A640.6.4.RB - Authentic Leadership

A640.6.4.RB - Authentic Leadership

 

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

 

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

 

Using the elements of thought, walk through the two statements above and compare and contrast the assumptions and implications of two such differing schools of thought.

 

The schools of thought that make up the above statements are not both about authentic leadership. The first statement is about authentic leadership. The mention of modeling honesty, integrity, and high ethical standards is exactly what authentic leadership is about. The second statement is about critics ascribing authentic leadership as just another way to manipulate their employees means that the critics have completely missed the point.

 

If a leader is manipulating or deceiving their employees then they are not authentic leaders. Therefore, the critics are wrong. Even if a person says, “Hey, I’m an authentic leader.” but goes out and cheats his staff, misleads his bosses, and lies to his customers – he is not an authentic leader. You get what you see with authentic leaders. Manipulation, game-playing, backstabbing, and hidden agendas are inconsistent with authenticity. (Rockwell, 2016) Being an authentic leader isn’t about labeling oneself as such. Being an authentic leader is letting your actions prove your authenticity. Anyone can say that they are a servant leader, or an authentic leader, or a resonant leader…you can say that you are Harry Houdini all day long but unless you can prove it – it’s not true.  Unless you walk the talk and model the behaviors of an authentic leader – you are not an authentic leader. If you are misleading your team – you are not an authentic leader. If you are manipulating and deceiving your employees – you are not an authentic leader.

 

An authentic leader, as described in the first statement, being a leader who models honestly, integrity, and high ethical standards. It is also defined in our text as be a style 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, helpful, optimistic, resilient, transparent, moral/ethical, future-oriented, and gives priority to developing associates to be leaders. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) This is a lot to live up to – high standards for sure. Being an authentic leader isn’t easy and not everyone who attempts to model these behaviors is 100% successful. It is important to be authentic to yourself and do what you can. If you act like you’re an authentic leader but you are not being authentic to yourself – then you have also missed the point - it is an “all-in” proposition. It takes personal confidence to let yourself be seen. Authentic leaders are “seen” when they declare their beliefs, thoughts, motivations, and intentions. (Rockwell, 2016)

 

The two statements above talk about a style of leadership but only one is actually talking about authentic leadership.

 

 References:

 

Rockwell, D. (2016). Authenticity is at least four things. Leadership Freak. Retrieved from https://leadershipfreak.blog/2016/03/09/authenticity-is-at-least-four-things/

 

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2013). Cases in leadership (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

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

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

 

Individuals are willing to work harder than required for leaders who invest in their relationship because that’s what people need – relationships – to feel as though they make a difference or that they have an impact, however meager, on their organization. When leaders seek out people and work to make their interactions meaningful and positive it just helps everyone involved. People know when leadership is invested in them or not, if they are in the in-group or the out-group. In the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership, there is an in-group and an out-group.

The in-group relationships are marked with mutual trust; respect, liking, and reciprocal influence…members of the in-group are generally given more responsibility, more participation in decision making, more interesting job assignments, more tangible rewards, and more support in career advancement. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) When an employee sees that a leader or mentor or someone they respect has invested in their work and in them as a person, they see the leader/follower boundaries as bigger and brighter than originally thought so of course they are going to put into that relationship more than is required. When someone believes in you, you want to make sure that they have put their belief in the right person. The effort put into that relationship is the responsibility of both parties though.

The out-group members do what is required to keep their jobs and no more. They will not go the extra mile that is often required to achieve higher levels of effectiveness. Out-group members work strictly within the guidelines governing organizational roles with their leaders and only do the minimum necessary. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) The question that resonates in my head while reading this is, “But why?” Why do people pull back into their shells and refuse to do more than is required to keep their jobs? This brings to mind people who are jaded and who have perhaps once been part of the in-group but disillusioned by a less than honest leader.

 Personally, I have been part of both groups. When I’ve been part of an in-group, I felt a higher obligation to the company to do more than my best whenever possible. I also felt a stronger sense of ownership and autonomy. This is because I knew that people expected more from me – they had put their faith in me to be my very best self for the company. When part of the out-group I felt left behind and as if my very existence didn’t matter one way or another. I used more of my sick leave than I needed to and really didn’t give my best to the work. I also didn’t express interest in being part of the in-group. A person is willing to invest in you if you are willing to do the work. This works both ways – as a leader willing to invest in a follower or a follower willing to invest in the leader – you both have to do the work. I have had leaders who have promised to help with my career development only to disappoint me when opportunities to take classes or be part of a workshop that would give me critical experience by giving it to someone else – or to take it for themselves.  

Obviously I prefer to be in the in-group and I know that when I’m in the in-group, I have to work to stay in the in-group. The implications of being in the in-group are that you are held to a higher standard because you have demonstrated that you can adhere to the higher standard. You can be trusted and counted on to do your work and then some. Leadership sees this potential in someone who exhibits this initiative and works to develop them into leaders as well. Organizations that want to boost employee engagement should start by cultivating more inclusive leaders. These executives will need to spend time looking not only at demographic breakdowns but also at the people in front them. Interest and attention help employees thrive. (David, 2014)

 

References:

 

David, S. (2014). Inclusiveness means giving every employee personal attention HBR.org. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/06/inclusiveness-means-giving-every-employee-personal-attention

 

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2013). Cases in leadership (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

A640.4.4.RB - Developing a Case (Post event analysis)

A640.4.4.RB - Developing a Case (Post event analysis)

In this reflection blog, you will analyze what you have just done and provide your thoughts on the assignment. Some of the things to consider/questions to answer while completing your reflection blog are as follows.

Did the assignment help you in your understanding and analysis of cases?

This assignment definitely helped me see how difficult creating case studies really is. My process was to read through the material for this week and decide on a leadership theory that I thought I could do a case study for. I chose contingency theory leadership. Contingency theory inadvertently assumes that styles are behaviors that cannot be influenced or modified. (Gupta, 2009) Contingency theory of leadership assumes that the leader’s style is relatively stable and should be matched to the most appropriate situation for the leader’s style. (Rowe & Guerrero, 2013) As it turns out, this is a very complex, and highly debated, leadership theory. It doesn’t allow for flexibility or development of leadership and thus is not a one shoe fits all kind of theory. I was able to use my experience and have a pretty good example of how having the wrong person in a role can be just a horrible experience. That maybe understanding that whether you use the contingency theory or any other leadership theory out there, it’s important to think about people choices when promoting leaders and others to leadership positions. Just because they are an excellent technician doesn’t mean they are automatically leadership material.

In light of this exercise, what are some of the issues that are pertinent to case study development?

Case study development needs to have a subject, the case to study – which needs to be relatable and detailed, learning points, critical thinking points, and additional resources for help in the analytical process.  A case study must have an introduction and background information about what it is that is being studied. What concept is being analyzed and why.

What did you learn through completing this assignment?

Personally, I learned that I’m better at analyzing case studies than coming up with a whole case study on my own. This was a difficult assignment and although I struggled quite a bit with this, I think the more comfortable I got with both the subject and the case study process, I’d be able to be more effective at the whole thing. When we’re given a case study to look at and analyze it’s more about what details are already there. When we have to actually create one it’s about the details but also about making sure you have all of the essential elements so that it somewhat makes sense.

References:

Gupta, A. (2009). Contingent Leadership. Practical Management. Retrieved from http://www.practical-management.com/Leadership-Development/Contingent-Leadership.html

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2013). Cases in leadership (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.