Walking the Walk, Talking the Talk

Greetings and Salutations Everyone,

Remember this classic line:

Like him or not, Leonidas is one tough leader who led by example and was not afraid to tell it like it was. He is also an example to start off this week's discussion about what behaviors do leaders exhibit  and in what situations do great leaders emerge?  Leaders may be effective in one situation and completely ineffective in another.  And then there's….well……just watch……

One of the two above leaders would likely inspire you to do something great, and the other would make you want to run away!  Leaders have behaviors that influence followers to be better at their tasks, or behaviors that make them worse.  Back in the mid-1900's, around the 1940's to 1960's, the Ohio State University, Michigan State University, and researchers Blake & Mouton tried to examine those behaviors and explain how certain behaviors were more effective than others.  What came out of that period was the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) from the Ohio State research which looked at whether or not leaders provided structure for followers or nurtured them.  The Michigan State researchers focused on the employee and production orientation, or in other words, task focus versus interpersonal/human focus.  Blake & Mouton (1964) ultimately developed the Managerial (Leadership) Grid which visually displayed leadership styles, see below:

The Blake & Mouton Managerial (Leadership) Grid showed that when the concern for people and concern for production is low, things don't go so well.  We call these (1,1) leaders.  When the manager has high people concern and high production concern, things can go very well, and we call these (9,9) leaders.  Of course, a leader that has some concern for people and some concern for production, we get the middle-of-the-road leader who scores out at (5,5).  These behavioral analyses still do not address the why's of leadership.  For example, why do some leadership styles work well in some cases and not in others?  Imagine King Leonidas in charge of a monastery?  Imagine Michael Scott in charge of a Navy S.E.A.L. team?  You get my point! :-)

Around the same time, in the late 1960's through the 1980's, a bunch of sociologists realized that simply examining the behavior of leaders was not enough, because one size does not fit all.  What if the situation or task at hand determined the necessary action of the leader and how he/she needs to influence the followers?  What if leadership is situational?  Situational leadership looked at two primary factors; directive behaviors (telling others what needs to be done) and supportive behaviors (making followers feel comfortable about themselves and situation).  In the graphic below, we can see the different styles of leadership that adapt to a situation:

Seems to make sense, right?  Match the behavior and style to the task.  One of the main drawbacks to situational approach theory is there is not a lot of research on it that has been done.  A second one that is true of many leadership theories is they focus on the leaders and their actions, but none seem to focus on the affect or the impact on the followers.  For example, in my career, I had a supervisor who was a micromanager, and was only task-oriented with little concern for me as an individual, my family, or my goals and aspirations.  I did not like her leadership style and it was ineffective for me, yet, the higher level managers above her thought she was a great leader and kept promoting her.  Of course, the higher up she promoted, the low morale in the unit spread to others because she thought her style was great never realizing that it was negatively impacting the followers where ever she went.  This is where leadership questionnaires can help a leader, who really wants to learn and improve, do a better job.  Listen to Tennessee Vols Cuonzo Martin put it plain English:

Look, there is no silver bullet for leadership.  All of these theories are not right and they are all certainly not wrong either.  I believe it is more important to understand what it is you are trying to accomplish and how you can motivate your followers to do an awesome job.  If you have followers who are go-getters and don't need a lot of direction, don't micromanage them!  Don't be a high directive/low supportive leader. Likewise, if you have people who look to you to help them get from point A to point B, but aren't looking for a back patter, then be the high directive/low supportive leader.  Learn to read people and then act accordingly.  Most importantly, DO NOT BE AFRAID TO LEARN AND IMPROVE UPON BEING A GREAT LEADER!!!!!  A true leader always wants to improve and has no problem with feedback.  What kind of leader are you?  Thank you for reading, and until next week, take care of yourself.

The Right Stuff….Maybe…Maybe Not!

Greetings and Salutations,

Last week when I began this blog on leadership, I presented an overview of some of the traits and definitions used to described leaders.  In week number two, I want to delve further into building our leader from the ground up.  Yes we are going to construct "leaders," good and bad, and talk about the trails and tribulations associated with the manufacturing process.  First, I would like to go back in time and reflect on movies that depict leadership from a Hollywood standpoint.  This will kind of lay our groundwork on which we build our leaders.

In 1983, Philip Kaufman wrote the screenplay and directed the classic film, The Right Stuff, which was a non-fictional retelling of NASA's experiences pursuing manned space travel and the dangers and advancements that resulted from those experiences.  What the film depicted was Leadership Theory 101, albeit not the actual intent of the story, but it stumbles across this subplot as the story of man versus machine, and man versus science takes place.  Think about this for a moment, you have test pilots yearning to break various speed records and fly higher and faster than any person before in the history of the world.  In order to accomplish this, you have to have people who are not only intelligent, but brave, self-confident, knowledgeable, possess varying degrees of interpersonal skills, and subject to taking risks.  Hmmmm, that sounds a lot like trait leadership theory.  In the film, for example, Project Mercury could not have produced the national heroes we have today if these men did not possess the leadership traits needed to defy the odds and help the United States surge past its cold war rival, The Soviet Union, and eventually make it to the moon.

In 1987, Stanley Kubrick embraced us with the dehumanizing affects of war in his classic film, Full Metal Jacket.  The film centers on Private J.T. Davis played by Matthew Modine, known more affectionately as "Private Joker."  It follows the development of this young Marine from boot camp through the end of his service during the Vietnam War.  Here again, this film accidentally explores Leadership Theory 201 as the many characters in the film display varying degrees of leadership; and in some cases situational leadership.  Private Joker takes on the role as an emergent leader as he helps struggling Private Lawrence played by Vincent D'Onofrio.  R. Lee Ermey, the repressive Gunnery Sargent Hartman, displays assigned leadership using coercive power as he physically punishes the recruits during boot camp.  Arliss Howard who played the character, Private Cowboy, displays assigned leadership with legitimate power as he leads his troops (later in the movie) to take on a sniper who was killing his platoon of Marines during an ambush.  I have probably seen this movie a dozen times and never thought of it from a leadership standpoint, but at every turn, each character at some point is assigned a leadership position, takes a leadership position, or emerges as a leader when the time presents itself.  Let's take a look at a perfect example of assigned leadership and the use of coercive power in the famous "jelly doughnut" scene featuring R. Lee Ermey and Vincent D'Onofrio (language warning):
 

In each of these films, the leaders display something we often call the "right stuff."  They either have it or they don't.  But do all leaders really have the right stuff naturally, or can they develop it over time; can they learn it?  Let's step away from R. Lee Ermey's abusive Gunnery Sergeant character for a second and consider other things a leader can possess or lack.  Can a leader be empathetic for example?  Can a leader be short in stature?  Can a leader be a "C" student, or one who dropped out of school altogether?  Can a leader not be extroverted, or break out in sweats when addressing large crowds?  Sure, maybe, maybe not?!  Two prevailing schools of thought, trait leadership theory and skill leadership theory, make attempts to explain what makes a leader, but they may be two sides of the same coin.

If for example, all leadership was developed as a trait, meaning someone was born with it, that would mean that every single person in the world who lacked leadership skills at birth could NEVER be leaders.  Tell that to Bill Gates who dropped out of college.  But if Bill Gates crawled into a corner and hid every time he faced others, Microsoft would not be the business juggernaut it is today.  You see, he still has to possess some traits that make him an effective leader that he may have been born with, and it is very likely he learned the others.  However, Bill Gates has always had one special thing that made him a de facto great leader.  He possesses information power meaning he has information that others want or need!  That, my friends, is going to be the leadership and power grab of the future.  Those who have information over those who don't, but need it.  I even addressed this phenomenon in another blog during my e-Governance course at Troy University known as the digital divide.  The most powerful part of any organization is arguably its information technology department.  With one key stroke, the organization can be brought to its knees.  Now THAT is power, but not necessarily leadership!  Think about THAT for a moment.   Before I close though, I believe it is important that we understand that leadership and power are closely related, but they are not the same thing.  Next week for my third installment, we want to start addressing behavioral approaches to leadership.  That'll be interesting!  Until next week, take care of yourselves.

What Makes A Leader?

Greetings,

My name is Gary, and I would like to thank you for reading my blog on Leadership.  I would also like to welcome you to this blog as we will embark on a nine week journey on studying and looking at the qualities that make a great leader.  Let me introduce myself to you in case this is the first time you are reading one of my many blogs.  This blog is part of a course for Troy University in the Master of Public Administration program, more specifically, Leadership in Public Administration (Course #PA-6665).  This blog itself is a choice, not a requirement of the class, which means that I feel personally connected to it, and I have a genuine passion for sharing it with you.  Do not think that the subject of leadership for me is only academic, however.  I currently own a business in which I am the director and financial officer requiring leadership skills and have done so for the past seven years.  Also, I am a public safety employee where leadership in moments of crisis is required, and I have done that line of work for the past 17 years.  I am also a dad of two wonderful boys, which for anyone with children can attest, that is the ultimate leadership position!  So what I hope to accomplish by the end of this series is to do some introspection on myself and also share knowledge with you so that we all takeaway something from this!  If that sounds like a fair enough proposition, let's begin!

One of the first questions asked of me this week was, "Are leaders born or made?"  Now before you answer this question in your head (not out loud in front of the computer or people will think you are crazy), who was the first person that came to mind?  You might think of the late Steve Jobs at Apple Computer.  Perhaps you might think of government leader like a President Obama or the  British Prime Minister David Cameron.  Some may think more close to home of a teacher, doctor, lawyer, police officer, or firefighter.  Nonetheless, when you thought of that person, did you think they were born that way, predestined to lead?  Or did you think they acquired those skills to become the leader they are today?  I argue that the answer is, yes!  Yes to both!  Leaders can be born, and leaders can be made.  Truth be told, leaders can be anyone and come from anywhere!  You, yes you reading this blog right now, can also be the next great leader.  Peter G. Northouse, author of the text, Leadership: Theory and Practice 7th ed, defines leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.  So in essence, a leader can be born with the traits to influence others, or a leader can learn the traits to influence others.  The key is influence!  Below are the kinds of leadership:

Trait leadership infers that people have special innate or inborn characteristics of leadership.  These can include physical characteristics like height and size, or personality characteristics such as extraversion or forward thinking.  This thinking supposes that people who lack the trait cannot be leaders.  Hmmmm?

Process leadership infers that people learn the trait and the trait is available to everyone.

Assigned leadership is leadership gained through occupying a position or rank within an organization.

Emergent leadership is not a position of assignment, but rather emerges over time as people learn to trust and accept the individual's behavior.  These individuals are usually verbally involved, well-informed, seeks out opinions, initiate new ideas, and are firm but not rigid.

In the video below, Roselinde Torres talks about even more traits that make a great leader (approx. 9mins):


Ms. Torres' TEDtalks video shows where we hope to go in our journey about making great leaders.  One thing you may have noted in her talk, which I think is crucial, is we have to get away from the great leader of yesteryear who stands tall among men and has the "knight in shining armor" look.  However, we also cannot address leadership without addressing the role of power.  Power relates closely to leadership because it affects influence.

We've all probably worked for a "leader" who rules with an iron fist, or one that makes our job easier to make their job easier.  So before we close, I want to address the six kinds of power as they relate to leadership.

Referent power is power through adoration.

Expert power is power through knowledge and competence.

Legitimate power is power through formal authority.

Reward power is power through the ability to give gifts

Coercive power is power through punishment.

Information power is power through having knowledge that others want or need.

And there you have it.  We've established a baseline of our exploration of leadership and we will examine the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to analyzing leadership.  I hope you will join me next week for the second part of this series.  Thank you for your time.