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