A511.7.3.RB_MedleyKim_Making the Complex Simple

Making the Complex Simple

            If I take the lessons of Goffee and Jones (2006) and use my differences as a way to signify who I am and what I stand for to others, then I suppose I would be known for taking the complex and making it simple. Although I very much relate to the favorite shirt concept, my favorite has always been a certain pair of shoes, it seems that since high school I have always had to present myself to others in such a way that they are not intimidated by me.

            School and studies have always been easy for me; but, I know this is not the case with many. I remembering diligently trying to make the cheerleading squads. I wore my favorite saddle oxford shoes; and, try as I might, the closest I came to making the squad was to dawn the bulldog mascot costume, complete with tennis shoes, and mimic many of the cheerleading moves. To this day, I do not wear saddle oxfords. At first, not making the squad was disappointing; but, throughout the season, more fans became engaged with the bulldog than they did with the cheerleaders. I still had the same amount of school spirit; but, by recognizing and accepting I was not cheerleader material, I was able to let my spirit shine through the costume and “win over the followers”, in this case, high school students, parents, faculty, and those in the community who attended school sporting events (Goffee & Jones, 2006, p. 32). I still own a pair of white, canvas tennis shoes that still make me smile. I was able to take complex cheerleading routines, adapt a silly, simple approach, and garner increased school spirit. Although I no longer dress in a bulldog costume, I have maintained those principles and have had success in applying them in my daily life.

            According to Yukl (2013), all of the definitions for authentic leadership emphasize the “leader’s words, actions, and values” and my difference has helped me to stay true to all three (p. 351). Taking the complex and making it simple has helped me to foster trust with others. When my husband and I first met, he asked me to put $300 in my wallet. Now, we were not yet married; we had just started to date. I put the money in my wallet. More than two weeks later, he asked if I had any of the money left. When I showed him all of the money was still in my wallet, he was shocked and to this day uses that as an example to demonstrate how I restored his faith in humanity. Maybe the act is not complex; but, think about the notion of giving your hard earned money to someone you have essentially just met. Would you expect the balance to still be in tact? In a perfect world, the answer is yes; but, we are not living in a perfect world; hence, my husband’s amazement. In addition to trust, I was able to show the value of “open and honest communication”, ideals with which I wish to be associated (Yukl, 2013, p. 351). Outside of my family, from which there are many examples of taking the complex and making it simple, such as many, many, nights of Algebra and English verb conjugation, I have been able to use this same difference to gain respect from business colleagues.

            I enjoy researching. According to Goffee and Jones (2006), leaders work at becoming self-aware and identifying the “what” that is inside them and “how” it works with others. I have always been viewed as highly intelligent. I do not say that to be braggadocios, I say it because I have actually seen people pull away from me because of my knowledge. Sometimes, it can be quite hurtful. Many times, I will downplay that element of my self-identity until people have the opportunity to get to know me. I don’t “have a deep understanding of how and why it works”; it just does (Goffee & Jones, 2006, p. 32). By engaging with research, I am able to learn about various complexities and explain them in the simplest of terms. Recipes are a great way to teach fractions. A white board works wonders when explaining mathematical equations. Simple language provides the clearest message.

            This past summer, I was a volunteer for a local politician’s campaign. The Florida Statutes that govern campaigns are extensive and often times quite confusing. I was offered the position of researching statutes in order to insure the campaign did not violate any provisions. I welcomed this because, in a world where politicians are often seen as trying to skirt the laws, I wanted to make sure our candidate did not become the center of any such scandal; and this gave me the opportunity to “express and enact… values and beliefs” that would guard against this (Yukl, 2013, p. 352). Throughout the campaign, other candidates contacted me for similar advice as they believed my ability to take complex laws and make them simple to understand came from demonstrating credibility, being focused, and confident with my research.

            Being able to take the difficult and make it easy serves me well. When working with others, by acknowledging the task is difficult; but, still doable, it puts them at ease. Understanding complexities allows me the ability to both accurately convey feelings with words and non-verbal communications and to understand, through feedback and body language, how messages are being received (Yukl, 2013). Am I explaining this is a way that folks understand? Do I need to offer a different explanation? When I am asked questions, if I know the answer, I give it; but, if I do not know the answer, I tell people and then I go in search of that answer. It furthers the development of trust and strengthens open, honest, and transparent communications (Yukl, 2013). By devoting time, taking the complex, and making it simple, I have been able to cultivate many of the values listed by Yukl (2013): integrity, altruism, humility, empathy, personal growth, fairness, and empowerment. Whether the subject is as complex as explaining Florida Statutes, the principles of the quadratic equation, or maintaining a balance of hard earned dollars, I have been able to take that difference that lives inside of me and make it “attractive to others” (Goffee & Jones, 2006, p. 32).

References

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Getting personal on the topic of leadership. Human Resource

            Management International Digest, 14(4), 32-34.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

            

A511.6.3.RB_MedleyKim_Why: At the Heart of the Golden Circle, the Bucket List, and Meaning

Why: At the Heart of the Golden Circle, the Bucket List, and Meaning

          As I read the quotes by Ulrich, Frankl, and Kouzes and Posner, I was reminded of Sinek’s “Golden Circle” and The Bucket List (Krear-Klostermeier, 2015; TEDx, 2009). Frankl (2004) suggests 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” (as cited in Krear-Klostermeier, 2015). Ulrich (n.d.) notes meaning is tied to “what we do with what we have” while Kouzes and Posner (1987) postulate leaders “must find a way to communicate” this meaning in order to excite and attract followers (as cited in Krear-Klostermeier, 2015). Merriam-Webster (2015) defines meaning as “the thing one intends to convey especially by language”. This definition affirms Sinek’s observations that meaning appeals to the limbic section of our brain; and, as such, we lack the capacity to apply a better terminology than “thing” to describe meaning (TEDx, 2009). Meaning is a feeling and this is further demonstrated with the many items Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman include on their “bucket list” (Robinson, 2012). When I combine these quotes, definitions, and theories with the context of Ulrich’s (2010) research, it becomes clear that the ability to communicate a feeling in such a way that targets the limbic portion of the brain is key for leaders and companies so they can attract employees and customers who believe in and want to do business with a like-minded organization.

          According to Ulrich (2010), even people in the most “horrible work settings” were able to find meaning; they were able to connect in an emotional manner which words could not describe. I see this same correlation when Nicholson and Freeman are faced with a horrible living setting, the diagnosis of terminal cancer; and, yet, within a few months, they are able to find meaning in the remainder of their lives (Robinson, 2012). Ulrich (2010) states meaning is created people through a process that requires preparation and skills. Meaning is driven by a belief or purpose (TEDx, 2009). Sinek uses Langley and the Wright Brothers to illustrate meaning. Samuel Pierpont Langley sought to solve the riddle of powered-man flight in hopes of furthering his personal pursuit of money and fame; the Wright Brothers knew flight would change the course of the world (TEDx, 2009). It is not what they did; it is why they did it. Meaning is our collective why. It explains why we work harder, are more creative, demonstrate more tenacity, and strive for success (Ulrich, 2010). Ulrich (2010) recognize the same contributions of the limbic system of the brain noted by Sinek in that the feelings generated from solving a difficult task, fostering friendship, or learning from others provide a feeling that can only be described as an “ah-ha moment. Our capacity for language leaves us when we experience an engaging vision, listen to stories that “make sense of the past and imagine the future”, have our inner abilities tapped, and engage others in a way that changes hearts and minds (Ulrich, 2010). All of these elements are present when Nicholson and Freeman are tasked with facing their own mortality and finding meaning in what is left of their lives.

          “The Bucket List”, initially compiled by Freeman and added to by Nicholson, lists items that are neither rational nor analytical. The two actors demonstrate Sinek’s “Golden Circle” as they discuss the list (TEDx, 2009). Freeman explains it as a lesson from a professor of philosophy. A list is to be written that indicates all the things one wishes to do in their life so that one’s purpose can be defined and realized (Robinson, 2012). Nicholson views it differently. He sees the point of the list as rather than hoping for a miracle, by identifying activities that will add life rather than death to their limited time on Earth, a list can be constructed in a way that allows the men to “put some moves on” before they die (Robinson, 2012). The list includes: “help a complete stranger for the good, laugh until I cry”, witness something majestic, sky-dive, and kiss the most beautiful girl (Robinson, 2012). Look at how many on the list evoke emotions. How many have been inspired to find their meaning from this movie? As Ulrich (2010) notes, neither position nor salary affect one’s ability to find meaning. Both Nicholson and Freeman represent polar opposites, one has position and wealth, the other does not; and, yet, both find meaning. At the end of his experience, Freeman is able to realize a higher rate of commitment with his wife and family. Nicholson is able to understand why making a hospital experience more meaningful is important and the role he plays in that process.

     I believe Sinek’s proposition that businesses want to do business with people who believe what the company believes (TEDx, 2009). I believe appealing to one’s emotions, rather than to one’s logic and rational, leads to greater loyalty and a better decision making process. I further concur with Sinek that meaning does leave us wanting for words that describe the behavior (TEDx, 2009). That’s why the vision is an important part of change and why reaffirming the meaning throughout the vision and change process is more like crafting “fine pottery” rather than as simple as picking up a dropped coin (Ulrich, 2010). Yukl (2013) states the success of major change rests with the leader's communication as to why change is needed and how it benefits others. Change is a part of finding meaning, or the collective why. Just as vision can link the past with the future; so, too can meaning (Yukl, 2013). That's why The Bucket List and Sinek's "Golden Circle" came to mind as I read Ulrich's (2010) research. I also think a “bucket list” should be developed before a company or individual is diagnosed with a terminal condition. It provides an ongoing way to reflect and change.

References

Krear-Klostermeier, K. (2015). A511.6.3.RB – Meaning. In Module 6 – Leading Change in

            Organizations and Leadership in Teams and Decision Group (02/16/15 – 02/22/15).

            Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web site:

            https://erau.blackboard.com/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=           %2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_           1035465_1

Merriam-Webster Incorporated. (2015). Meaning. In Dictionary. Retrieved from

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meaning

Robinson, R. (2012, July 3). Morgan Freeman Explains The Bucket List to Jack Nicholson.

            [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgaZfQbRxkU

TEDx. (2009, Sept. 28). Start with why – how great leaders inspire action | Simon Sinek|

            TEDxPugetSound [Video file]. Retrieved from  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA&feature=share&list=PL42F8562DCD3CCEA8

Ulrich, D. & W. (2010, June 2). Getting Beyond Engagement to Creating Meaning at Work.

            Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/06/getting-beyond-            engagement-to-c

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A511.5.3.RB_MedleyKim_Civil Rights by Remote

Civil Rights by Remote

            I am never quite sure from where the inspiration for a reflective blog will come. Little did I expect it to come during an American Association of University Women (AAUW) luncheon while listening to an author and professor of history offering reflections about the Civil Rights Movement and how that movement is ongoing and evolving; but, that is exactly what happened. As I listened to Dr. Michael Butler (2015), he made a statement I have heard quite often; and, while I am paraphrasing him, the point hit home with me, ‘If we know our history, we can learn to change’. I thought about the research by Kelloway, Barling, Kelley, Comtois, and Gatien (2003). I found it quite interesting that a historical perspective added to and supported the hypotheses outlined and tested in their paper, “Remote transformational leadership”.

            Kelloway, et al., (2003), acknowledge “the importance of transformational leadership” and the correlation between “organizational outcomes such as task and financial performance”, whether the setting is that of a business or non-business entity, such as a school or local union (p. 163). They further note the majority of research for this type of leadership has taken place in settings whereby leaders are observed in person and with personal interactions with followers; and, recognize previous thoughts about the need for this particular “degree of contact” indicate this is a requirement for transformational leadership to occur (Kelloway et al., 2003, p. 164). Given the expanding nature of business and non-business organizations, this group of researchers seek to test the up close and in-person theory to see if the same organizational outcomes may be achieved by addressing followers in remote locations through technological capabilities like “e-mail and video-teleconferencing” (Kelloway et al., 2003, p. 164). Although it does not appear their conclusion seeks to promote a replacement of the benefits of face-to-face interactions and the positive outcomes which flow from transformational leadership; it does provide some indication that when a face-to-face meeting is not possible or “less than optimal”, electronic communications can provide followers with intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration from a leader known to be able to offer idealized influence and inspirational motivation, the key elements of charismatic leadership (Kelloway et al., 2003, p. 163-164).

            Kelloway et al., (2003) conduct two studies using a vignette method for the first and a laboratory setting for the second. The initial experiment seeks to answer two questions: 1) can e-mail recipients recognize and identify a certain style of leadership conveyed in an e-mail? 2) is a positive message as opposed to a negative message believed to be connected with positive outcomes (Kelloway et al., 2003)? The three vignettes were written and presented in such a way as to test the hypothesis which suggested e-mails from transformational leaders would have a positive impact, management-by-exception would result in a negative impact, and laissez-faire styled e-mails would “have no effects on direct reports” (Kelloway et al., 2003, p. 165). The second study sought to build on the first; however, a laboratory setting was chosen.

            The degree of impact from the first study was expanded to test the levels of task motivation and performance levels (Kelloway et al., 2003). Additionally, by broadening the test, Kelloway et al., (2003) sought to provide a clearer understanding of the impact of charisma and intellectual stimulation and to: 1) determine whether or not both components are required for a more positive outcome with task performance, 2) to look at the “unique effects” of each of the four Is, and 3) to expand research in the ability to teach “these aspects of transformational leadership” (p. 167). Whereas 132 undergraduate students were used for the first study, 105 undergraduate students of psychology were used for the second (Kelloway et al., 2003). Both studies produced results supporting the separate hypotheses, which seek to resolve if e-mail recipients can detect a message from a transformational leader and if the combination of “intellectual stimulation and charisma” leads to an improvement with task performance (Kelloway et al., 2003, p. 169).

            When compared with “management-by-exception or laissez-faire styles”, electronic mail that contained messages with transformational attributes “were associated with greater interpersonal justice and satisfaction” (Kelloway et al., 2003, p. 166). Likewise, motivation, along with individual and group performance, was higher when the message was intellectually stimulating and included components of charisma (Kelloway et al., 2003). This affirms Bass’s (1985) observation, “Charisma is a necessary ingredient of transformational leadership, but by itself it is not sufficient to account for the transformational process” (as cited in Yukl, 2013, p. 323), as the research by Kelloway et al., (2003) noted positive performance was realized when both charisma and intellectual stimulation occurred in the message. Although the research needs to be tested further, initial results indicate it is possible to transmit a transformational message to subordinates in a remote location that would produce “the same positive effects on performance and attitudes that occurs within face-to-face interaction” (Kelloway, et al., 2003, p. 170).

            I thought about this conclusion as I listened to Dr. Butler. Then, I remembered the basis for the study of transformational leadership and the work by James McGregor Burns. His work was based on political leadership; and, as they say, the light bulb appeared. Here I was listening to a Civil Rights presentation and the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. Butler briefly transported our group back in time to the Civil War, the 1950s and 1960s, the de-segregation of schools, and finally brought us back to the present day Civil Rights movement. Yukl (2013) states:

                        Transformational leadership appeals to the moral values of followers in an

                        attempt to raise their consciousness about ethical issues to mobilize their
                        energy and resources to reform institutions (p. 321).

Isn’t this what Lincoln and King did? Didn’t they have to convey messages to subordinates in remote locations? Could their followers detect the transformational messages contained within speeches, news articles, radio messages, and television broadcasts? Weren’t these advanced forms of communication throughout points of our history? Lincoln could not possibly travel to all of the remote sites of the Civil War to meet with soldiers and provide a face-to-face encounter. I watch The History Channel and many historians and biographers often recount reading letters written by great leaders as a part of their research process. Lincoln relied on handwritten letters, speeches, and telegraph messages as a way to look at problems in a new manner and seek creative answers, to explain the self-sacrifice that would be needed for the changes sought, to provide support and encouragement, and to “communicate an appealing vision” by incorporating symbols to encourage followers’ focus (Yukl, 2013, p. 322). As I continued to listen to Dr. Butler, I thought of the many sermons Dr. King delivered.

            He could only travel to so many churches in a given amount of time. How many listened to his sermons broadcast on the radio? How many watched the march on Washington? How many read his books and letters? Did his message have the same positive effect on outcome and performance without his face-to-face interaction? I would submit it did. I remember receiving letters from grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other family members. We lived in Florida and their homes, for me, were as about as remote as they could be. From Pennsylvania to Virginia, regular family visits were not always possible and at that time, long-distance phone charges kept calls brief; so, letters were always welcomed. Today, with a few keystrokes, I can send messages that offer courage, creative ideas, provide encouragement, and “bring meaning and purpose to the work being done” (Kelloway et al., 2003, p.163).

            Our forms of communications have evolved since the beginning of time and leaders have been able to convey their messages to remote locations since before the Roman Empire. Perhaps the messages are restricted to fewer characters; nonetheless, transformational leaders are "effective in any situation or culture (Yukl, 2013, p. 323); or, for that matter, with any form of communication. The research by Kelloway et al., (2003) is simply a reminder that as we expand and develop new forms of communicating, the components of transformational leadership must be maintained within the message if the same outcomes are desired. Messages, from our nation’s leaders, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., are filled with intellectual stimulation and charisma. Had they simply been written to include the elements of charisma only; then, I doubt if the performance sought would be have been the outcome realized. However, as Dr. Butler reminded me, Dr. King proffered intellectual food for thought which led to the massive changes in the 1960s and his words are still leading to change. By looking at the uniqueness of the individual elements, teaching leaders how to convey transformational messages using fewer keystrokes could help tomorrow's leaders.

References

Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J., Kelley, E., Comtois, J., & Gatien, B. (2003). Remote

            transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

            24(3), 163-171.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A511.4.3.RB_MedleyKim_Plans, Roads Less Traveled, Over the Rainbow

Plans, Road Less Traveled, Over the Rainbow

            My grandmother was quite fond of reminding me of the saying, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go astray”. I am not certain of the source for that adage; but, I do know how true it is. For me, the question of what to do when those plans go astray has been at the heart of managerial motivation and has helped me to recognize my own traits, both strong and weak, and how those traits are both effective and affected by situations. Sometimes, plans go off without a hitch, sometimes going astray leads to a road less traveled, and sometimes you can end up somewhere over the rainbow; it is how you handle each option that adds to your leadership capabilities and experience.

            Yukl (2013) notes there are various attributes that contribute to the relevancy and effectiveness of leadership; and, certain social motives: power, independence, affiliation, achievement, and esteem offer explanations for not only a leader’s “desire for particular types of stimuli”; they also “influence attention to information and events, and they guide, energize, and sustain behavior” (Yukl, 2013, p. 136). They are the difference, shown by Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991), between a leader responding to a partial sentence with, “When I am in charge of others I find my greatest satisfactions”, and an unsuccessful leader saying, “Taking orders is easy for it removes the danger of a bad decision” (p. 53). As Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) note, it is simply not enough for a leader to possess certain traits, action is required, and that can range from establishing a vision to being a role model. Although numerous studies and varying types of research have been conducted, the shift of traits and leadership has gone from the “great man” born with almost super powers capable of leading at a moment’s notice to a study of the traits and how they contribute to managerial effectiveness (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). I tend to agree with the latest view of trait leadership.

            Of those social motives, my strengths include a strong sense of socialized power orientation, a balanced sense of independence, and a moderate achievement motivation (Yukl, 2013). Yukl (2013) discusses the two forms of power motivation: personalized and socialized power orientation. Personalized power is used to satisfy needs for esteem and status while socialized power is used “for the benefit of others” (Yukl, 2013, p. 142). I prefer to look at challenges as opportunities to implement solutions that benefit the group and the company as a whole. I have found that by including others, both followers and peers, with challenging tasks, an answer that works for everyone is found in a manner that provides followers with a sense of pride and confidence, as they contributed to the solution; and, peers are a part of a process they can apply to their areas. Although I enjoy a participative style, I recognize my independent streak.

            Independence allows me the chance to organize my schedule and work independently; however, I know I cannot perform all of the tasks by myself, so I am able to share my “leader’s currency” with others in a way that comes back as a return on my investment (Kirkpatrick, 1991, p. 52). I prefer independence when researching. Whether I have been tasked with observing work flows and developing solutions; or reviewing statutes to see how they impact a business, sharing research tasks does not come easy for me. More often than not I have been disappointed with the minimalistic approach some have taken with research. Throughout the years, I have tried to address this by offering suggestions for adding to the research or expanding the scope of resources. At times, it has yielded better results. It’s the over-achiever in me that allows me to become frustrated.

            I love to achieve. It is a challenge I welcome. If it is possible to receive the highest grade on an examination or submit the best solution to a problem, then I am all in. The feeling I get from such an achievement is surreal and I want to share that feeling. If others can take my work and use it to increase their own work or educational experience, then that is the highest compliment I can receive. Many of the traits outlined by Yukl (2013) are classified as traits; however, certain competencies: emotional intelligence, social intelligence, and learning ability are just as important when plans go awry.

            Of the three competencies, empathy, self-regulation, and learning from mistakes are my strengths. I always try to maintain a “walk a mile in his or her shoes” mentality, as I truly want to understand how decisions affect people. Over time, I have also been able to keep my emotions in check. It is the think before you speak path that has served me well. It is quite easy to become upset and immediately respond; it is much harder and requires more discipline to hold those thoughts and take those emotions and come up with a solution rather than a statement made in haste. I love learning from mistakes. First, they give me strength. I know a mistake is not a death nail. Mistakes happen and sometimes mistakes lead to better solutions. I once took the wrong exit from an interstate. It wasn’t the planned route; but, it was a more scenic route and had I not taken that wrong turn, I would have missed out on some of the most beautiful mountain scenes imaginable, some that almost kissed rainbows. Mistakes have allowed me the opportunity to appreciate the saying, “never let them see you sweat”. Make the error, get through the situation, return to normal operations, and then sigh a deep sigh; but, not in front of those looking to you for answers. Laughing about those mistakes helps, too. 

            The strengths I have discussed may not apply in every situation. This is the basis for the “contingency theories” discussed by Yukl (2013, p. 162). Having read the sections about the types and effects of situational variables, I tend to agree with Graeff (1997) in that there continues to be a “lack of sound theoretical foundation of the hypothesized relationships among variables in the model” (p. 161). In short, the variables look good on paper; but, the practical observation and application is lacking. I do agree that variables such as follower effort and commitment, collaboration and teamwork, resources, and external support can help a leader determine the overall effectiveness of a group; I am just not convinced that certain situations that lead to leadership substitution are the best path to take. I understand the principles of Situational Leadership as provided by Yukl (2013) and agree there are different applications for different followers and situations. I am not so certain that leaders go through a checklist process. For me, it has become an automatic process, perhaps because of my own experiences over time.

            This week’s reflection has given me the chance to take a look at my strengths and consider how those traits and situations have allowed me to share power with others. Quite honestly, taking a look at myself has always been a challenge for me. I welcome it as it does help me to identify the tools I have and how to use them in a responsible manner. More importantly, it helps me to be better prepared for when plans go astray and I have the chance to either take an unbeaten path, travel over the rainbow, or simply stay on course, even when challenged.

References

Graeff, C.L. (1997). Evolution of Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical Review.

            Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170

Kirkpatrick, S.A., & Locke, E.A. (1991). Leadership: do traits matter? Academy of

            Management Executive, 5(2), 48-60.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

            

A511.3.3.RB_MedleyKim

Metamorphosis of Power, Influence, and Marriage

          For me, this week’s module provided numerous opportunities for both consideration of thought provoking prompts, and reflection to consider how new considerations interact and parallel with other observations. Last week, I was asked to consider if introverts could lead; and, today, I am to ponder the source and nature of the power I personally bring to my family, how that power is utilized or not utilized, how the power impacts my ability to lead or follow, and if I have experienced a high-quality leader-member exchange, herein referred to as LMX, relationship that was dysfunctional as described by Othman, Ee, and Shi (2010).

            In the video, "The Role of Tomorrow's Leaders", Barbara Kellerman discusses the evolution and revolution that has taken place and is occurring in the field of leadership with respects to changes in follower behavior and the ability of the leader to “neatly and carefully” chart a course and expect followers to passively stick to the course (Harvard Business Review, 2010). The many reasons she cites for the loss of control leaders experience today, as opposed to control once held, include: messages, challenges, more resistant followers, and technological changes and challenges, could also be applied for the evolution of marriage observed throughout the last five decades (Harvard Business Review, 2010). Having read the research by Othman et al., (2010), their observations, which conclude “under certain conditions high quality LMX can be dysfunctional”, are also seen with the marital relationship (p. 337). Before expanding on these opinions, an understanding how marriage was once perceived and how it is perceived today, along with the power and influence of my own marriage, is required.

            My mother and father represent how marriage was once perceived. They were married in the 1950s. This was the third marriage for my father; but, that is a topic for another paper, probably from a psychological standpoint. The “Path-goal theory”, explained by Hollander and Offermann (1990) marries well with the leader-follower, husband-wife relationship of this era (p. 181). Most men established a career, dated, married the right girl, bought a house, became fathers, and provided for the family. Women worked, although they did not establish careers, dated, married “Mr. Right”, decorated the house, became mothers, and cared for the husband and the children. This was the relationship that existed with my parents. “Low role ambiguity for subordinates”, in this case the housewife, allowed for this marital template to be effective and remain almost unchanged for centuries (Hollander & Offermann, 1990, p. 181). The type of power most often observed with this relationship was that of “power over”, described by Hollander and Offermann (1990) as “explicit or implicit dominance” (p. 179).
          According to Yukl (2013), my father had legitimate power through the legal recognition of the marriage by the courts. He had reward power, as he controlled “important resources and rewards desired by the target person”, my mother (Yukl, 2013, p. 189). Referent, expert, information, ecological, position, and personal power were also held by my father, and I suspect many men from that era. My mother had a strong desire to please my father and she worked at it daily. My father paid all of the bills. My mother did not know how to write a check or where my father kept the household records. My father had access to all information important to our family. Some information was not shared with my mother. The perception at the time was she would not understand. It was my dad who decided when we moved and where we lived. He purchased the homes. Quite honestly, I do not know to this day if my mother was ever listed on either a mortgage or deed. Finally, because of the love he had for my mother, he held personal power.
          Yukl (2013) describes an LMX relationship as one wherein the leader and the follower “mutually define the subordinate’s role” (p. 222). Kellerman notes the many “rights revolutions” that took place in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the presentation titled Barbara Kellerman on "The End of Leadership" (Harvard CPL, 2012). One of these was the Women’s Liberation Movement and it had a profound effect on marriage today. There was a change in the patterns of dominance and deference in not only leadership; but, in marriage, too (Harvard CPL, 2012). Although goals were similar: date, marriage, house, children, and financial security, the course began to change, as women wanted a career and a family. The concept of “Mr. Mom” was not only acceptable, it provided the basis for a movie with the same name. Women did not have to marry and have children by the time they were thirty. For that matter, marriage itself was fast becoming known as a “piece of paper” to many and not as required as before. I lived through this transformational time of our society’s history and the change that has taken place is fascinating, to say the least. LMX rely on “personal compatibility and subordinate competence and dependability” (Yukl, 2013, p. 222). “These relationships are formed gradually over a period of time, through reciprocal reinforcement of behavior as the exchange cycle is repeated over and over again” (Yukl, 2013, p. 222). Similarly, Othman et al., (2010) identify characteristics such as “mutual trust, liking, respect, and reciprocal influence” found in high quality leader-member exchange relationships (p. 338). Doesn’t this sound like advice Dr. Phil would present as the keys to a successful marriage?
          Like my father, I have been married three times. Thankfully, this is my last time. My husband and I will celebrate our twenty-first anniversary this October. I have legitimate power as I am my husband’s wife, legally recognized by the State of Florida. Although the reward power discussed by Yukl (2013) focuses on the control of “resources and rewards” by the agent, I would argue I do control resources such as grocery shopping, assistance in accessing online bank accounts and bill pay, and a certain reward women have controlled since the beginning, sex, although I have never used that power in a coercive manner (p. 189). I know I have referent power. The explanation from Yukl (2013), “the target person may do things the agent is perceived to want, even without being asked”, reminds me of a comedy routine b Jeff Foxworthy. He describes an evening where he and his wife are in bed and are reading. His wife places a throw over her legs, and without saying anything, Foxworthy finds himself getting up out of bed and turning off the ceiling fan. He returns to bed and realizes what he has just done without his wife having asked. My hubby has done this on numerous occasions. Whether it’s adjusting the thermostat, or bringing me a sandwich while I am engulfed in a school project, those little things have only strengthened the bond we have. I have expert power, especially when it comes to the children, information power, as it relates to the “how to” of the computer world and honesty within the relationship, and ecological power, as I decorate the house, keep it clean, and provide a routine for the family. Since we have been married for as long as we have, I have personal power, too. As with any marriage, it is how this power is used that determines not only subsequent outcomes; but, whether or not one’s ability to influence increases or decreases as power is used.
         Whereas my father’s marriage demonstrated “power over”, my marriage and my power showcases “power to”, defined as giving “individuals the opportunity to act more freely within some realms of organizational operations, through power sharing” (Hollander & Offermann, 1990, p. 179). Kellerman notes this change from dictatorial power to that of power sharing, too (Harvard CPL, 2012). Unlike my mother, I not only know how to write a check, I have a complete understanding of the family financial situation and am able to have a dialogue with my husband about major and minor decisions for the family. I have the freedom to make a purchase without obtaining his permission. We view money as our money, not his or mine. Very rarely are either of us put in the position to make a final decision alone. Our high quality LMX relationship has provided the benefits outlined by Yukl (2013) including: interesting and attractive jobs, no secrets, we share information, dual involvement with making decisions, personal support, helping with each other’s careers and goals, strong loyalty, and a willingness to work hard and help each other. It took both work and influence to achieve the power I enjoy with my husband. Many of the tactics listed by Yukl (2013): rational persuasion, apprising, inspiring pleas, consulting, praise, flattery, personal favors, rewards, help from others, and providing legitimacy have helped me to use my power is a respectful and considerate manner (p. 202). A simple rule I have come to embrace is one can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. However, I can understand why Othman et al., (2010) reached their conclusion and I can see its applicability to marriage.
          Othman et al., (2010) note two conditions whereby a high quality LMX becomes dysfunctional. One is when a leader reaches a “flawed assessment” and the other occurs when subordinates use “upward influence tactics to create a favourable impression of themselves” (Othman et al., 2010, p. 341). This leads to negative behavior by followers, which includes: “disrespect, restrained communication, misunderstanding, non-supportiveness and low commitment to the leader” (Othman et al., 2010, p. 341). Again, doesn’t this take place in marriage? The leader makes a wrong assessment about the right girl; or, the girl makes herself appear to be more favorable; and, if they marry, do not the negative behaviors then follow? I have seen this, both with my own parents and twice myself. My husband has also witnessed it with his previous marriages.
          Just as the field of leadership is experiencing changes in long-held beliefs and viewpoints; so, too has marriage. Each has gone through its own metamorphosis. Power and influence are important concepts for marriage and leadership and an understanding of one’s own power and how it is used is key for either a successful marriage or a leader

                                                                 References

Harvard Business Review. (2010, Sept. 15). The Role of Tomorrow’s Leaders. [Video file].

            Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8WRz3CxafE

Harvard CPL. (2012, Aug. 22). Barbara Kellerman on “The End of Leadership”. [Video file].

     
     Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIo5_eJs5-Y

Hollander, E.P., & Offermann, L.R. (1990, Feb.). Power and Leadership in Organizations

     Relationships in Transition. American Psychologist, 45 (2), 179-189.

Othman, R., Ee, F. F., & Shi, N. L. (2010). Understanding dysfunctional leader-

     member exchange: antecedents and outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development

     Journal , 31 (4), 337-350.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.