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. (8th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
No comments:
Post a Comment