Adaptive and Psychodynamic Approaches to Leadership

            The first leadership theory this week is the adaptive leadership theory.  This theory is unique in that its focus is on the followers and not the leader.  The definition of adaptive leadership is “the practice of mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive” (Heifetz, et. al., 2009, p. 14).  To me this means that a leader is to train their followers and then give them an environment to be free to make decisions and solve problems.  The adaptive approach is there not to have the leader solve the problems, but to encourage their followers to do the problem solving (Heifetz, 1994).  I am sure we have all had leaders who were horrible at micro-managing.  When I was in the Navy I experienced multiple leaders who would not give those below them the freedom to solve problems and make decisions they were more than capable of doing.  I never understood why they would train us so well and not give us the freedom to do our jobs.  This approach frees up the leader to oversee multiple tasks or people freely without having to worry about the day-to-day challenges their followers are more than capable of handling on their own. 

            Adaptive leadership has three major components in its model that include situational challenges, leader behaviors, and adaptive work.  We will look at situational challenges first and discuss the different ones and what they are.  Technical challenges are problems that are capable of being solved within an organization with rules and procedures that are already in place (Northouse, 2016).  These challenges are ones where there are people in place that are capable of solving them and a leader needs to identify those people and allow them to do their jobs.  The next challenge is both technical and adaptive.  Technical and adaptive challenges are ones where they are known challenges, but there are not any procedures or solutions in place within the organization (Northouse, 2016).  The organization knows there is a problem and even knows what that is, but there are no current guidelines within the organization to solve them.  Last there are challenges that are only adaptive.  Adaptive challenges are not clearly defined, cannot be solved by the leader, and require the leader to encourage others to define them and implement solutions (Northouse, 2016). 

            The next part of the adaptive leadership model is the leader behaviors.  These behaviors will help the leader to assist their followers in adapting to challenges and changes they will encounter (Heifetz, 1994).  The leadership behaviors are (Northouse, 2016):

1. Get on the Balcony: stepping back and viewing the situation from the outside instead of being involved.
2. Identify Adaptive Challenges: analyze the challenges and differentiate between those that are technical and the ones that are adaptive.
3. Regulate Distress: monitor and keep the stress of followers within a productive range.
4. Maintain Disciplined Attention: keep your followers focused on the tough work they need to do.
5. Give the Work Back to the People: leader should be attentive to when it is appropriate to step back and let their followers do the work.
6. Protect Leadership Voices from Below: listen to the ideas of everyone in the group even if they are not well thought of. 

It is important for a leader to see the big picture, provide an atmosphere that allows the workers to do their jobs, and listen to the ideas of their followers regardless of how irrational or unrealistic they seem.  The final part of the adaptive leadership model is adaptive work.  Adaptive work is “creating a holding environment, a space created and maintained by adaptive leaders where people can feel secure as they confront and resolve difficult life challenges” (Northouse, 2016, p. 292).

            The next leadership theory is also one very different from the previous ones we have discussed in this forum.  The psychodynamic approach to leadership is relatively new and also somewhat confusing.  Psychodynamic is defined as “the psychology of mental or emotional forces or processes developing especially in early childhood and their effects on behavior and mental states” (Merriam-Webster, 2016).  A child’s mind is very liquid and much of our preconceived notions are developed when we are very young.  The psychodynamic leadership approach concentrates on the “irrational processes and dynamics governing human behavior” (Northouse, 2016, p. 324).  This is an interesting approach to leadership because it does not focus on traits, over behaviors, or things we learn.  The focus is on the way leaders look at situations based on inner beliefs they may not even realize are coming out in their behavior. 

            The adaptive and psychodynamic approaches to leadership are by far the most unique covered so far.  They both take different angles to leadership than any of the previous theories.  The more I learn about different leadership theories them more interested I become.  I hope to post again and dive deeper into the psychodynamic approach, but as of right now I do not feel I comprehend it enough to speak on it too much.  Sometime in the near future I will try to elaborate more on the psychodynamic approach in order to gain a greater understanding.

References:

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand oaks: Sage Publications.

psychodynamics. 2016. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psychodynamics

Transformational, Authentic, and Servant Leadership

In this week’s blog we are going to cover three leadership theories instead of two like we have in previous weeks.  This week also contains three leadership theories that I find to be very interesting and also very effective styles.  When I think of a leader I imagine someone who has the ability to inspire, acts on their beliefs, cares about their followers, and can harness their abilities to achieve their goals.  The three leadership theories this week are transformational leadership, authentic leadership, and servant leadership.  I will do a basic overview of each of these theories and try to connect them to examples of characters on movies, well-known leaders, or my personal experiences.

Transformational leadership is the first theory we will discuss this week.  This theory is concerned with a leader’s ability to inspire their followers to change their behavior or ways of thinking in order to achieve greatness (Northouse, 2016).  The kinds of leaders are those people that can get the best out of their followers.  The measurement tool used to assess a person’s transformational leadership ability is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (LMQ).  This questionnaire measures a leader’s behavior in the areas of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, contingent reward, management-by-exception, and laissez-faire (Northouse, 2016). 

One movie character that I think of that displayed transformational leadership is Coach Boone form the movie Remember the Titans who was played by Denzel Washington.  In the movie Coach Boone is tasked with being the first coach of the only integrated high school in the area.  Coach Boone was a black man tasked with coaching against schools with all white teams and coaches.  He was able to inspire his team to come together regardless of race and that togetherness eventually rubbed off on the entire community.  He changed the behavior and beliefs of his team which lead to them winning the state championship. 

Authentic leadership is a newer concept that has been developed in response to the failures of leadership in both the public and private sectors.  Authentic leadership seeks a leader who is transparent, morally grounded, and responsive to people’s needs and values (Northouse, 2016).  This leadership theory says a leader needs to be someone who tells you what they believe, stands by those beliefs, and truly wants to do what is best for their followers.  This theory can be measured in the following ways (Northouse, 2016):

1.     Intrapersonally: focus on leader’s knowledge, self-regulation, and self-concept.

2.     Developmentally: emphasize components of authentic leadership that develop over a lifetime and are triggered by major life events.

3.     Interpersonally: authentic leadership is a collective process created by leaders and followers together.

I always tell my wife and others that I am more likely to vote for a politician I do not agree with all of the time if I think they are authentic.  A politician may say all of the things I want to hear one day and something else another depending on what is politically advantageous at the time.  A person that can tell me what they believe and not go away from that when it may hurt their chances of winning will impress me more than those that do not. One of the examples from this year’s campaign is Bernie Sanders.  I do not particularly agree with Bernie Sanders on many things, but I do respect that he says what he believes and his actions show his beliefs. 

The last theory we will be discussing this week is the servant leadership theory.  This may seem like an interesting name for a leadership theory, but aren’t the leaders of this country supposed to be servants of the people?  In servant leadership the leader put the needs of others and the greater good of the organization above the needs of themselves (Northouse, 2016).  When we elect the politicians that are going to represent us we want them to put our needs over those of themselves, but many times we may not feel like they do.  Servant leaders are ones that are attentive to the needs of their followers, empower them, and helps them to reach their full potential (Northouse, 2016). 

Servant leadership is the style of leadership that I display most of the time.  I do not lead by inspiring speeches or being the most physically or mentally gifted.  People will follow me because they know I have their best interests in mind.  When I was in the Navy there were people from all different backgrounds with many different views on leadership.  The one that had the biggest effect on me was when a supervisor of mine displayed servant leadership.  He would listen to your concerns and do what was best for you, the division, and the entire ship.  He always put the needs of his followers first and would stand up for those less able to stand up for themselves.  He is the reason I tried to put other people’s needs above mine and lead them in the same way.  I feel that if a leader can improve the lives and abilities of their followers they will return the favor by performing at a higher level to achieve the goals of the organization. 

Reference:

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand oaks: Sage Publications.

Path-Goal and Leader Member Exchange Theories

            In the previous blogs I talked about many different leadership theories that concentrated on how the leader behaved, the traits of a leader, or the leader’s skills.  The previous leadership theories failed to account for a very important aspect when it comes to how successful a leader is.  The people that are being lead are not all the same.  Some people may respond to a leader who is more authoritarian while another may feel threatened by that.  Some of us just like leaders that we can get along with and have personalities that mesh well.  Just like leaders need to adapt for certain situations, they also need to adapt to different people and tasks.  The two theories that we are going to discuss this week are the path-goal theory and the leader member exchange (LMX) theory.

            Path-goal theory is based on how the leader’s behavior fits with the characteristics of the followers and tasks (Northouse, 2016).  The theory contains different leadership behaviors and explains what characteristics of followers and tasks go best with those behaviors.  As I previously said some people have personalities that need authoritative leadership and some do not.  The four styles of leadership and the kinds of followers and tasks they are best for are (Northouse, 2016):

1.     Directive:  Effective with ambiguous tasks and authoritarian followers.

2.     Supportive: Effective for repetitive tasks and followers that need affiliation.

3.     Participative: Also effective with ambiguous tasks and for followers that are autonomous or have a need for control.

4.     Achievement-oriented: Effective for challenging tasks and followers with a need to excel.

            The path-goal theory is unique in that it brings in the expectancy theory of motivation and uses it for leadership theory (Northouse, 2016).  I studied expectancy theory in my class on organizational behavior and the two theories do have similarities.  Expectancy theory says that the behavior of people depends on the expectations that their behavior will achieve a certain outcome and that the outcome will be satisfactory (Reinharth & Wahba, 1975).  What this theory is basically saying is that a person will not behave in a certain way at work if there is nothing positive in it for them.  Path-goal theory shows that a follower is expecting certain behavior from the leader based on the follower’s personality and the tasks they are being asked to do.  I also believe there are certain aspects of the next theory that are somewhat similar to expectancy theory as well. 

            So far we have discussed theories that focus solely on the leader to the previous one that brings in other aspects such as the characteristics of the followers and tasks.  This next theory goes even further into the relationship between the leader and followers.  Leader member exchange (LMX) theory is based on the formation of relationships and the interactions between leaders and followers (Northouse, 2016).  We have probably all experienced this in one way or another at work or on a sports team where the leader appears to have a better relationship with some than they do with others.  We all know the person that seems to “suck up” or “brown nose” the leader by always volunteering for extra tasks and going the extra mile.  The leader will usually reciprocate this behavior by doing favors for them in return.  LMX theory calls the different relationships leader-member dyads.

            The two leader-member dyads are in-group and out-group.  In-group dyads are based on expanded roles and out-group are based on the job descriptions (Northouse, 2016).  As I was saying before the people at work that go the extra mile for the leader and receive preferential treatment in return are those that would be considered to be in the in-group dyad.  The people have a special relationship and a high level of trust with the leader.  The other people at work that clock in, do their forty hours, and go home would be considered in the out-group.  The members of the out-group do not do anything extra that would motivate the leader to reciprocate with special treatment. 

            I know in my experience with many different leaders from my time with the Navy that this theory is reflects what happens in real life.  While I was in the Navy I had five or six different direct supervisors.  Some of them I would say I was in the in-group with and a couple I was likely more in the out-group.  Whether or not I was in the in or out-group depended solely on my behavior.  When I was going through a hard time and struggling with my duties I was not one that my leaders would care to help out if I needed it as much as those that were not struggling.  When I started to improve and do my job above the minimum level required I noticed a shift in the way my leaders treated me.  When I messed up as a member of the out-group they did not try to defend me near as much as when I messed up as a member of the in-group.  The two theories covered this week better reflect the reality of leadership because of the focus on how followers effect the outcomes of situations just as much, if not more, than leaders.

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th ed.). Thousand oaks: Sage Publications.

Reinharth, L., & Wahba, M. A. (1975). Expectancy Theory as a Predictor of Work Motivation, Effort Expenditure, and Job Performance. Academy Of Management Journal, 18(3), 520-537. doi:10.2307/255682