpersonal definitions. Northouse (as cited in Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) states that positive outcomes stem from authentic leadership only when followers identify with the values of the leader and requires a high degree of buy-in for authentic leadership to be effective. Furthermore, most interpretations of authentic leadership center on “the notion that it is the opposite of the selfish and self-serving portrayals of corporate greed that dominated the headlines” (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013, p. 299).

It is difficult to accept that authentic leadership could encompass these positive things and have such negative connotations. When considering another form of leadership, servant leadership, it seems doubtful that the only way a leader can succeed is to be manipulative. Perhaps there is another way to view the word manipulative, another point of view, or frame to filter the negative first impression of the vocabulary. To manipulate means to handle or control typically in a skillful manner or to control and influence cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously with synonyms of exploit, maneuver, or engineer.

Another word rests in the same grouping: steer. If our leaders are an organization’s sculptor and the mission and its goals are like a malleable slab of clay, then it would be permissible and appropriate to guide the various pieces and parts toward the best outcomes through use of relational transparency and fostering a positive climate that relies upon self-awareness and an internalized moral perspective. Is manipulation as bad as we make it seem?

Or, for argument’s sake, flipping back to the other side of the coin and playing devil’s advocate is this line of thinking simply a hall pass for the ends justifying the means? After all, buy in usually results from followers already identifying with the espoused values. Do we see what we want to see? Does this type of leadership only recruit from likeminded individuals and if so, is that wrong? Or is there more to it, such as true caring, consideration, and development of our followers?

I am confident to say that authentic leadership demands us to consider these questions in order to find balanced information and follow the path of moral reasoning to reach ethical decisions. For now, it is okay to leave this as an open ended line of questions. Over time our life events, learning, and growing help all individuals become stronger, more authentic leaders.

Reference:

Rowe, W. G. & Guerrero L. (2013). Cases in Leadership. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc.

A640.5.2.RB- Leader-Member Exchange Theory

This post has perhaps been in the making for a while now and at first I was not sure if I wanted to avoid it or embrace it. I have a lot to say and some of it stems from a logical place while some of it does not. Perhaps that is one of the most fundamental essences of leadership; that we deal with people who are both logical and emotional simultaneously during a single conversation undulating between each and separately depending on the circumstance. These reactions are combined with our past experiences and the effects that our relationships and exchanges can have on us, which is very human and of course individualized in nature and context for each person.  

In my opinion this is how leadership diverges from management. What looks beautiful on paper is messier in real life. Being a true leader requires the ability to understand and sense differences in each person and not merely classifying all people as the same. This is where Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) bridges this underlying idea. “LMX theory is the dyadic relationship between a leader and each of his or her followers” (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013, p. 200).

Something that I have observed with our current internet culture is that people have a yearning to be understood. We want to be heard and sometimes we want to feel we are valuable and important. Even if our mission is getting coffee we want to know how it contributes to the bigger picture. In an age of digital immediacy few wish to be anonymous. Our work lives are not much different from this notion. We want to our leaders to see us for who we are and what we bring to the table.

For me personally I am on a bit of a crusade that an organization is simply not as valuable as a person. We keep traveling in the direction that the idea of organizations and its needs should be upheld more than the people who make up a company and their wellbeing. I say nay, let’s put that in reverse. This is why LMX is impactful, because it realizes there is a symbiotic relationship between these things. What is good for one can be good for the other. There is no requirement that one should detract from the other.

I have always seen myself as being in a relationship with my job or organization. I am willing to give and take, but I am not interested in only being taken from. Few would accept this in a romantic courtship and when it is beyond one sided it is called unrequited. Those who seek healthy relationships wouldn’t stay committed if this was the premise and this has direct parallels to our work lives. If I am giving my mind and heart I want something for it, something that benefits me and replenishes me. Why is it that we think it is okay to run people dry and then discard them when there is nothing left? This is poor leadership.

Rowe & Guerrero (2013) summarizes the benefits of effective LMX stating:

Essentially, empirically based studies have found that where there are higher-quality leader-member exchanges, there are lower employee turnover, better employee evaluations, more frequent promotions, better work assignments, more participation by employees in decision making, enhanced commitment to the organization, more favorable attitudes toward the job, and great support and interest from the leader. (p. 201)

There is beauty to the coadjuvancy because both sides have equal representation in the relationship.  I have a belief that generally people want to do a good job but something goes awry along the way that causes a derailment. So what happens when this is overlooked and dyads are no longer aligned in fruitful harmony?

Rowe & Guerrero (2013) describes from the early studies an emergence of two types of groups: in-groups and out-groups. “In-group relationships develop when leaders and follower negotiate that follower do more than required by their job description, and leaders provide more than that required by the formal hierarchy” (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013, p. 201).

 Out-groups are much the opposite. They are physically present but do the minimum to retain their jobs, they give nothing more than required and leaders provide only what is contractually obligated (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013). Essentially this is an outbreak of organizational zombieism as these individuals mentally vacate or defect from their jobs.

In the song “She Wolf” Shakira muses, I've been devoting myself to you Monday to Monday and Friday to Friday. Not getting enough retribution or decent incentives to keep me at it. Starting to feel just a little abused like a coffee machine in an office. I don’t know about you but that doesn’t sound too appealing.

The implication of each of these groups is dramatic in terms of meeting goals and being effective organizationally. Without people the organization cannot meet its goals. When people are invested the results are better. Without fail, leaders have influence in this matter. In-groups and out-groups exist  in any group or organization and leaders participate in the development of each (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013). The more members in the in-group the better your team will do. The more players on the out-group team the more in trouble an organization will be.

Reference:

Rowe, W. G. & Guerrero L. (2013). Cases in Leadership. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc.

A640.4.4.RB- Developing a Case (Post-Analysis)

First and foremost I must say that I did not anticipate taking Cases in Leadership, a case study course, as my last elective and final course prior to capstone. But here I am and almost at the half way mark. This week we were challenged in developing a case study based on the readings and our own experiences.

Without exaggeration, when a student reaches this point they are about five hundred assignments in which includes discussions, blogs, papers, case studies, concept maps, quizzes,, presentations,  literature reviews, and team projects. Maybe a hodgepodge of a few other things, too. This being said, I have reached the point where I have discussed my current organization at length, beyond length actually, and have hit a wall with that so I wanted to dig into material that is a littler fresher and untapped.  A renewed resource of inspiration helped a limited amount.

In light of the exercise of building my own case study this week I felt a post-analysis of my trials and tribulations was in order. The following are my unfiltered thoughts and reflection of the ordeal.

As my name is Casey it is very difficult to write “case” over and over and leave off the “Y” so writing a case study and not a Casey study was a typing challenge in itself.  I think it was such a great idea at the Graduate level to have us developing cases but I underestimated how difficult I found it.

I wondered if building a case would help me in my understanding and analysis of cases in the future. Unfortunately for me that is a resounding no. In math there is a concept called “FOIL” first, outer, inner, last for the proper order for tackling equations. As you become more advanced you are called upon to reverse FOIL. With FOIL you have to figure out how to work the problem and reverse FOIL means that all the king’s horses and all the king’s men have to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Full disclosure, I am subpar with mathematics so I just figured out how to do the other types of problems better and skip what did not work for me personally. I haven’t thought of reverse FOIL since my first year of college so imagine my surprise that I felt like it was haunting me again. I am not sure that doing a case study in reverse helped me in the way that one might expect. I do not feel like I understand case analysis better. Forget helping out reverse FOIL, my brain now needs those king’s horses and men to help me put it back together again.

I hit a major writer’s block and everything was suddenly so incomprehensible as if I had never read a case study ever in my life. I think another problem was that I wanted to write the most stellar case possible right out the gate for my first try. I wanted to write the Hunger Games of case studies but instead it was more like when I tried to write my first poem in third grade. It takes practice and it takes work to become accomplished.  

Some issues with relevant to development is that it requires having a vision. Just like the creation of any art such as music or writing in other genres, if you do not have a voice or a point of view the case is not going to have any impact. Cases need to be relatable to real life situations that could be encountered in an organization and also needs to have a learning outcome. What is it that this case is saying? In reading this problem what are you learning? What is it important and why do you need to know how to handle it? There also needs to be a connection to real theory not an unfounded idea.

Bottom line I think that what I realized is that making a case study is harder than you think. I flopped around like a fish out of water before getting a full paragraph on the page. If anything I will have a matured appreciation when I read an interesting and well-written case from this point forward. It is one thing to do it but it is another to do it well.