A630.1.4.RB_MedleyKim_Present and Future

Present and Future: Bridging the Gap

            Although simplistic in nature, Kohn’s (2007) video clip demonstrates the hopeless and unambitious options of settling for less and the vision of future possibilities achieved through power and vision. In the video, stick men are used to play the roles of pessimism, pragmatism, power, and vision (Kohn, 2007). As each approach a path obstructed by a large, seemingly unable to cross, gap, each takes a different tactic to make a decision. As the pessimist slowly nears the gap, he pauses, looks ahead, shrugs his shoulders with little effort, and retreats to a stationary, seated position. The pragmatist, wished “good luck” by the pessimist, at least ventures out to the drop-off point and tests the possibility of jumping to the other side; however, he is equally comfortable with assuming a seated position and settling for less by saying, “well, this will have to do” (Kohn, 2007). Finally, both power and vision, communication and planning, race past pessimism and pragmatism, assess the situation, formulate a plan, enact the plan, bridge the gap, and allow all those waiting behind them to cross in to the future (Kohn, 2007).

            This past year brought many changes to the local Republican organizations in my home county. The local executive committee did not renew the charters of two clubs, one of which was an historical club in existence for more than three decades. The executive committee was now controlled by a new slate of officers. As Brown (2011) observes, “New members often find that the norms are unclear, confusing, and restrictive. As a result, they may react in different ways when entering an organization”, or in this case, entering leadership roles (p. 12). Their decision to not renew two charters left many Republicans scrambling for an answer. The pessimists shrugged off the change and simply began attending the more extreme club that had not suffered changes at the hands of the executive committee. The pragmatist formed a non-partisan group, did not impose any rules, and said this would “have to do” (Kohn, 2007). This answer provided a temporary solution which allowed for power and vision to work together in order to develop an organization that would be recognized as a Republican organization and not report to the local executive committee. The answer, which allowed the gap to be bridged, was found in the Florida Federation of Republican Women, which provides local charter opportunities for women run organizations that bypasses local executive committee authority. Our local chapter was granted in September of 2014, six months after the historic club had been decommissioned. We were able to provide 2016 Republican candidates with a place from which to gather petitions and distribute literature, while staying abreast of party developments. The historic club received a conditional charter from the State; and, while this is welcomed news, it is not yet clear if the charter will be returned to an unconditional status. That will be another bridge to gap; but, for now, the goal of achieving a Republican organization in my home county, that has both State and National support, has been achieved.

References

Brown, D.R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8^th ed.). Upper

            Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kohn, S. (2007, Nov. 5). A Tale of Power & Vision. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            https://youtu.be/XZVIWZGheXY

           

A520.9.5.MedleyKim_Power and Politics

Power and Politics

            Power. Think about the implications of that five letter word. We see power demonstrated in many ways through the movies we watch. We shed tears when the power of love shines through; remember Ghost? When the power of brotherhood encompasses the silver screen, such as with Saving Private Ryan, a sense of pride fills our soul. The power of two strangers coming together and living out their final six months by checking off items from The Bucket List gives us pause and we stop to take stock of our own lives and what we still have left to do. These are examples of power being used for the greater common good. This type of power, according to Whetten and Cameron (2011), “made others feel powerful”, and those with the power used it in a way “to help peers and subordinates accomplish exceptional tasks” (p. 283). Don’t believe me? Think back to what happened in each of the aforementioned films and answer these questions: 1) Did Patrick Swayze help Demi Moore solve the crime and go on with her life? 2) Did Tom Hanks help his platoon find Private Ryan and secure the bridge? 3) Did Jack Nicholson help Morgan Freeman realize a few dreams and understand the wonder of his own family? The answer to each is, Yes.

            As noted by Whetten and Cameron (2011), power is defined “as the potential to influence behavior”; however, the key is “to learn how to use it wisely” (p. 286). Just as our emotions are filled with a sense of good when certain powers are used effectively; so, too do our emotions become enraged when absolute power hurts people. Remember Enron? Multiple scholars observe this type of power, referred to as a “four-letter word”, invokes scenes of “vindictive, domineering bosses and manipulative, cunning subordinates” (as cited in Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 283). Gordon Gekko and Bud Fox, from Wall Street, fit this image perfectly. It is this extreme and that of the real-world events with Enron which causes many of us to resist the idea of embracing power; but, as stated earlier, learning how to use it is the very compass needle I use as my guide.

            Currently, a local political club, which derives its power from the state, has taken control and has exerted its power in a manner that has orchestrated the demise of two, historical political organizations and is continuing along a path that has been characterized by its leader as a form of ‘party purity’. This has created a vacuum for those who wish to organize and work together for local and state candidates because the state party limits the use of names like Republican and Democrat. As such, during a meeting last month, we were collectively tasked with doing our homework in order to offer a solution. I took these words to heart and found an answer.

            Over the past seven years, I have diligently worked within the local political party. I have provided research of Florida Statutes to many candidates and their campaigns; and, through these efforts, I have been able to establish a reputation as a thorough, deliberate person who wishes to help the organization as a whole. Through these years, my colleagues have come to know that I encourage “open, honest, and loyal relationships”, I am available on an emotional level, both acceptance and positive regard are found in my leadership style, I am willing to sacrifice for the good of the team, and, most importantly, I genuinely care for my fellow political participants and I take time to listen to their struggles (Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 290). So, when I found a solution, I presented it in a way to empower the group as a whole; not for personal gain.

            Our group is currently considering forming a local chapter of the Florida Federation of Republican Women. By doing this, we are able to use the political name, Republican, without violating any statutes, support candidates, host fundraising events, and, we can provide a home to Republican men, as the organization provides an associate membership for men. I was able to develop this solution because of the relationship I had taken time to develop with the head of the local Young Republican Club. He understood that once I asked for information, I would follow up. He knew, from prior workings with me, I could be trusted to research the club, discover the pros and cons, contact state officials for more information, and present the information to others in a way that established this solution as a legitimate answer (Whetten & Cameron, 2011). One of the initial tasks was to develop a slate of board officers. As I prepared this, I purposely listed myself for the lesser position of club secretary. Additionally, I tried to think of as many questions as I could that others would ask so I could find an answer. By making a contact with the first vice-president of the state club, I was able to use that little bit of power in order to call her and let others ask her questions in an impromptu conference call.

            We are still in the infancy stage of getting the club chartered; however, the initial meeting saw a setting aside of personal power and ego by many and we are now coming together to use our collective power for the good of our local party. Each of the five women present for our first organizational meeting demonstrate Whetten and Cameron’s (2011) characteristics of personal power: legitimacy, effort, personal attraction, and expertise; and, each of us understand how power can be used for the good. Fortunately, we have learned to use it wisely and thankfully within the next month, we will have been able to combine our power to provide a home for our fellow Republicans who want to work hard for candidates and party building.

            Admittedly, politics will rarely provide opportunities for power to evoke tearful emotions. Usually, politics brings out an ugly side of humanity; but, our group of women has been able to step back and look at the big picture facing our local political clubs. They have come together and have pledged to use their power for the good of those who were abandoned by the local club with new leadership We have seen how that power was used to hurt and destroy and thankfully that will be our guiding light as we go forward. This is but one example of my willingness to develop sources of personal influence in order to accomplish good; not gain power. I have never been one to grab as much power as possible; rather, I prefer to share and let some power go because I truly believe empowering others fosters better relationships and helps the organization as a whole.

References

Whetten, D.A., & Cameron, K.S. (2011). Developing Management Skills. (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle

            River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

A520.5.3.RB_MedleyKim_Teach A Man to Fish

Teach a Man to Fish

            Empowerment, a concept that on one hand, according to Whetten and Cameron (2011) is meant to unleash the power of a “pull strategy” so as to provide the freedom workers need in order “to do successfully what they want to do, rather than getting them to do what you want them to do” (p. 443); yet, on the other hand, as noted by Forrester (2000), it is nothing more than “the stepchild of a grand heritage” that has been dissected by minds such as Lewin, McGregor, Lawler, and Block only to be finally declared by Argyris as “a loser as an organizational strategy” (p. 67). As with any subject with such contrasting views, the reality rests somewhere between the two. While Whetten and Cameron (2011) promote the advantage of empowerment, which are akin to the ‘teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime’ philosophy, one with which I agree, Forrester (2000) recognizes some men are quite content with being given their daily ration of fish, many of whom I have seen; however, he does believe the documented difficulties with empowerment stem from “six common missteps” during the implementation process (p. 68).

            Although empowerment has been studied and promised organizations “more focused, energetic, and creative work from employees” (Forrester, 2000, p. 67), “its actual practice is all too rare” and employees are still left feeling alienated and powerless (Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 443). Empowerment was meant to be the vehicle through which workers gained self-confidence and energy in order to make decisions about their particular tasks in order to provide a more effective functionality to the overall organization (Forrester, 2000; Whetten & Cameron, 2011). The struggle, as noted by both sources, comes from the root of the word itself, power. Additionally, both sources articulate the various dimensions of empowerment so that managers can have a better understanding as to how to implement this strategy and have it be successful (Forrester, 2000; Whetten & Cameron, 2011).

            Forrester (2000) notes that when a company decides to implement empowerment, the flattening process occurs too rapidly such that a group of people once charged with and compensated more for making certain decisions is hurriedly swept away enriching the lives of the people below with more “time-consuming duties” and with less time to “carry out” these demanding operations, often without added training (p. 68). Whetten and Cameron (2011) define this inhibitor as “attitudes about subordinates” and note that more often than not, the workers below the level of managers who were swept away are “already overloaded and unable to accept more responsibility” (p. 462). Likewise, they have not received any additional training, neither is any contemplated; and, some of these workers may very well be described by McGregor’s (1960)  Theory X, wherein these workers try to avoid work and do not show any initiative with their job (as cited in Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 462). Whetten and Cameron (2011) and Forrester (2000) both agree an understanding of psychological dimensions of empowerment is crucial to a successful implementation; however, Forrester (2000) believes the current approach fails to consider all five dimensions.

            Self-efficacy, self-determination, personal consequence, meaning, and trust, when used in concert, lead to both improved performance for the organization and the individual (Whetten & Cameron, 2011). Forrester (2000) believes managers narrowly focus and oversimplify self-efficacy and the intrinsic rewards of competency and confidence that follow. This limited application leads to “a stream of words” that finds its way on to posters placed along walls of hallways, become catchy slogans, or offer sage pontifications of “what a dedicated team can accomplish” (Forrester, 2000, p. 69). Unfortunately, words alone can do little to affect enduring principles like an employee’s sense “of the world and how it works” (Forrester, 2000, p. 69). This is why the other four elements, feelings that refer to “having a choice”, producing a result, valuing a purpose, and believing in fair treatment, help translate empowerment into more than a buzz word on a break room poster (Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 448).

            Empowerment requires managers to relinquish power; and, according to Forrester (2000) senior management often does not understand what it is they are asking. Those being asked to “let go of the reins” (Forrester, 2000, p. 70) or share power “often have a high need to be in charge” (Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 462). Likewise, those to whom power is to be given, as noted by Block (1987) simply do not wish to “take the reins” (as cited in Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 461). Some men want to learn to fish while others do not. The questions, according to Forrester (2000) then become do we want to empower employees and do we want to increase their ability “to get what they want for themselves and the organization” (p. 74)? If the answer is affirmative, then costs have to be considered. How much will it cost to unleash this promised “focused, energetic, and creative work” and is there truly a reserve of creativity yet to be “uncorked” (Forrester, 2000, p. 74)?

            Whetten and Cameron (2011) believe uncorking creative power is worth the investment as it leads to increasing a manager’s discretionary time, expands knowledge and abilities of employees, creates and exhibits trust between management and the workforce, increases employee commitment, improves decisions, provides for efficient and timely decisions, and helps coordinate work with managers and workers. Forrester (2000) observes that far too often questions are not considered and empowerment programs lead to nothing more than an expensive, problematic, complex, and long process that results in “causing further cynicism among the employees who feel the most helpless” (p, 74). Although both sources weigh the pros and cons of empowerment, each agree empowerment is a viable approach when implemented in a methodical manner.

            As I reflect, both the text and the article recognize the days of dictatorial leaders do not produce an environment that fits with employees’ work-life balance and/or eliminating stress at work. I do; however, believe there are some employees who are exuberant when given the opportunity to take the reins through empowerment. There are also those who are quite comfortable with the “dependency and submission” encourage by bureaucracies and will resist empowerment by as much as thirty percent (Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 451). Therefore, it becomes a balancing act for organizations and managers to decide if empowerment is the answer; and, if it is; then, management must be willing to relinquish, reward, and recognize the benefits of empowerment and how it contributes to the company’s overall success.

References

Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. The Academy of Management

 (3), 67-80. Retrieved from

            http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/210518384?accountid=      27203

Whetten, D.A., & Cameron, K.S. (2011). Developing Management Skills. (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle

            River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

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.