Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Vision and Mission
Vision is essential to leadership. It’s the driving force behind a leader. Without a vision for an organization or for his/her group of followers, the leader has no goal, no motivating force that will lead to improvement. Needless to say, having a vision is an extremely important aspect of leadership. What would an organization do with a leader with no vision? It could never grow beyond what it started out as, it would remain stagnant. This is not the goal of organizations, whether they be non-profit or for-profit, the organization must have a leader who can carry it to greater heights. This idea that an organization needs a leader with a vision has been very evident in my life. Growing up back home in Gilbert, I attended a truly lovely little church that had some of the most fantastic leadership I have ever seen. But a couple of years back, our pastor decided to revise his vision for the church to include more outreach, as well as a much more community-based way of running things, because he wasn’t satisfied with the way we all related to each other. He wanted a “doing life together” outlook, the idea being that we should consider ourselves to be part of a family, the church. In a small church of about 50 people or less (as the one I went to was) this type of vision was fairly easy to begin to enact. Anyway, immediately following this new vision for the church, changes started to happen, because this vision changed the behaviors of the leader, because it became a part of his system of values (with the new values being to put the church as family first), and so everything he did started to reflect this new vision. This vision not only altered his very behaviors, but also motivated him to work toward an end. He saw that if his vision was fulfilled, we would be a much closer-knit group then we were before, which far out-weighed the costs of doing things differently and upsetting those that were content with just the status quo. This vision motivated my church leader, but had other effects too. A vision is the basis for the bonds that form between a group and its leader, and in the case of the church vision, this was somewhat accomplished. For those of us who accepted this new vision, we became even more entwined in the workings and doings of the church (which was on goal of the new vision in the first place) but at the same time, some members were upset with this new, altered vision, and so left for other pastures. For them, this vision did not justify changing the organization, and so they left in response.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Toxic Leadership
Models have been drawn up and articles published depicting what good leadership is supposed to look like; what effective leadership is supposed to look like. There have even been leadership models dealing with followers, who are often ignored in the leadership equation. What is even more rarely mentioned though, are the signs of bad leadership, or “Toxic Leadership”. Toxic Leadership isn’t just having a lousy leader who really doesn’t inspire, but still somehow manages to get the job done; Toxic Leadership is harmful to both followers and the organization involved.
In theories on Toxic Leadership, certain attributes that go along with that toxicity have been noted. These attributes range from not horrifically harmful, such as incompetence, to those truly harmful characteristics that would be terrifying to behold in a leader, such as malevolence. I have never encountered malevolence in any of my leaders, and hopefully I never will, but I have most surely come across incompetence! For instance, back in High School, in my Junior English class, we were all divided up into groups at the beginning of the year, and then instructed to work on a research project for the remainder of the semester. My group was composed of fairly competent and hardworking individuals, except for the person who arose as our “leader”. She (I won’t name names) was a decent student overall, and someone I in general liked, but she was incompetent as far as being a leader goes. She was incompetent in the sense that she had the will and the strong personality to be a leader, but she never actually figured out how to go about it. She failed at organizing us, and relied on myself and others to make important group decisions. And she displayed other characteristics of a toxic leader, such as irresponsibility. For instance, she never accepted blame for any mistakes, not even when they were legitimately hers. She would set us off in one direction on this project (it was about internet privacy laws) but when the plan failed, she would never take any blame herself.
Why did we continually look to this girl when we all saw how she failed as a leader? For both Internal-Psychological reasons and for Internal-Pragmatic reasons. Internal-Psychological reasons are such things as the need for an authority figure, someone who gives us direction as someone who supposedly knows best. As a group, we needed a driving force, and the person who stepped up to that role was this girl, and since no one else in the group was relishing the idea of taking on more work, we continued to follow this girl’s lead. Internal-Pragmatic reasons are reasons that fill a physical need, like paying the bills or putting food on the table. As a group, we wanted a good grade, and the best way to get a good grade on this project was to work collaboratively. Although this girl was a terrible leader, she was still the glue that kept us working as a team toward a common goal, as opposed to what we would have done, which is work separately and put all of our work together at the end. And in the end, we did get a good grade, even if it was a struggle to get there.
In theories on Toxic Leadership, certain attributes that go along with that toxicity have been noted. These attributes range from not horrifically harmful, such as incompetence, to those truly harmful characteristics that would be terrifying to behold in a leader, such as malevolence. I have never encountered malevolence in any of my leaders, and hopefully I never will, but I have most surely come across incompetence! For instance, back in High School, in my Junior English class, we were all divided up into groups at the beginning of the year, and then instructed to work on a research project for the remainder of the semester. My group was composed of fairly competent and hardworking individuals, except for the person who arose as our “leader”. She (I won’t name names) was a decent student overall, and someone I in general liked, but she was incompetent as far as being a leader goes. She was incompetent in the sense that she had the will and the strong personality to be a leader, but she never actually figured out how to go about it. She failed at organizing us, and relied on myself and others to make important group decisions. And she displayed other characteristics of a toxic leader, such as irresponsibility. For instance, she never accepted blame for any mistakes, not even when they were legitimately hers. She would set us off in one direction on this project (it was about internet privacy laws) but when the plan failed, she would never take any blame herself.
Why did we continually look to this girl when we all saw how she failed as a leader? For both Internal-Psychological reasons and for Internal-Pragmatic reasons. Internal-Psychological reasons are such things as the need for an authority figure, someone who gives us direction as someone who supposedly knows best. As a group, we needed a driving force, and the person who stepped up to that role was this girl, and since no one else in the group was relishing the idea of taking on more work, we continued to follow this girl’s lead. Internal-Pragmatic reasons are reasons that fill a physical need, like paying the bills or putting food on the table. As a group, we wanted a good grade, and the best way to get a good grade on this project was to work collaboratively. Although this girl was a terrible leader, she was still the glue that kept us working as a team toward a common goal, as opposed to what we would have done, which is work separately and put all of our work together at the end. And in the end, we did get a good grade, even if it was a struggle to get there.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Followership
Talking about all of these different leadership theories has brought up a lot of (if not exclusive) emphasis on leaders as the most important factors in leadership. Followers are very rarely acknowledged, and if they are, they are assumed to be pretty much the same. This complete lack of acknowledgement is peculiar because a leader is only a leader if he/she has followers! However, new ideas regarding followers are beginning to crop up, that, among other things, state that followers differentiate just as much as leaders do.
According to a new typology describing followers, there are a few categories followers fit into: Isolates (completely devoid of awareness or involvement), Bystanders (aware but not involved), Participants (aware and somewhat involved), Activists (aware and very involved), and Diehards (Utterly aware and involved). I have experienced most of these stages or descriptions at my time at my former job at a movie theater, where I worked for two and a half years. When I was first hired, I was very much the Activist. I was super invested in the job, I volunteered to work longer hours and I went above and beyond on a daily basis. This was because it was all so new and exciting. Over time, that initial enthusiasm waned. I was in the Participant stage for a long time, especially in comparison to the other new hires, simply because I enjoyed the job and I felt that a raise or promotion was within reach. As a Participant I was highly valued, and as a result garnered more hours than many of my coworkers. After about a year and a half, I dropped into Bystander mode, and then finally into Isolate mode. As an Isolate I still performed well, but I rarely interacted with my fellow employees if I could help it, I wasn’t overly concerned with the success of the theater, and I dreaded going to work most days. In essence, I was burned out. Most theater employees at some point hit that low stage and never get out of it, and so often quit, like I did. This in part explains the high turnover rate at movie theaters.
I can honestly say I have never been a Diehard; I have never been so wholly devoted to the job, cause, or leader. However, I have met a Diehard before. Although the General Manager of the movie theater I worked at was a leader in the context of our theater, he was an employee, a follower, of those higher up on the hierarchy. And he was completely devoted to the success of the theater, he was there all the time, he would help out us lower level employees when we were extremely busy, and he got to know regulars by name. His extreme dedication was a little bit infectious, and so our managers and Team Leaders all stepped up their game, and so we Team Members eventually did too. As a result, our theater became the most highly valued in the company, and we became the scale that all of the other theaters were measured by.
According to a new typology describing followers, there are a few categories followers fit into: Isolates (completely devoid of awareness or involvement), Bystanders (aware but not involved), Participants (aware and somewhat involved), Activists (aware and very involved), and Diehards (Utterly aware and involved). I have experienced most of these stages or descriptions at my time at my former job at a movie theater, where I worked for two and a half years. When I was first hired, I was very much the Activist. I was super invested in the job, I volunteered to work longer hours and I went above and beyond on a daily basis. This was because it was all so new and exciting. Over time, that initial enthusiasm waned. I was in the Participant stage for a long time, especially in comparison to the other new hires, simply because I enjoyed the job and I felt that a raise or promotion was within reach. As a Participant I was highly valued, and as a result garnered more hours than many of my coworkers. After about a year and a half, I dropped into Bystander mode, and then finally into Isolate mode. As an Isolate I still performed well, but I rarely interacted with my fellow employees if I could help it, I wasn’t overly concerned with the success of the theater, and I dreaded going to work most days. In essence, I was burned out. Most theater employees at some point hit that low stage and never get out of it, and so often quit, like I did. This in part explains the high turnover rate at movie theaters.
I can honestly say I have never been a Diehard; I have never been so wholly devoted to the job, cause, or leader. However, I have met a Diehard before. Although the General Manager of the movie theater I worked at was a leader in the context of our theater, he was an employee, a follower, of those higher up on the hierarchy. And he was completely devoted to the success of the theater, he was there all the time, he would help out us lower level employees when we were extremely busy, and he got to know regulars by name. His extreme dedication was a little bit infectious, and so our managers and Team Leaders all stepped up their game, and so we Team Members eventually did too. As a result, our theater became the most highly valued in the company, and we became the scale that all of the other theaters were measured by.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Process Theory
The process theory is this idea that leadership is a process that incorporates inclusive, meaningful engagement of both the leader and the followers; a relational and ethical process of people together attempting to accomplish positive change. I feel this leadership is very much prevalent in today’s society, simply because it acknowledges that both leaders and followers are significant, and that the relationship between the two is what produces change in the world. At this point in leadership theory development, we must recognize that followers are as important (if not more important!) than the leader. There are five parts to this theory: Inclusive (which means there are diverse points of view that are able to be expressed, everyone has an opinion), empowerment, ethicality, purpose (ability to make commitments) and process. I have seen this style of leadership at work in my high school ecology club. The founder of this club recognized the need to promote more eco-friendly practices into the running of the school (purposeful), and also saw how starting these programs would benefit our society as a whole (ethical). And the students also supported this vision, and when they were able to bring their concerns to the club (such as recycling) the club heard them out (inclusive) and then started acting on those concerns (empowerment). What ended up happening was that the club became one of the largest on campus, not only because students felt they could make an impact (empowerment) but were also able to make that impact in such a way that furthered their message of sustainable living (process).
What this club ended producing was a campus-wide recycling program, that became very important to the campus as a whole. As a person who was in the club and volunteered with them, I could see how teachers and students were actively thinking about what they threw away and what they could recycle. It got to the point where it was almost too much for us all to handle on the days we went to pick up the recycling bins! So, by the process method of leadership, this club was able to produce social change. Granted, on a small scale, but social change doesn’t have to be huge. Social change is the significant alteration of social structure and cultural patterns through time. The Ecology Club was able to alter the cultural pattern of our school from throwing anything and everything away in the trash without another thought, to a school-wide movement of recycling those things which could be salvaged. And although the club has effected social change into the cultural fabric of the high school, their next steps are to bring more awareness to the greater part of Gilbert, and possibly effect an eco-friendly movement in that community as well.
What this club ended producing was a campus-wide recycling program, that became very important to the campus as a whole. As a person who was in the club and volunteered with them, I could see how teachers and students were actively thinking about what they threw away and what they could recycle. It got to the point where it was almost too much for us all to handle on the days we went to pick up the recycling bins! So, by the process method of leadership, this club was able to produce social change. Granted, on a small scale, but social change doesn’t have to be huge. Social change is the significant alteration of social structure and cultural patterns through time. The Ecology Club was able to alter the cultural pattern of our school from throwing anything and everything away in the trash without another thought, to a school-wide movement of recycling those things which could be salvaged. And although the club has effected social change into the cultural fabric of the high school, their next steps are to bring more awareness to the greater part of Gilbert, and possibly effect an eco-friendly movement in that community as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)