A511.6.4.RB - A reflection on “Getting Beyond Engagement to Creating Meaning at Work

For this leadership analysis, the question of the day is what it means when we say that leaders must create a “cause” or "meaning."  Without a doubt past and present leaders have lead followers throughout times of struggle.  The article mentions that even when environmental situations seem degrading and dangerous, people still persevere when there is good solid leadership leading them.  But how does leadership connect with followers to give them that sense of cause or meaning.  For example, I can think of biblical heroes such as Moses who had to lead the Hebrews through many difficult situations, the Egyptian soldiers, the Sinai Desert, a lack of food and even those that questioned him and the journey they were on. Other examples that come to mind to support this article include the story of the heroic king, Leonidas of Sparta and how he led 300 of his finest soldiers to battle a heavily favored Persian conqueror, although the story has been modified for effect, there is no doubt that the followers believed in a cause, knowing their odds of their survival.  Even recently, Dr. Martin Luther Kings has been seen as a leader who was able to get people to find meaning in something they believed in.  The one thing all these leaders had in common is that they were agents of change; whether it was being forced upon them or if they were the ones instigating it.  This process of change was not a challenge for them because they had a vision of what needed to be done and the benefits.  The challenge was the followers and how to get them to adopt the same cause.  What we must keep in mind is than Dr. King did not say I have a plan for change, he stated repeatedly that he had a dream, something everyone can believe in.  

 Author Gary Yukl explained how in today’s business word we refer to this meaning in different ways such as Vision.  Vision can be broken done into numerous characteristics such as value statement, slogans, strategic mission objectives, mission vision, and even organizational core values.   From a personal perspective, I do not feel that just the title leader will automatically assist in instilling meaning of work to followers.  For me, the leader that fills this role must definitely be either very charismatic or have a strong understanding of how to apply the transformational leadership process.  This organizational leadership “meaning” cannot be forced upon individuals. They have to want to believe in it and believe it will benefit them either now or in the future.  As mentioned in the video clip by Ken Blanchard company associate Pat Zigarmi, Ed.D, people will always ask, WIIFM (what’s in it for me?).  This is probably the hardest sell for any leader.  I myself have been on both side of the coin as the employee who question why we were doing something and the person in the leadership position trying to answer "why" questions in a clear and concise manner.  The authors mention seven drivers of meaning that leaders can adopt to help employees find meaning at work.  Of the seven statements mentioned, the one that stands out the most to me is number 5; help people identify and work at the types of challenges that line up with their personal experience of engagement or flow.  I feel when you can combine personal experiences, identity of task and engagement by all, overcoming change to find that meaning becomes an easier task to achieve. 

  

 

 

A511.5.4.RB...Remote Leadership article

Or this assignment, I am going to discuss the article, entitled “Remote Transformational Leadership”, written by the numerous researchers, but led by E. Kevin Kelloway.  The overall purpose of this research was to look at transformational leadership from two study perspectives as it relates to remote leadership.  The article failed to provide a support definition.  Because to that, for my response I will define transformational leadership as a style of leadership in which the leader identifies the needed change, creates a vision to guide the change through inspiration, and executes the change with the commitment of the members of the group.  Study one focused on electronically-mediated leadership in its infancy.  The focus was on the perceived effects of transformational leadership, management-by-exception, and laissez-faire from two aspects of employee morale as it relates to transformational leadership. The second study’s purpose was to build on these results by examining the effects of remote leadership on motivation and performance using a laboratory-based investigation.

           
There were two different hypotheses for this study.  Study one was primarily interested in two questions: can recipients perceive and accurately identify leadership a style communicated by e-mail and is receiving an e-mail with a positive leadership message as opposed to a negative message perceived to be associated with positive outcomes?  Study two 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 did not contain these aspects of transformational leadership.

Two different research methods were used for this study.  First research method was students reading vignettes that focused on electronic email that communicated laissez-faire, management by exception, contingent rewards and the second research method was students reading an intellectually stimulating message electronic message concerning transformational leadership and a problem solving task.  Two different population samples were used for both research methods in these studies. Study one was 175 undergraduate students and study two 105 undergraduate students. However, I do not feel the study results were supportive of the research goals.  As stated in the article, neither the covariate nor the interaction attained statistical significance.

 

I am not sure if the research contains any tangible value.  The findings suggested that remote transformational leadership can still have the same positive effects on performance and attitudes that occurs with face-to-face interaction.  This fact has many unanswered questions, due to the fact that information can be received differently when delivered through an electronic medium (the finding are not definitive).  Findings also suggested that electronically mediated communication channels may be used to convey the same leadership message as in face-to-face interaction, which questions the suggestion that leader-follower distance has a negative effect on performance and followers perceptions of their leader.  Again, the significance of the results was not well supported in this research.  I feel the study was too general and the population was too small.  While these findings await replication in field settings, they suggest considerable promise for the effectiveness of remote transformational leadership.

 

A511.4.4.RB - Leadership Analysis

One of the most essential functions of management is to create willingness amongst the employees to perform at a high level.  That being said, the role of a leader is creating an environment to enhance interest in performance of employees. Motivation is a powerful tool for employee performance, particularly when it is induced by management. Over time there have been numerous studies that have tried to explain how motivation works. The advantages of motivation are numerous and include things such as enhancing overall organizational productivity, improving product quality and can increase employee unity.  What must be kept in perspective is that employees' motivation varies from employee to employee; what motivates one employee might not motivate another employee.  Just as motivation must not be considered as a single entity, neither must the trait that leaders possess.  The style of leadership that focuses on traits can be traced back to the argument that leaders are born versus being developed.  Through personal experience and research, I would definitely state that there are innate qualities and characteristics possessed by strong leaders as addressed by author Gary Yukl in his book Leadership in Organizations, Table 6-2 (Yukl, 2013).  However, this thought process is not without flaw; certain leadership traits will not always identify successful leaders and predict there overall effectiveness. Factors such as the type of organization can also have a huge impact on the effectiveness of a leader, no matter what traits or skills they possess.

Since joining the military at the age of 18, I have become very in tuned with my leadership skills, traits, and competencies.  These personal abilities that I possess have changed over time for various reasons.  I would like to think that I continue to gain knowledge when it comes to using the certain leadership skills and traits for success.  I have taken numerous personality and leadership assessments to include the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, DISC assessment, Dealing with Conflict Instrument (DWCI) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.  To this date I have not been surprise by any of the results.  By analyzing the results of these assessments I have been able to identify at what stages in my life certain traits blossomed and when some were suppressed.   I believe I possess some of the skills mentioned in Yukl, Leadership in Organizations, Table 6-3 (Yukl, 2013).  Conversely my strengths are concentrating my aptitude to formulate ideas; conceptual skills. These ideas have been heavily influenced by both internal and external environments in which I have held leadership positions.  I feel this has given me an advantage over other leaders because I have held positions in the Department of Defense, Retail, Corporate America and the US Federal Government; all having different standards of operations.  These differences have allowed me to understand how to lead around situational variables and remain successful.   On the other hand, these differences have taught me how to focus on particular variables related to the environment that might determine which particular style of leadership is best suited for the situation.  This was particularly true when it came to the military because there was more control over the qualities of the employees and a better understanding of presented situations.

 

A511.3.4.RB - Reflection Blog: Leadership Analysis

The understanding and comprehension of leadership, power and influence is not a new concept in today’s society as we know it. Look at talk shows, the Internet and various journals and magazines, you will find various articles, conversations, and debates. These intellectual information exchanges about leaders have gone on for years and years dating back as early as 1513 by the Italian diplomat, historian and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli who raised the question of whether it is better to have a relationship based on love (personal power or as I see it influence) or on fear (position power). To date, this argument is still a center piece of many conversations. Great leaders have mastered how to use power and influence to create a leadership identity that subordinates believe in and are willing to follow whether it is morally right or wrong. When we think power and influence we often think of leaders with virtuous objectives. However, some of the most memorable leaders who were able to use power and influence have changed the history of the world. With that statement, many would not realize I am referring to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot. In the textbook Leadership in Organizations…8th editions, author Gary Yukl makes it very clear that understanding leadership power and influence is not a simple endeavor. Various concerns must be taken into consideration for a leader to be successful. Not only must a leader look at the internal and external environment, they must take into consideration themselves, subordinates, peers and even their bosses.

It is a well-known belief that everyone possesses and exercises some type of power in their professional and personal. Personally, I would like to think I have a solid understanding of what type of power and influence I possess and I understand the nature of the source. I have learned that Expert and Informational Power fit my personality very well. The nature of both is based on me being able to combine my life experience with my in-depth education. I often find myself using both powers to support my opinions and thoughts during conversations, during lectures and during various confrontations. I also use them in my personal life; sometimes the outcome is good and sometimes the outcome is not so good. The good is when dealing with my kids and on the flip side my wife tells me I will try to manipulate arguments by focusing on certain words said by others to prove someone wrong. As individuals components, I think I lean more on expert power; using my gained knowledge as a subject matter to influence others. I also use this type of power to influence situations at work because I do not currently hold a supervisory position.

After enrolling in this course I have even come to realize that I am using this course to increases my expert power and credibility. Just a I use both listed powers to lead, I have also learned to use them as a follower. I have learned to listen and learn, enhancing my type of power and influence. Like they say, to lead one must learn to follow. When it comes to peers, I find myself withholding information for my own needs. I have even been told that I possess knowledge that others need or want, but I know I am not willing to share that information freely. Although it may seem selfish, I feel that individuals need to go through the same steps I did to gain that credibility and status. As far as addressing the question of having experienced high quality LMX situations within my current workplace, I would have to say no. My current organization is so cold and rigid; this type of relation between leader and member would be considered suspicious more than anything.

A511.2.4.RB: Leadership Analysis

      As identified by Gary Yukl, there are many different viewpoints and research surveys that focus on leadership behavior that influence employee’s performance and overall organizational efficiency. However to this day, I cannot recall a study that fits all situations. What I have discovered is too often these studies concentrate these studies on the person in charge and not on the human factor and the ever changing environment (external and internal). For the environment in which I currently work, I am of the belief that the Change-Oriented Behavior style of leadership is what I think is most appropriate. Change, both internal and external, plays a huge role in the federal government and it has an effect on employees on all levels. As quoted by the philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli in 1532, "There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." Author Gary Yukl emphasizes how this style of leadership is incorporated in both charismatic and transformational leadership styles thus enhancing the ability of leaders to understand the environment while finding innovative ways to adapt and implement changes to an organization.

       Those who serve in a leadership position for any federal government must understand that change are inevitable when it comes to organizational goals and they must be resourceful when coming up with innovative ways to reach those goals. This is very important because the federal government is in constant change. There are many variables that influence the federal objective, to include politics, foreign affairs, budget constraints and so on. For the federal government, a person not only must be able to accept constant change, they also need to adapt to get buy in for to subordinates and to adapt to the organization 's way of operating at any given time. As far as if these leaders are effective in producing results, it is hard to determine how success should be defined. The federal government does not operate on a profit based principle as the corporate environment does. From a personal perspective, I worry that a more hard line style of leadership is needed; one that holds everyone more accountable. Yukl stated that these leaders encourage people to view problems or opportunities in a different way. Leaders that fi this category also needs to be a spin doctor; having the ability to find the positive perspective, no matter what the issue is.

       With all of this information being presented, I must be very clear in stating that this style of leadership is not perfect in any way. The problem with this style of leadership is it can confuse subordinates; in which employees become frustrated and disillusioned by inconsistencies. This style of leadership also stresses that a leader be entrenched in the objectives of the organization; thus they need to understand the implications of changes before implementing. To address the question of whether or not the various leadership style presented by Yukl are used by me. I would have to say yes. I think leaders who strive for success must be flexible in their leadership approach. I believe I have already added them to my personal repertoire of leadership behaviors. Then question is when to use them. However, understanding that change oriented style may be best for the environment in which I work, I do have a style I will always consider my safe mode for success. From a personal perspective, I think the one leadership style that has the most potential for success is transformational leadership. With this style a lot of focus is based on the leader that sets a good example and clearly communicates organizational goals to subordinates. This style of leadership inspires subordinates to focus on what is best for the organization. So far, it has not failed me.

•A511.1.5.RB - Leadership Analysis

Understanding the concepts of leadership and management are processes that are often made very complex.  I don’t understand why we as a society must define both in such multifaceted and often complicated ways.  In my personal opinion, both terms can be defined in a one word definition; leadership inspires, while management directs.   However, as simple as this may be, many so called experts will disagree with me while some would hesitantly agree with me. 

In 2011, renown leadership expert Henry Mintzberg participated in a special issue of the journal, Strategy & Leadership, where he made two profound statements (to me anyway) that I think speaks volumes to the field of leadership.  (1) The problem with the concept of leadership is that it implies everyone else is a follower.  To me, this speaks to the basic instinct of all living things; survival.  Not everyone or every living creature is willing to be a follower; many seek to be the “alpha”, which is defined in many circles as the individual in the community with the highest rank of authority.  I feel this applies also to the business community as it relates to organizational and individual success.  Many leaders have left companies because they themselves wanted to be that person in charge, thus not followers.  In the same sense many managers have left companies because they did not believe in the leadership vision in which they worked (more to come on this later).  (2) The notion that one can be a leader and not a manager, originally postulated by Harvard Business School professor Abraham Zaleznik, is wrong. An executive cannot lead without managing.  If they’re not correlated in some way, the organization may become dysfunctional and inefficient. I agree whole-hearted with Mintzberg’s statement that for a person to truly comprehend the understanding leadership and management, individuals needs to occupy both roles within their career path. I believe this point is supported by the video of Simon Sinek's, “WHY…of leadership”.  How can a leader become successful if they do not know how to inspire employees or even connect them?  As Mr. Simon Sinek stated, Dr. Martin Luther King did speak of a dream that the audience shared, not a plan on how to overcome.  However, if he himself had never been deprived of such human rights, how would he know this (not by reading a book).  It has been said that to truly appreciate winning, one must experience defeat; to appreciate freedom, it must be taken from you; and I believe to truly embrace leadership and management, one must experience the good and bad of both roles. 

    

As far as Herb Kelleher and the question of why does Southwest Airlines exist, I think the slogan “Freedom to Fly" makes sense only when it is understood.  By in itself the slogan may seem somewhat blah.  On the other hand, when it is explained by leadership, it carries a different meaning which encompassed with a sense of motivation and even inspiration. I myself did not understand it, until I conducted further research on the slogan “Freedom to Fly".  I believe the same goes for the speech by Dr. King.  It is one thing to read a message, but when explained by a great leader, it can take on a totally different meaning.  This leads me back to that statement I made earlier on how leaders and managers have left companies because for various reasons.  The bottom line is in most situations people don’t leave companies and jobs; they leave because of poor leadership and management.  Mr. Kelleher and Dr. King proved this to be true.  Even when Southwest and its employees went through tough times, employees stood by the company and even though people knew the civil rights movement would not be easy, they stood by the words of Dr. King. 

 

A500.8.3.RB - Blog - Good Presentation Design

For this week’s entry I had to focus on my thoughts on good presentation design.   Some of the information may seem repetitious due to fact that I share my thoughts in the weekly discussion forum.  I find this discussion very interesting because to me presentation plays a huge factor in my career field of education and training.  One question that comes to mind when it comes to presentation is what we did 25 years ago.  Did large butcher block pads and chalkboards do the same as today’s computers?  Were presenters of the past more skilled when it came to presentations than today’s speakers and presenters?  Make no mistake about it, I feel all types of professional presenters over use and abuse electronic presentations. The trendy phrase I often hear in presentation complaints from adult students is “Death by PowerPoint”.  Just like David Letterman has his nightly top ten; I have my own top 10… “I call this my "10 deadly sins of presentations"

(1) KISS- Keep it simple, stupid!

(2) A speaker must remember that a good presentation is there to support the speaker, not to do their job for them (they are the expert not the computer).

(3) Avoid distraction…annoying sounds and loud colors. With that said, the presenter must also remember that what looks good on a 20 inch computer screen may not be so good on a 9 ft. screen.

(4) Practice, Practice, Practice…enough said on that

(5) Avoid using audio visuals unprofessionally

(6) Avoid using out of date material. Make sure what you present is current (goes to credibility)

(7) Avoid using inappropriate humor that may not be funny; understand that some may be offended with certain jokes, if you would tell it to you mother keep it to yourself (know your audience)

(8) Avoid using poor grammar, pronunciation, and enunciation

(9) Being unfamiliar with YOUR information

(10) LAST BUT NOT LEAST…BE ON TIME & BE ORGANIZED. 

Another point I would like to address is using PowerPoint and other presentation tools as a crutch. I think the most important things is we must keep in perspective is that computers and presentation software are assistance tools and should remain as such. A question all presenters should ask themselves is, “Do you want the audience to pay attention to you or the presentation?" The biggest issue that I think is overlooked when it comes to presentation is problem the one the presenter has the most control over.  This issue is practice.  No matter how experienced a presenter is, they need to review their slides ahead of time before they present.  Personally I think a review should be done at least twice. A good review can assist in identifying slides that might be irrelevant.  The bottom line is the more prepared and familiar you are with your slides, the smoother the presentation will go.