A640.6.4.RB_DavisCarl Authentic Leadership

                                                The mermaid in Copenhagen - CSD 2016

It’s time for another entry at the Educated Leadership blog! This week we’re looking at Authentic Leadership Theory and two perspectives about that theory.

In our text, Rowe and Guerrero cited a definition of authentic leadership style as that “which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. The authentic leader is confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority to developing associates to be leaders” (2013, p. 295-296). Northouse (2016) pointed out that very few studies on authentic leadership explain the moral component and how it serves as a motivating factor for the leader and that the theory of authentic leadership is still early in development.

Martin and Sims (1956) and Bailey (1988) wrote that all leaders must be manipulative to succeed. This point opens the idea that leadership is inherently negative and requires a type of coercion that may be less than savory. Bass & Steidlmeier countered that “in fact, it is pseudo-transformational leaders who are deceptive and manipulative” (1999, p. 196).

So, where does this leave us, the leaders in today’s world, as we look to be the best we can be? Let’s utilize critical thinking tools to analyze the situation.

The purpose of the two perspectives is defined in the roles they are playing. The critics are looking to poke holes in the theory while those attempting to adapt the theory are apt to expound on the positive aspects. Both sides, in this argument, appear to have been remiss in addressing the opposing points of integrity and ethics or the lack thereof. As we have learned along our journey, leadership that is implemented to enhance the success of only the leader will not continue in perpetuity. The leader needs to have the success of the followers, the organization, and the overall community as motivation and strive for that through values and morals that are acceptable and agreeable to those groups.

The question at issue is whether leadership is manipulation of the followers. The litmus test would be the ethics and integrity of the goals and in the way, the leader energizes the followers to assist in achieving those goals. The US political arena has provided some excellent examples of leaders claiming to be authentic while demonstrating qualities of charismatic leadership that skews toward being more self-serving in nature. Bass & Steidlmeier’s (1999) point above is applicable here.

Northouse (2016) noted that Authentic Leadership theory is still in its relatively early stages. Information may be less available than we would like, but there are studies available on the subject. As we are doing here, each study should be reviewed using critical thinking tools to enhance understanding of the overall theory. In the case of the two statements we are reviewing, the ethics and integrity of the leader are where we should concentrate our data mining. As we have striven to define leadership, integrity, trust, honesty, and ethics have become our cornerstones. Any questions about authentic leadership need to address those cornerstones and their application. That which is proper in some cultures may not be in others.

Interpreting the Martin & Sims (1956) and Bailey (1988) statement is clear cut. They were attempting to note that manipulation in any form is bad. The inference is negative. Wong & Cummings (2009) took the purely positive interpretation of authentic leadership and infer that by providing a positive atmosphere based on honesty and integrity, the change in behavior induced in the followers is good.

The concepts utilized by the two perspectives revolve around leadership and followership. Wong looked at the aspect of being genuine and Martin looked at the less altruistic concepts of power and influence. Both concepts are important and examining multiple facets of an argument is vital to both understanding and application of the theories we study.

The assumptions by Wong & Cummings (2009) are that authentic leadership is inherently positive because it stresses ethical leadership. The perspective assumes the opposite is often the case and authentic leaders need to be watched carefully.

As we learned when reviewing Charismatic leadership theory, blind followership leads to negative results. The implication of looking at only the positive, or only the negative, side of authentic leadership is having a gap in one’s perspective. As leaders, we all have gaps in our perspective. One of our fiduciary duties to our organization and our followers if to attempt to minimize our gaps in performance and perspective.

We need to be authentic leaders. We need to be transformational leaders. We need to be servant leaders. As I have studied Authentic Leadership, I have begun to believe that Authentic Leadership Theory is an underpinning for transformational and servant leadership. Being less than authentic would hamper any attempts to build the trust needed to implement those important leadership styles.

Have a great week!

Bailey, F. G. (1988). Humbuggery and manipulation: The art of leadership. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Carol A. Wong, G. A. Cummings. (2009). The Influence of Authentic Leadership Behaviors on Trust and Work Outcomes of Health Care Staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 18. doi:10.1002/jls.20104

Martin, N. H., & Sims, J.H. (1956). Thinking Ahead: Power Tactics. Harvard Business Review, 6, 12.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership - Theory and Practice (M. Masson Ed. Seventh ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

W. Glenn Rowe, L. Guerrero. (2013). Cases in Leadership (L. Todorovic-Arndt Ed. 3rd ed.).

A640.5.2.RB_DavisCarl Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership

                      Source:  http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/web/lead/lmx-vdl.html

Readers, welcome back to another week of the Educated Leadership Blog! We are looking at the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership, the Vertical Dyad Linkage (VDL), in-group, out-group and their impact on performance.

 First, let’s review the basics of LMX. Rowe and Guerrero stated, “Whether we view the LMX theory of leadership as descriptive or prescriptive, it works by emphasizing the dyadic relationship that both leaders and followers see as special and unique” (2013, p. 203). “From a descriptive sense, LMX theory implies that we need to understand that in-groups and out-groups exist in groups and organizations and that as leaders, we participate in their development” 2013, p. 202).

Looking at the prescriptive perspective, Rowe and Guerrero noted a leader should attempt to, “develop relationships with all subordinates who are similar to those described for in-group members” (2013, p. 203). Northouse commented that LMX has several positive features. “First, LMX theory is a strong descriptive approach that explains how leaders use some followers (in-group members) more than others (out-group members) to accomplish organizational goals effectively” (2016, p.157). The second feature is that it focuses on the leader-member relationship (Northouse,2016). Conversely, LMX theory does run counter to principles of fairness normally expected from leaders and the theory does not prescribe the manner of building the deep relationships with in-groups (Northouse, 2016).

As we can see in the diagram above (Swenson), the probability for higher performance increases with the in-groups and faces distinct challenges with the out-group. The interaction and the relationship that encompasses the leader and the in-group acts as a catalyst, increasing performance. Given that humans will generally be more apt to work harder for people with whom they have a relationship than for those they do not. I have also heard this phenomenon compared to a gas tank or bank account of loyalty. The leader employs the techniques indicated on the downward arrow to make deposits that are repaid to the leader in loyalty, commitment, and assistance at a rate that may exceed the amount deposited by the leader. In practice, there is a risk that the in-group becomes the “go-to” team that eventually suffers burn-out or the leader overdraws the account and resentment begins to build in the in-group.

I have quite a bit of experience in the LMX theory. The dynamic in my organization sets up in many places in the manner of LMX with in-groups and out-groups along with the need to build special relationships with work groups on the periphery. I can also attest to the admonishment with which Rowe and Guerrero close their chapter on LMX, “We encourage each of you to be willing to lead others but to also understand the responsibility you take on for developing special, unique relationships with each of your subordinates” (2013, p. 203). Given the possibility of those in the out-groups to perceive the special relationships as biased or unfair, the repercussions could be destructive. Additionally, some cultures have expectations from closer relationships that may lead to disappointment for some in-group participants.

I have worked for managers that built dyadic linkages with the members of their team. I was compelled to work harder because the repayment of the effort via increased opportunity and responsibility was very addictive. Over time, though, the leader failed to be able to maintain the level of reciprocal input and I felt overworked and underappreciated. Interestingly, when I throttled back my performance to rebuild my desire and commitment I was quickly rebuked for the change by the leader. It was apparent to me that I was being taken for granted and I began to look for another leader for whom to work. I relate this story to act as a warning to those looking at the LMX theory. It takes work and dedicated monitoring of the relationships. Make sure to make deposits in the loyalty tank of those reporting to you. Lastly, look for opportunities to place in-group members into leadership positions, that an excellent gift of trust.

There are implications for the members of the in-group and out-group. The in-group, as stated above will expect more opportunities and responsibilities, as time moves on. They may also expect other “quid pro quo” types of gifts and opportunities. Signs of burn-out and alienation must be looked for regularly by the leader so they can be counteracted as soon as they begin to appear. The out-group will likely struggle with the detrimental effects mentioned in the graphic above. There is an out-group in my organization and the exhibit the characteristics of alienation, apathy, and low performance. I have also seen higher turn-over rates, more health issues, and antagonistic behavior manifested in that group. Last, but by no means least, the out-group is regularly filing complaints with Human Resources citing perceived slights or preferential treatment of others by management. Northouse’s point mentioned earlier that striving to eventually treat all employees as in-group members stands out as excellent advice for some of my leaders, given what I have seen.

Thanks for stopping by and I’ll see you next week!

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership - Theory and Practice (M. Masson Ed. Seventh ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

W. Glenn Rowe, L. Guerrero. (2013). Cases in Leadership (L. Todorovic-Arndt Ed. 3rd ed.).

A640.4.4RB_DavisCarl Developing a Case (Post Event Analysis)

Hello, readers! It’s been quite some time since I have posted and it’s good to be back.

This entry will focus on an assignment that asked us to create a case study for a leadership class. We were given some examples from which to work and had the benefit of having read numerous case studies during the classes in our leadership program. Frankly, I feel like I have lived some of the studies I have been assigned to read and someone is getting credit for documenting my travails!

As I am a believer in the adage, “If you want to learn something, teach it”, I found this exercise beneficial. Initially, I thought the difficult part would be coming up with a story. Not so. The difficult part was coming up with a story that required the application of the leadership theories we are currently focusing on in class. That perspective gave me new insight to the development of the case studies I have studied to date. Like any other lesson plan, the learning points must be defined at the outset. With the clarity of the goal in mind, the story could be tailored accordingly. A second point is creating the questions that offer the student an opportunity to demonstrate the level of mastery for which the teacher/professor needs to see. Through this exercise, I realize these two points are critical in creating cases.

I found myself needing to refer to textbooks to ensure I was capturing the essence of the theories we had been learning about in the previous weeks. My examination of the theories now included my perceptions after having learned the material versus the time prior to my first exposure. What did I learn and how would I demonstrate understanding to somebody else? What was the delta in my knowledge base of leadership theory?

Some of the issues pertinent to case study development include:

-Providing enough detail to allow the student to build an adequate picture of the situation.

There needs to be enough to paint a picture, but not so much as to distract from the learning points to be conveyed.

-Describing a situation that may lend itself to applying what the students have learned.

Instructions and references can be used to assist in guiding the student in a direction. However, the directions need to be broad enough to allow the student range to expand their thinking or connect other ideas that may have been learned elsewhere.

-Creating questions that allow the student to demonstrate their level of knowledge.

The questions should not be leading, but also not so vague as to blur the focus on the learning points. The level of student the lesson is directed at must also be considered.

-Creating a situation that had was based in fact so the student can see themselves in the situation.

If the student cannot see themselves facing the situation, they may not be as enthusiastic or committed to solving the problem. As I said before, many times I see myself in the case studies I have read and the emotions created as I re-live the situations are sometimes very powerful. Taking time to review the experience has provided me with opportunities to grow and to find a bit of catharsis in the exercise.

What did I learn by doing the case study creation exercise?

I learned creating a case study of substance is a complicated task that requires planning and concentration. I learned that the story needs to be believable and relatable for the student to be able to see themselves in the situation. Creating questions that address the level of understanding and application capability of the student takes planning and understanding of the learning points.

The biggest learning point I took away from this assignment was that building high-quality case studies is not an easy task. From this experience, I would expect grading replies to case studies to require an even higher level of understanding and communication skills. Guiding students back toward where their comprehension and application needs to be while not demoralizing them would require skill and adroitness. A tangent to that thought would be that teachers/professors/instructors need to vet the case studies they select for students to analyze. A case study of poor quality could induce students to draw incorrect conclusions from the lesson and, given the law of primacy (FAA, 2008), create issues for the class and its leader that are very difficult to counteract.

See you next week!

Administration, Federal Aviation. (2008). Aviation Instructor's Handbook: U.S. Department of Transportation.