A511.7.3.RB - Self-Awareness

Understanding oneself is a core competency of good leaders. After all, self-knowledge allows us to be able to understand others as well. For most individuals who train to become coaches, the value of the training is as much about their increased self-awareness as it is about their ability to work with others and help them achieve their potential.

Goffee and Jones’ article “Getting personal on the topic of leadership” emphasizes the art of self-awareness, as does your textbook’s discussion.

Now, think about yourself, and reflect on what differences distinguish you and would help you in living and acting on the basis of your core values.

When I read the article about authentic self-expression, it made me think of a conversation I had with a new guy in our group. He had come in straight from college and was a really enthusiastic and inquisitive learner. He and I are still good friends to this day. I trained him for the first six months of his employment at Boeing and every day, even Fridays, traditionally a pretty casual dress-down day, he wore button-down shirts or polo shirts with khaki or black dress pants. It was a very professional look and that’s great but when you work in the environment where we work, a fabrication plant that is almost a million square feet big full of aluminum mills and chemical tanks, it might be good to dress down a little. In my experience, it has always helped me connect with people when I look like I have the same level job as they do. When I worked in supply chain management, I was a coordinator for the entire Puget Sound area. When I started showing up on jobs sites in jeans, steel-toed boots and Carhart jackets because I was tired of dry-cleaning my clothes, I noticed that suddenly I was received as a peer. The walls came down and I learned a lot more about my customer and how to better help them. They called me instead of their assigned sales-person because they felt more comfortable doing that. I realized that I was entering their culture, the culture of some crusty old electricians who were grizzly and curmudgeonly, and if I came at them from any kind of authority figure angle, then that is the relationship we would have. But when I came at them as a peer, those crusty old electricians would open up and tell me totally inappropriate, but absolutely hilarious, jokes and would even share information with me. It just made so much sense to me.

Back to the new hire…I asked him why he always wore khakis and was so buttoned up when we worked in such a filthy environment and he said that he just did. It probably felt safe and like the image he wanted to present…and that is perfectly fine! It didn’t make him any better or worse at his job. I must say too that when I have meetings with leadership, I present myself in a more professional attire because I want to add credibility to what I'm reporting on or discussing. It seems like a bit of a chameleon game but it feels like the right thing to do...but is it authentic?

Goffee and Jones talked about Bill Gates and how his image of “geekiness” was actually what made him stand out. “Gates’s consistent display of his ‘geekiness’ tells us something very important about him and his company.” (Goffee, 2006) Bill Gates is the ultimate computer nerd and his image reiterates that. It also gives him credibility in his industry. If he looked like and had the swagger of George Clooney – his computer skills might be suspect. Why? Because surely this guy with this swagger did not spend every Friday night in high school and college working on computer code. No one would believe that he nerded out with his techy friends and wasn’t at “Make-out Point” with Betty or Tammy or Susie. With Bill Gates, his “geekiness” is authentic and people can get on board with that image. “What characterizes effective leaders is a sense of what works for them with others.” (Goffee, 2006) The adaptability and understanding of what is needed to best connect with people is the self-awareness that makes people memorable. “Adaptation is enhanced by accurate interpretation of information about the environment[.]” (Yukl, 2013)

I watched a documentary on Steve Jobs (Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine) this week and his appearance changed several times in his tenure(s) at Apple. He started out looking like all of the other programmers in jeans and a t-shirt, he even looked uncomfortable in a suit in one of the early interviews. Even though he was eventually worth millions, he didn’t change to the “corporate” attire until the Apple IPO happened. Then, towards the end of his life, and coincidentally with the birth of the iPod, he simplified his look to the blue jeans, tennis shoes and a black mock-turtleneck that we are all familiar with. “In his signature black turtleneck and blue jeans, shrouded in shadows below a milky apple, Steve Jobs' image was ubiquitous. But who was the man on the stage? What accounted for the grief of so many across the world when he died?” (Gibney, 2015) This look was aesthetically simple, just like the iPod, iPhone, iPad and iTouch that Apple still produce today. Was it intentional - self-awareness? Was this his zen or was it just part of the marketing? Whatever the answer, it was effective and people remember him for it more than some of the less ethical (or totally unethical) things he did. “Jobs aimed for the simplicity that comes from conquering, rather than merely ignoring, complexity.” (Isaacson, 2012)

Maybe that’s the lesson here – self-awareness is about understanding yourself as a leader and as a person. It’s about digging down to the most core values in the most simplistic and authentic terms. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and even George Clooney (I’m guessing) all have a deeper understanding of who they want to be, what they value and they make it simple and organic. Maybe that’s why I have trouble sometimes with my own self-awareness – I’m always assimilating and adapting to be like the people I interact with in order to create a connection based on similarities which aren’t necessarily my authentic self. Although, my own core values are about kindness and helping others so perhaps that fits right in with how I understand what works best for me with others.

References:

Gibney A. (Producer), Gibney A. (Director). (2015). Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine [Motion Picture]. United States: CNN Films.

Goffee R., Jones G. (April, 2012) Getting personal on the topic of leadership. Human Resource Management International Digest. Vol. 14. No 4. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Isaacson W. (April 2012) The real leadership lessons of steve jobs. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2012/04/the-real-leadership-lessons-of-steve-jobs

Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

A511.6.3.RB - Meaning

Consider the following quotes and the associated HBR blog:

Dave and Wendy Ulrich, co-authors of The Why of Work have said, “In organizations, meaning and abundance are more about what we do with what we have than about what we have to begin with.”

In his famous book Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl posits that it "is a peculiarity of man that he must have something significant yet to do in his life, for that is what gives meaning to life" (2004, p. 56).

Kouzes and Posner write in The Leadership Challenge: "The executive must find a way to communicate the vision in a way that attracts and excites members of the organization" (1987, p. 106).

See the Harvard Business Review blog entitled Getting Beyond Engagement to Creating Meaning at Work (Links to an external site.)

Now, reflect on what you have read and viewed and what it means when we say that leaders must create a “cause” or "meaning." Relate this to the theory of leading change. Use examples and apply the work of others where necessary.

The theory of leading change is so relevant in the world today. People used to get a job, stay in it for 25 or 30 (or more) years, and retire with that gold watch and pension. They did some version of the same job in the same industry the entire time. Then came Generation X and our grunge music, plaid shirts, and slacker attitudes. “Generation X was once thought to be a generation of 'slackers' as the influence of multiple television stations, video games, and computers came to be a large part of their cultural identity.” (McKay, 2003-2016) However, we grew up with a more global view and when the Berlin wall fell in 1989, we saw the possibilities of a world undivided. We (as I am a Gen Xer) didn’t get a job and stick with it right away, yes, some of us served our country right after high school and are now getting ready to retire but some of us took our time in deciding how we wanted to contribute to the world. This made us more open to change and the idea of reinventing ourselves became a normal thing (thank you Madonna). Now that we are mostly in our late 30’s and 40’s we have the opportunities to be the leaders in our chosen fields. Leading change is something that takes a deep understanding of systemic issues as well as the natural resistance to change most people have. “[Leading change] involves guiding, encouraging, and facilitating the collective efforts of members to adapt and survive in a sometimes hostile environment.” (Yukl, 2013)

My generation grew up with change, heck, we saw the world as we knew it completely change again and again. “Generation X leaders thrive on change; are fair, competent and straightforward; are very adaptable, flexible; and hate being micro-managed.” (Williams, 2010) We also know that to lead change, we have to give that change meaning. Leaders have to not only help organizations understand why they need the change but really understand and embody that change themselves. It is important that those who lead change can succinctly articulate this meaning and how this change will impact our lives and the business. “People create the meaning of their work and their lives, and that process requires skill and practice, not just luck.” (Ulrich, 2010) Leaders today are faced with not just one generation of workers but three, the Baby Boomers, Gen X, and the Millennials. We all have very different views about what “being at work” means. In my organization, I work with a lot of Baby Boomers who are still very ambitious and driven. They seem restless, like if they aren’t busy then they aren’t really working. We do have some Boomers who are masters of their universes and hold court at their desks bestowing all kinds of wisdom upon anyone who happens by but these folks are the exception. (They are great to learn from but not great in a meeting with a time constraint. Ahem.) But those who seem restless, make me nervous. I’m still a bit of the slacker mentality when it comes to work. Not that I don’t work hard or fast, it’s just that I just don’t need to have everyone see me busy. I don’t need to create work for myself to feel like I’m contributing. It makes me think of when I was in marching band and we needed an extra trumpet player, the band director would grab one of the flag girls and have her play the part. She wore the uniform, knew the steps, held that trumpet like she was born with it, and even moved her fingers…but she didn’t play a note…she wasn’t really doing anything musical. Millennials come in as interns and expect to be my boss by the end of the summer. Sigh.

I’ve gotten so far off track what this blog entry was supposed to be about. My apologies. Coincidentally, I started reading Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning” during the Christmas holidays on my Mom’s recommendation. (According to my Kindle, I’m 79% finished.) His book has really started to trickle into my daily thoughts and how I react to things. He gave a perspective that I could never even think of comprehending but his theory is meaningful in every aspect of life. I can’t speak for my entire generation, but for the most part, we aren’t as motivated by money and stature as the previous generations because we have seen how fleeting it is. We are motivated to change by what that change means to us and our values. If a leader can tell me why a change is meaningful, even if it’s just meaningful on a level that isn’t on my list of values, then I want to help them. If a leader can tell me why something is important, personally, professionally, or both, then I can understand the scope and how my skill set fits into that change. I know this post is already way too long but this is a real issue that I’m dealing with at work. There are senior managers telling, not asking, telling us to remove days of flow from their product lines. When we ask them why, we are “combative” and “surly” when we just want to understand where this request is coming from so that we may tackle it in the most meaningful way. To be completely honest, I don’t think they know why. I don’t trust that the leadership in my organization understands the processes and products we use every day and even worse, I don’t think they care to. They hear about a “progressive” process in another business unit and assume that it can be applied to our system just because they say it can. They want us to make changes because they say to not because it has meaning or impact on the systems. Back to my rant as a Gen Xer, I need to understand why I’m doing what I’m doing. I’m going to ask why because I need meaning in my life, I need to understand how I fit into the picture, why it should be important to me. It feels like we are going backwards into a very autocratic leadership style and people are not liking it at all. Leadership is not leading change in our organization, they are forcing change. “Those who succeed at creating meaning […] tend to work harder, more creatively, and with more tenacity, giving the companies that employ them a leg up in the marketplace.” (Ulrich, 2010) Just prove to me, the worker, that you, the leader, understands why the change is meaningful and we’ll move mountains together.

Resources:

Mckay, A. (2003 – 2016) Generation X: Definition & Characteristics Chapter 9.Lesson 11. Study.com. http://study.com/academy/lesson/generation-x-definition-characteristics-quiz.html

Ulrich D., Ulrich W. (June 2, 2010) Getting beyond engagement to creating meaning at work. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2010/06/getting-beyond-engagement-to-c

Williams. R. (July 4, 2010).Is it time for Generation X to lead us? PsychologyToday.com 1991-2016 Sussex Publishers, LLC | HealthProfs.com © 2002-2016 Sussex Directories, Inc. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201007/is-it-time-generation-x-lead-us

Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

A511.5.3.RB – Remote Transformational Leadership

Think about the following subjects:

·         What was the point of the research?

·         What were the hypotheses?

·         What was the research method used?

·         Were the results supportive of the research goals?

·         Of what value was the research?

Your reflective blog should summarize the research and its results and analyze the value of the research within the context of this week's assigned materials relating to transformational leadership theory.

The point of the first research done was to elevate the study of transformational leadership from just face-to-face interactions and include remote conversations such as e-mail. “[L]eaders increasingly rely on technologically-based communications with subordinates including the use of electronic mail (e-mail) and video/teleconferencing.” (Kelloway et al, 2003) The hypothesis was that subordinates reacted to remote leadership differently. The effects of laissez-faire remote leadership would really be no different than if the leader was present and that the management-by-exception remote leadership would have a negative reaction by subordinates. The other aspect of this study was that an e-mail communicated in a transformational leadership manner would elicit positive results. The method would be used of creating a vignette to reflect an e-mail that would focus on the “consequences of mistakes” (Kelloway et al, 2003). These vignettes were responses by the three different leadership styles to a mistake made and reported. These vignettes were read by eight graduate students who had taken a transformational leadership class.

The results were supportive of the research goals. The students could interpret the different styles of leadership through the remote communication and that the transformational leadership vignette garnered a greater sense of “Interpersonal justice and satisfaction.” (Kelloway et al, 2003)

The second study was to determine if there was a “firm basis for inferring that remote leadership can be effective.” (Kelloway et al, 2003)  The study was to study how remote leadership impacts motivation and performance. It also studied the effects remote transformational leadership on intellectual stimulation and charisma. “Intellectual stimulation is behavior that influences followers to view problems from a new perspective and look for more creative solutions.” (Yukl, 2013) The method was a laboratory-based and similar to a “NASA exercise.” The participants were given a list of survival tasks that they had to, individually and then as a randomly chosen group, prioritize based on the message from the leader. Specifically, a list “containing either a charismatic, intellectually stimulating, neutral (neither charismatic nor stimulating) or transformational (both charismatic and stimulating) message.” (Kelloway et al, 2003)

The results were that there was no change from either groups based on charisma or no charisma. The participants who received an intellectually stimulating message did feel more intellectually stimulated though. Motivation was higher in the intellectually stimulated group and the individual performance was better too. The massage with charisma had no impact on motivation but evidently had some effect on the individual. Ultimately, the study “suggests that remote transformational leadership can still have the same positive effects on performance and attitudes that occurs within face-to-face interaction…electronically mediated communication channels may be used convey the same leadership “message” as in face-to-face interaction.” (Kelloway et al, 2003)

The value of both research studies was to evaluate remote transformational leadership and its impacts on modern business environments. The era when all of the workers are positioned at a table or desk in front of the boss’s glass front office is basically gone and now leaders have subordinates who work remotely from other locations or even other continents. The ability to convey a message that gives the right tone and meaning without actually interacting face-to-face is imperative to effective leadership today. “Transforming leadership appeals to the moral values of followers in an attempt to raise consciousness about ethical issues and to mobilize their energy and resources to reform institutions.” (Yukl, 2013) This is very relevant and exciting. With the on-set of Skype and videoconferencing, effective remote transformational leadership is coming even more prevalent. It would be interesting to see these studies with videoconferencing added into the mix.

Resources:

Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J., Kelley, E., Comtois, J., Gatien, B. (2003) Remote transformational leadership. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal Vol. 24, No.3, 2003. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

A511.4.3.RB - Leadership Traits

Reflect on the week’s readings and content. In your own words, summarize key points related to managerial motivation, traits, and effectiveness.

Then assess your own leadership skills, traits, and competencies. Where are you strong? How can you leverage those strengths to improve your value to organizations like your employer? How might contingency theory and situational variables assist in that process?

Some personal traits are important to aspects of effective leadership. “[A]spects of personality, temperament, needs, motives and values” (Kukl, 2013) that shape who we are and why we do what we do can impact the kind of leader we’ll be. Traits such as self-confidence, extroversion, emotional maturity, and energy level are commonly thought of a desirable traits in a leader. There must be a balance though. An extrovert who has strong self-confidence and a high need for power can derail a team by alienating those on the team who have less self-confidence and are more introverted. Those who aren’t emotionally mature, but have a strong achievement motivation and are narcissistic will probably make some incredible sales but will inevitably put their own needs ahead of the organization’s and will also derail. Balancing achievement needs with emotional maturity, understanding technical and conceptual skills and interpersonal skills will bring success without alienation and collaboration instead of intimidation. “Because everything a leader says and does (or leaves unsaid or undone) has an effect on his associates, his true self will, in time, show through.” (Yukl, 2013) If a manager or anyone in a perceived leadership position, or even a perceived position of authority believes that what they say or do, even in a social setting, won’t affect the team dynamics, they are wrong.

Similar to a litmus test for acids and alkaline, all high numbers or all low numbers can have devastating results. Super high acidity can be part of a process to etch metal so that paint can adhere and strength can be added. However, I also learned in the Boeing High Hazard Chemical Access training I took last week that high acidity can also burn the flesh of a human on a cellular level. “Phosphoric acid anodizing is basically used for structural adhesive bonding in high-humidity environments.” (Juhl, 2010) High self-confidence will come across as arrogant and reckless but not enough self-confidence and a leader will not have any influence or gain any authority with their teams. In life, with personality traits and leadership traits, as it is in nature, balance is essential.

Kukl has given several guidelines for managers on how to achieve that balance. One of the main bits of advice that I think is essential is maintaining a high level of self-awareness. “Self-awareness includes a good understanding of one’s own needs, emotions, abilities, and behavior.” (Kukl, 2013) He also discusses how a leader should be aware of their strengths and weaknesses and understand that some perceived strengths can become weaknesses. Self-awareness is definitely a strength but I would think that if I were to become overly self-aware, then I would question my needs and behaviors to the point of self-sabotage and inaction.

When thinking about my own leadership skills I had to really take an honest look at where I am in that journey. In my first true test of leadership, I let people down because of my low emotional maturity. I was unintentionally narcissistic which led me to believe that my decisions were always right. My self-confidence and internal locust of control were both at all-time lows and it was very tough to climb out of that chasm. Today, I am a lot more cautious and realistic with how I perceive my own leadership skills. I have a more mature emotional intelligence and stability, low stress tolerance, a need for affiliation that is at a much lower level than it was when I was younger, self-awareness and personal integrity. Most of these traits are at moderate levels. I have a low power motivation because that has not ended well for me in the past and frankly, once bitten twice shy. I do have a moderate social power orientation as defined by Kukl, “Managers with a socialized power orientation are more emotionally mature. They exercise power more for the benefit of others, are hesitant about using power in a manipulative manner, are less egotistic and defensive, have a longer-range view, and are more willing to take advice from people with relevant experience.”  (Kukl, 2013) I omitted the part about material possessions because I have six airplane models, four figurines, a coffee maker, plants and other minutia at my desk so I guess I’m working on that.

I think to be more effective to my organization, I really need to work on my energy level and stress tolerance. “Physical vitality and emotional resilience make it easier to cope with stressful interpersonal situations, such as a punitive boss, troubled subordinate, an uncooperative peer, or a hostile client.” (Kukl, 2013) I am not the picture of physical vitality or emotional resilience yet, but I am getting better. Two years ago, in a status meeting with my peers, out of frustration, I stood up, threw my hands up in anger and said (well, kind of yelled), “You know what? Do what you want. I don’t give a sh*t!” and stormed off. Later I apologized and I realized that I was letting myself become someone I wasn’t okay with  (professionally or personally) out of exhaustion and frustration. I felt like I was being pulled in too many directions and was completely out of control and dysfunctional. In a way, the peers and I actually became closer after that because we were able to be completely forthcoming from that point on. I think I was lucky not to end up in HR but going back to the Kanter video, I was not zooming out at all and everything was very personal.

I also think that my ability to understand the balance needed between technical skills and conceptual skills is a benefit to my organization. I am happy to go to the shop and talk to the people who do the technical work in order to apply real-life variables to the applications I try to estimate. This is important because when managers leave out the technical skills when making a decision, they are running the risk of project scope creep at best and complete disaster at worst. The director we have now implemented huge takt-time boards in our shop where we’ve had electronic real-time takt-time boards for at least three years. He did not consult with the industrial engineering community or with the people expected to maintain these boards. If he had, he would have known that this is about the seventh iteration of the area boards and that all of the iterations before ended up pushed against the walls collecting dust. Even if he had still decided to go with the boards, he would have been able to understand from us, the technical skill people, what had failed before and how we could incorporate current practices with his ideas. He did none of those things showing a very high level of self-confidence and achievement motivation but an almost non-existent learning ability. If I were in his shoes, in order to be an effective leader, I would look to the “cognitive resources contingency theory” in order to grow and adapt to each situation. Cognitive resources theory is, “the conditions under which cognitive resources such as intelligence and experience are related to group performance.” (Kukl, 2013) This would work with the variables of cooperation and teamwork especially as a new director within an industry of which I was unfamiliar. I’d put all of my efforts into understanding the factory’s processes from a technical standpoint, even at a high level of detail, so that I could make very effective and hopefully collaborative decisions instead of just “innovative” or “progressive” decisions that have worked in other factories.

Leadership traits and contingency theories must, above all, be able to adapt and change for each situation. Every day something different can happen that will change everything and an effective leader will know how to adapt to solve the problems by understanding the technical aspects of the work performed, the big-picture visions, and their own personal strengths and weakness.

Resources:

Juhl, D.A. (February 1, 2010). Anodizing for aerospace:101. AluConsult, LCC. San Diego, Calif. http://www.materialstoday.com/metal-finishing/features/anodizing-for-aerospace-101/

Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

A511.3.3.RB - Power and Influence

A511.3.3.RB – Power and Influence

1. Everyone possesses and exercises power of some kind within the context of relationships. For this reflective exercise, first demonstrate your knowledge of the theory of power and influence (Hint: See the learning objectives on page 185 of your text).

Influence is how leaders are able to get people to come together and work toward a common goal. Power is how leaders are able to influence people. Power can be defined as having influence over an individual or multiple individuals and it can vary in degrees. “[P]ower is a dynamic variable that changes as condition changes.” (Yukl, 2013) The sources of power, according to our text, are Legitimate, Reward, Coercive, Referent, Expert, Information, and Ecological. Understanding how and when to use power is essential for managers/leaders. In most business situations, understanding how and when to use legitimate power as a manager will make a more effective leader. Using politeness and compassion when working with subordinates and will most likely garner a desired result. Being polite doesn’t mean being best friends or a push-over, it is being assertive without having to be a jerk. Explaining the reasons behind the request, being clear about expectations, following the approved channels and not overstepping the scope of authority are other ways to use this power effectively. Using reward power is the basic, “If you do this for me, I’ll give you this or will do this for you.” The important things to remember are that the agent should offer a reward that is relevant and appropriate, explain the rules and requirements, and deliver the rewards when requirements are met fairly and without being shady. Coercive power should be used to maintain order within a team. Explaining the rules and requirements clearly, expectations understandable, and responding to non-compliance quickly and fairly are ways to use coercive power. A manager should never jump to conclusions when a mistake is made, get the whole story, help the target to correct issue in order to avoid punishment and issue an unbiased punishment yourself if necessary.  Expert power is very relevant in my line of work. We must be able to influence our targets with expert power that consists of complete and concise information as to why we have reached a conclusion and propose changes or improvements. We don’t make knee-jerk reactions, we listen to the end user or target to make sure the solution is mutually beneficial and intelligent, and we do not manipulate data or make outlandish statements or promises. Data integrity is how we are able to best do our jobs or use our expert power to influence decision makers. Within each of these power types are ways to effectively use the power and consequences if the power is abused, these are the influence processes. These processes are able to happen independently or simultaneously. The first is Instrumental Compliance and is when a subordinate (or target) carries out a task to obtain a reward or to avoid punishment. This kind of influence makes me think of the power of correctional facility guards. They have a limited power and their influence stems from their ability to give and take privileges from the prisoners. This doesn’t mean that the prisoners are willing to obey every command; they usually do the very minimum they have to in order to earn the rewards and since they are already in prison, additional punishment is usually not a huge threat. Internalization is when a target becomes committed to a project because it aligns with their own value system. This is similar to a person who works on a political campaign. A lot of the people in the campaign headquarters are volunteers and will carry out tasks and put in long hours because even though the reward may be intangible, it is important to them. Personal Identification is when a target complies with the request because of a need for acceptance. An example of this type of influence could be a sorority or fraternity at a college. Most college students are living away from their parents for the first time and finding a sisterhood or brotherhood to “belong” to is very attractive. A sorority or fraternity requires a “pledge” to perform certain tasks which the target willingly does in the hopes that he or she will be accepted into the “family.” This will also help their self-esteem and feeling of security needs. There are also several types of Influence Tactics which are tactics used to influence an outcome. Impression Management Tactics is commonly known as “the first impression” influence, people want other people to accept them so they manage their attitudes and influences in a manner that makes them look favorable to the target. A person interviewing for a job will use impression management tactics in the interview in order to make them look like a good fit for the job. Political tactics are influences on organizational decisions and other important issues that are important to the agent. When someone is an advocate for a policy change or personal interest groups, they use political tactics to garner favorable support from the target individual or group. Proactive tactics are influences that have an immediate objective for change. “The tactics can be used also to resist or modify a request made by someone who is attempting to influence you.” (Yukl, 2013) Rational persuasion, and Ingratiation are two examples of proactive influence tactics. All of these powers and influences have the ability to be misused for personal gain or organizational partialities. Once a trust is broken or power abused, future compliance is minimal and not to the best effort of the target or targets. The simplest way to say it is, “Once bitten, twice shy.” Leaders who do not respect the power and influence of power and influence are ineffective and not respected.

2. Then, reflect on the power that you personally bring to your work place (if you are not employed, think about an organization of which you are part…such as your family or your church).

·         What are the sources of that power?

·         What is the nature of that power?

·         How is it used or not used?

·         How is that power related to your ability to lead or follow?

I have thought a lot about my own personal power and influence. At first, I couldn’t think of any power or influence that I had but when I read through again about expert power and the proactive influence tactics I saw that they aligned with my role at Boeing. As an industrial engineer I have expert power because I collect and analyze data on a daily basis. We monitor changes in trends and make note of the consequences of decisions from working overtime to buying a new mill. Our data helps the managers run their areas effectively and we are constantly looking for process improvement opportunities based on time studies and observations of processes and trends. We are currently working on the project to buy two new mills for an extruded product. We currently have four mills and are replacing two of them in October 2017. In 2014 and 2015, that seemed like plenty of time, to the leadership, for us to prepare and pull-ahead parts for when we are down 50% capacity and senior leaders continuously pushed the priority of this project down under other projects that were “urgent” but not “important.” We knew that it wasn't plenty of time and studied and analyzed numbers and based on how long of a lead time we’ll have to take out the existing mills, prepare the cement for the new “footprint” of the new mills, install the new mills, run parts for inspection, and finally run production parts is approximately 24 months. We should have started our pull-ahead 6 months ahead of that. We should have started this last summer. We presented our plan over a year ago but were trumped by "urgent" things. So now, we’re in meetings where we find out that the purchase order for these mills hasn’t been dropped yet, and the managers are complaining that we haven't even looked to outsource the needed capacity to make up for the delays. The reality is that we held a supplier conference last year to vet the suppliers willing to mill this unique parts but haven't received any bids because no one (those managers) has authorized buying material for the suppliers to test. (Proprietary extrusion) Our influence was non-existent even though we had all of the facts and data. The folks with the legitimate and coercive (albeit uninformed) power won out with what can only be described as political tactics. So, even though I have expert power because I can present a strong case backed by facts and data, I don’t always have the influence to accomplish my goals. Sometimes, the tail wags the dog and we just don’t win...however, when we do...it is very sweet!

As I was thinking about this, I was looking out at the great Pacific Ocean and the Oregon coastline. This made my problems and issues seem very small and insignificant. I think it’s good for a person to have that reality check from time to time, the reality of how small and fragile we are and that no matter what we do or choose in life, the earth will still be here and the ocean will still follow its tides. However, this time it made writing this reflection blog a struggle. I thought about the power of the waves on the earth (erosion) and the influence of the moon on those powerful waves (tides) and understood that even in nature, there has to be a balance of power and influence in order to accomplish something or to be effective. I also thought that even targets or subordinates have power and influence just as managers or agents do. If an agent is an ineffective manager, the targets have the power to leave. Targets have power in that they too are the experts at their jobs and know it better than anyone. When a manager tries to influence them, they can resist with clear and intelligent arguments. When there is a balance, or a mutual respect and understanding, morale is higher and organizations become more productive.  

Finally, if it applies, have you experienced high quality LMX (Leader-Member exchange) situations within your workplace which are dysfunctional in the sense that Othamn et al describe in the extra reading material for this module?

I think that every organization has high quality LMX situations, it just depends on the degree to which they are perpetrated. In the extra reading material, the LMX theory, “basically argues that leaders develop differentiated dyadic relationships with their subordinates.” (Othamn, et al, 2010) This “favoritism” can cause unbalance in a group and create unnecessary tensions within a team. Where I work, we have a senior manager who came in from another business unit within Boeing. She’s been with Boeing for almost 30 years and has a lot of experience to bring to the table. Unfortunately, she is also loud, manipulative, obnoxious, and just plain disrespectful of colleagues and subordinates. I think she thinks it’s okay because after she belittles someone or throws someone under the bus, she will come up to them later and call them, “Sweetie” or some such and complement their clothes or the presentation she has just ripped to shreds. For some reason, our new director thinks this senior manager can do no wrong. She seems to be the director’s favorite (Based on her demonstrated ability to do pretty much what she wants.) and my assumption is that she tells him what he wants to hear and frankly, she is a little scary. She is bipolar at best and a sociopath at worst. This is the highest degree of LMX that I have experienced.

References:

Othman, R., Ee,F.F., Shi, N.G. (2010) Understanding dysfunctional leader-member exchange: antecedents and outcomes. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal Vol. 31, No.4, 2010. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.