Power and Influence

A511.3.3.RB

The concepts of power and influence play a significant role in personal and professional relationships at all levels.  Yukl (2012) states that, “Power involves the capacity of one party (the “agent”) to influence another party (the “target”)” (p. 186) and that “Influence in one direction tends to enhance influence in other directions” (p. 186). The sources of power include: expert power, referent power, legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power and can be classified as positional power and personal power (Yukl, 2012).

Because the nature of power is never constant, “it changes over time due to changing conditions and the actions of individuals and coalitions” (Yukl, 2012, p. 193). Furthermore, the manner in which power is “gained or lost in organizations is described in social exchange theory, strategic contingencies theory, and theories about institutionalization of power” (Yukl, 2012, p. 193). Thus, leaders have to constantly adjust to a dynamic environment and evaluate their approach to a given situation. Stated more plainly, there is not “one size fits all” template of leadership.

The use of power is a leader’s “personal stamp” on their respective leadership style. How a leader employs their skills and tact to influence others (superiors, peers, & subordinates) is essential to becoming an effective and productive leader. For example, when using Legitimate Power, Yukl (2012) recommends that leaders use polite and clear request (p. 198). Another example for the use of Expert Power is to “Explain the reasons for a request or proposal and why it is important” and to “Provide evidence that a proposal will be successful (p. 200).

In any organization, power and influence affects both leader and follower alike. This can be explained in The Leader-Member Exchange Theory that states that “The basic premise of the theory is that leaders develop an exchange relationship with each subordinate as the two parties mutually define the subordinate’s role” (Yukl, 2012, p. 222). Over a period of time, a leader and follower begin to establish either a high or low-exchange relationship. In fact, for those leaders whom are both a leader and follower, their high or low-exchange relationships with their boss can directly affect their own subordinates (chain of command). “A favorable upward relationship enables a manager to obtain more benefits for subordinates and to facilitate their performance by obtaining necessary resources, cutting red tape, and gaining approval of changes desired by subordinates” (Yukl, 2012, p. 224). Thus, the assumption can be made that a leader with a low-exchange relationship with their boss, could potentially face more leadership challenges.

In my previous career in the military, attempting to establish a positive working relationship with your boss (known as a commander), was a very important endeavor. Unlike bosses in the civilian world, commanders are responsible for every aspect of a unit to include the health and warfare of their subordinate’s and their families. Which means that not only do they have positional power while on duty, they have the ability to affect one’s personal time and conduct. Thus, striving for a high-exchange relationship based on trust and performance is key. With this said, I have observed on many occasions my peers “use upward influence tactics to create a favorable impression of themselves” (Otham et al, 2009, p. 341). Sometimes this tactic was successful, but with the savvy leaders, they could sense an underlying motive. These leaders were smart enough to realize that one’s capabilities and effectiveness incorporated more than being personable. These leaders (boss) looked at a subordinates potential holistically based on their conduct, leadership style, performance, communications, and positive influence on their subordinates. Furthermore, these savvy leaders would ask the right questions and gauge the preparedness and responses of the subordinate, evaluating what was beneath the “upward influence tactic.” Observing these savvy leader’s approach towards subordinate evaluation holistically, was a good lesson for me as I interacted with my subordinates.  

References

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, Gary A. (2012-02-09). Leadership in Organizations (8th Edition). Pearson HE, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Supportive Behavior

A511.2.3.RB

According to Yukl (2010), “Supportive leadership includes a wide variety of behaviors that show consideration, acceptance, and concern for the needs and feelings of other people” (p. 63). Prior to reading chapter three of our course text, my research on supportive leadership as it is described by Yukl has been limited. Yet the topic and practice of “active leadership” is something I know all too well during my time in military service. In fact, my experience in service and Yukl’s description of “supportive leadership” share many parallels.  

As a former military officer, I had the honor and privilege of leading young men and women in some of the most trying times in their life. Although much of this included intense realistic training and combat, a large part also included developing and shaping a future or existing leader. As often as time and my duties would allow, I took every opportunity to speak with as many Soldiers as I could. I have found that through casual conversation, as a leader, you can gauge the morale of a team/unit and find out new and interesting things about them and their families and background. Furthermore, you can identify what issues they may have and ensure that their immediate supervisor (normally an NCO) is working with them to address these issues. Indeed, “Supportive leadership helps to build and maintain effective interpersonal relationships” (Yukl, 2010, p. 63). Such relationships are essential to building a cohesive team based on trust and respect.  

In addition, Yukl (2010) provides guidelines for leaders to incorporate into their leadership style, which include:

·       Show acceptance and positive regard.

·       Provide sympathy and support when the person is anxious or upset.

·       Bolster the person’s self-esteem and confidence.

·       Be willing to help with personal problems.

Another important and essential aspect to supportive leadership is developing and recognizing others efforts and achievements. Developing competent and effective leaders while in service was vital for mission accomplishment. Unlike the civilian world, in order to provide the best leaders for organizations, we had to “grow them internally.” This endeavor would require countless hours of training, counseling, and mentorship interaction. Over the course of five to ten years, a leader would have had key development positions that would prepare them for leading large units (over 150 Soldiers). Moreover, recognition at every stage of growth would provide a deeper confidence in their skills and abilities. As leaders, we would take every opportunity to formally recognize extraordinary results and efforts. This was done with certificates, awards, coins and even time off to celebrate with their families. This tangible “pat on the back” served as an example for others to follow and strive for. Furthermore, praising others in front of their peers and subordinates demonstrated appreciation and reinforced standards that an organization required as it pursued excellence.

 

As I have transitioned from active service to the civilian workforce, I have maintained many of the supportive leadership traits that has proven to develop and improve a team/organization. As I continue with the M.S. Leadership program, I have gained a wider appreciation of the leadership concepts, theories and practices we as students have explored. At this early stage of the program, I have critically evaluated my own leadership style and the traits I wish to improve. I am confident that this self-evaluation and evolution will remain constant as the program continues.

References

Yukl, Gary A. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (8th Edition). Pearson HE, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Leadership vs. Management

A511.1.3.RB

The first person that comes to mind when thinking about an inspirational leader is my high school football coach. At first glance it would be easily understandable to choose such a person because a coach by definition is “a person who teaches and trains an athlete or performer” (Merriam-Webster). Their purpose it would seem on the surface is to train you, make you better at something and develop you for a given sport or team function. At least this was my first inclination at the time. Over time however, through this individual’s actions, expectations and severe discipline, it became clear to me that his “purpose” was to shape young men into hardworking productive adults with an extraordinary work ethic to be successful beyond the playing field. As I participated in other activities with other coaches, another thing became clear, not all coaches share the same purpose. Many of the hard lessons I learned from this coach has served me well into my military profession and still beyond. Two important concepts that I took away from this leader is that the “easy path will produce the easy results” and that when things get though “sometimes you have to close your eyes, grit your teeth and keep your feet moving.”

As I have transitioned from active service to the civilian world, I believe that leadership and management intersect on many levels. This was not always that case. While in service as an officer where the majority of my leadership skills were learned and refined, I hardly concerned myself with the management aspect and held leadership as the main focus since everyone above the rank of sergeant (E-5) is considered and expected to be a leader. Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 (2012) describes a leader as:

An Army leader is anyone who by virtue of assumed role or assigned responsibility inspires and influences people to accomplish organizational goals. Army leaders motivate people both inside and outside the chain of command to pursue actions, focus thinking and shape decisions for the greater good of the organization.

As a military leader, I wanted to know my subordinates. I wanted to know who they were, where they came from, their family situation, their strengths and weakness in order to best train and develop them and set them up for success in their personal and professional life. I would supervise their execution of training and conduct and manage the systems involved that contributed to their progress. Now in the civilian world, it appears at this stage that the same applies, but more stock is placed in the management of work, people and progress.

Where I believe leadership and management intersect is situationally dependent on the purpose of the work (why) and the quality and style of the manager. For example, if I were a manager in production business where the product or services were mainly automated or occurred systematically and people were place within the system to ensure a continuous flow and had little impact on the product itself, my concern would be on what drives the system (mechanical) or how do I get the most from the system (software)? Obviously managing would be the priority, perhaps followed by supervising the people who ensure the flow and periodically motivating them with leadership to keep morale up.  Whereas if I were in the marking business and people (subordinates) were the “go getters,” leadership would be more applicable because of the human dimension involved (subordinates and customers) and the dynamic business environment. Needless to say, leadership and management exist in either case and anyone responsible for either should be expected to utilize and employ their abilities to achieve the organizations desired outcome.

Simon Sinek’s discussion of the “why” of leadership was enlightening and essential to the concept of leadership. When people (subordinates, team, group) understand and share the same believe as to the “why” they are doing what they are doing, they are more willing to accept more personal sacrifice and “lean into” the hard work required to achieve the organizational goal(s). It becomes a personal investment opposed to just collecting a pay check.

 
References:

Army Doctrine Publication 6-22. (2012). Headquarters, Department of the Army. Retrieved from

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adp6_22.pdf

Coach [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster Online, Retrieved January 14, 2016, from

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