A640.6.4.RB_BorutyAlan_Authentic Leadership

Authentic Leadership

In the early 2000s, leadership and leaders in general came under intense scrutiny after a series of scandals involving top leaders of large organizations dominated the news headlines.  These events led the public to believe that this behavior ran rampant through leadership ranks in business (Rowe & Guerrero, 2018).  Rowe and Guerrero (2018) explained that authentic leadership came about in 2003 as a response to the public outcry for change. The public demanded “more honest, more trustworthy, and more genuine leadership” (p. 202) and that is exactly what authentic leadership gave them. 

The question was what are we going to do about it and how can we prevent it from happening again?  Creating a new leadership style called Authentic Leadership was the leadership community’s partial solution and contribution to answering the questions at issue.  The business community addressed the question through policy changes, transparency being the most significant.  These were difficult questions and the truth is, there is no real answer.  There were too many assumptions made during this trying time.  The public assumed all leaders are crooks and we assumed that authentic leadership was the answer.  Not all leaders are crooks and even if we could force all leaders into the authentic leadership style, it would not solve this problem.  People intent on doing the wrong thing are going to do the wrong thing.  We are forced into a reactive posture because we have to trust our leaders to do the right thing.  And, the vast majority of them do.

If we had not reacted as we did, there is a chance the public would have acted less aggressively.  However, that chance would be very small or unlikely.  So, neutralize the situation as quickly as possible, then solve the problem makes the most sense.  Either way, the public's claims were legitimate and they required an appropriate response.

The information available was limited to what the media provided and it was not laudatory of leadership.  Some of it was true and some of it was not.  Leaders have too much power and too much autonomy to use it.  Leaders do not answer to anyone.  All leaders participate in the same types of behavior.  True or not, we needed to answer the accusations.  So, we offered the concept of authentic leadership in response.  

It has been a while since the last major scandal and things have settled down.  We still continue to inject transparency in what we do and strive to improve our leadership skills.  No one wants the things that happened at Enron to happen again.  Awareness, transparency, audits and new leadership concepts cannot hurt but, unfortunately, they will not stop the next person from trying to get away with it.

The critics that believe authentic leadership is a way to manipulate and deceive followers should  think about their claim a bit further.  I would argue that every form of leadership offers the leader the opportunity to manipulate and deceive followers.  This is why trust is such an important part of leadership.  It has to be earned over time, but it can be violated in an instant.  Authentic leadership came along after the scandals; it did not cause the scandals nor will it fix them, but it could address them.  However, recognizing these incidents for what they really are is my advice.  They are the actions of an individual criminal.  They are not indicative of a cancer afflicting all leaders.  Deal with them swiftly, appropriately, and publicly.  To do otherwise, is to harm the larger, innocent group.  It may be that the critics of authentic leadership misunderstand what constitutes ‘authentic’ in this context.  I did.

I had mixed feelings about authentic leadership.  My first reaction was, is there any other kind?  Authentic should be a prerequisite for leadership.  After a second look, I realized that the elements that define authentic leaders are legitimate.  It is very important for leaders to know themselves well enough to trust themselves to lead.  According to Rowe and Guerrero (2018) it is because self-aware leaders understand their strengths and weaknesses, are tuned in to how their behavior affects others, and know who they are and what they stand for, other people perceive these leaders as more authentic” (p. 204).

Authentic leaders have an internalized moral perspective.  They will “resist external pressures that are contrary to their moral standards through an internal regulation process that ensures their values are congruent with the anticipated outcomes of a behavior” (p. 204).  In other words, authentic leaders are not easily swayed from their deeply held beliefs and values nor would they likely be persuaded to act against them.

Authentic leaders use balanced processing.  They listen to all the information in an objective manner before they make a decision.  In other words, they think before they act.  They do not make hasty decisions that have to be reversed later.

Finally, authentic leaders exhibit relational transparency. They understand they are not perfect and they do not attempt to be.  They are willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them.  This self-disclosure is not easy , but it is necessary to building trust and sound relationships (Rowe & Guerrero, 2018).

According to Rowe and Guerrero (2018) self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency are the attributes of the authentic leader.  I would argue that they are attributes every leader, regardless of their style, should strive to attain.  Perhaps authentic is the best name for this leadership style because as Bill George (2015) points out, these leaders are real and genuine, “you cannot ‘fake it till you make it’ by putting on a show as a leader or being a chameleon in your style. People sense very quickly who is authentic and who is not” (para. 5).  George (2015) goes on to say that all authentic leaders have five qualities in common: 1) they understand their purpose, 2) they practice solid values, 3) they lead with heart, 4) they establish connected relationships, and 5) they demonstrate self-discipline.

While I do not believe authentic leadership will prevent a leader that is intent on doing the wrong thing from following through with those plans, people who truly embrace the attributes and qualities of the authentic leader would not likely involve themselves in such scandalous behavior.  Business could benefit from having more authentic leaders throughout its organizations, especially in its top positions.  I, for one, see authentic leadership qualities as excellent goals to pursue. 

~Pete

References

George, B. (2015, November 10). The true qualities of authentic leaders. Forbes.com. Accessed November 24, 2018 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2015/11/10/the-true-qualities-of-authentic-leaders/#31d5c382f74d

Rowe, W. G., & Guerrero, L. (2018). Cases in leadership. (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publishing.

A640.5.2.RB_BorutyAlan_Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership

Leader-Member Exchange Theory of Leadership

Why are individuals willing to work harder than required for leaders that invest in high-quality relationships with them?

Simply stated, leaders that invest in high-quality relationships with subordinates expect more from those individuals than they do others.  Further, by working harder than required, individuals receive benefits that others do not.  On the surface, these relationships resemble ‘good ole boy’ or ‘scratch my back and I will scratch yours’ agreements.  In fact, individuals that have a high-quality relationship with the leader are considered to be part of the in-group.  Indeed, this is a major criticism of the leader-member exchange theory of leadership (Dunaetz, 2015).

However, this is not the intent of the theory.  These high-quality relationships run deeper than appearance would suggest.  They form as a result of the interactions between the leader and an individual and are marked by mutual trust, respect, liking, and reciprocal influence (Rowe and Guerrero, 2018).  While every subordinate has the opportunity to make it to the leader’s in-group, not all exchanges are equal and some are not in-group quality.  Those subordinates become part of the out-group.

Rowe and Guerrero (2018) go on to clarify, “in-group relationships develop when leaders and followers negotiate that followers do more than required by their job description, and the leaders provide more than that required by the formal hierarchy” (p. 122).  Leaders give in-group members more responsibilities, more say in decisions, better jobs, more rewards, and more support for career advancement (Rowe and Gurrero, 2018).  Therefore, in-group subordinates are the individuals in an organization with high leadership and promotion potential.  So, to finally answer the prompt question, individuals that have high-quality relationships with the leader will work harder than required so as not to fall out of the leader’s favor and find themselves among the out-group. 

Would you be willing to work harder than required for someone like that and under what conditions?

My simple answer to this question is yes, I would.  However, this is not a simple question.  Therefore, I feel I must qualify my answer.  Having been a member of an in-group and an out-group at different points in my career, there are truths that I learned and can share about each.  First, while in-groups and out-groups are not announced or recognized by the organization, they do exist and they are real.  Second, everyone in the organization knows who is in which group.  Third, the groups create different classes of people in the organization.  Fourth, impressions are based on these classifications placing a stigma on the lower-class out-group members.  Fifth, once one is relegated to the out-group, finding their way into the in-group is extremely difficult, if not impossible. 

There are people that are content being in the out-group.  They are the ones that have not set goals for their career.  They are the ones that have not had a leader take an interest in them and discuss their career in terms of opportunity, goals, and accomplishment.  Perhaps they were nervous and did not make a good first impression with the leader and fell victim to expectations lower than their abilities (Rowe and Guerrero, 2018).  For whatever reason, they find it easier to do what is expected and nothing more, than it is to get the leader’s attention.  It is an unfortunate loss of organizational potential, but these people do exist.  However, most people in the out-group have greater aspirations and, for a while, they will work hard and do whatever they believe is necessary to be accepted into the in-group.  Time is of the essence though because everyone has a breaking point. 

In my case, I can honestly say that I worked harder and longer doing the jobs no one else wanted to do to demonstrate my worthiness to a leader that really did not care, than I ever did as an in-group member exceeding a leader’s expectations.   When I finally succeeded and found myself in the in-group, I resented the leader for his arrogance and never got past it. 

This explains the simple answer I provided earlier.  My easiest day trying to work my way out of the out-group and gain the acceptance of the leader who had previously rejected me was exponentially harder than the hardest day I ever worked exceeding the expectations of a leader that already accepted me.

What are some of the implications of being a member of the in-group? out-group? 

The things I have discussed are not the intent of the leader-member exchange theory of leadership, but they are reality within the organization.  When leaders only form high-quality relationships with a few select people, in-groups are the natural result.  If one is not in the in-group, then there must be an out-group.  The creation of these groups or even the perception that these groups exist is where the problems with the theory begin. 

There are implications for members of the in-group.  Everyone else will see them as ‘the chosen ones’ or as receiving preferential treatment.  Additionally, expectations of in-group members could become unrealistic.  Finally, they could begin to see themselves as better than others or give others that impression.

I have already mentioned several implications for out-group members, and will summarize here.  Out-group members may be seen as lower-class members or be put in a situation in which they cannot succeed.  The leader’s rejection could create a sort self-fulfilling prophecy resulting in even lower performance.  Finally, out-group members can be stigmatized unfairly and permanently. 

The implication for the organization is simple: low morale, in-fighting, and poor performance.

Rowe and Guerrero (2018) assert that in-group relationships result in responsibility, good jobs, rewards, and career advancement where out-group relationships include formal communications focused on job descriptions.  In-group members grow as a result of their relationships with the leader.  Out-group members stagnate as a result of their relationship with the leader.

Leader-member exchange theory is based on having high-quality exchanges between the leader and an individual.  The more high-quality relationships the leader can develop the better the organization will perform.  The existence of in-groups and out-groups is inconsistent with the theory.  The mere presence of an out-group implies that performance is not as effective as it should be.  Leaders cannot form high-quality relationships with a select few and expect to achieve organizational effectiveness, they must strive to form high quality relationships with all their subordinates and succeed.  Only then can the leader-member exchange theory of leadership improve organizational effectiveness (Rowe and Guerrero, 2018).

~Pete

References

Dunaetz, D. (2015, July 12). Leader-Member Exchange Theory: Northouse 7 ed. Ch. 7. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2kxaiDVFso

Rowe, W.G. & Guerrero, L. (2018). Cases in leadership (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc

A640.4.2.RB_BorutyAlan_Developing a Case (Post event analysis)

Developing a Case (Post event analysis)

Every now and then, I get a mental block of sorts over an assignment.  This was one of those assignments.  And the block lingered.  I finally did figure out what I was supposed to do and I got I done, albeit a bit late.

I tried to understand the reasoning behind the assignment and how it tied in to the weekly lesson, but could not.  In fact, I wrote the entire module off as a mistake.  Some understanding came after more information was added to the module.  In the end, I learned about the contingency and path-goal theories of leadership.  And, I wrote a case study.

I felt like I was good at analyzing case studies before I wrote one.  I do not believe writing one made me better at analyzing them, but it did help me to see the mechanics involved and some of the traps that are easy to fall in to.  Writing my own case study probably made me a little more critical when reading other case studies.  However, I did learn some things pertinent to case studies.

My tendency was to lead the reader where I wanted them to be.  This defeats the purpose.  I have to remain objective and present facts.  The reader will take them where they will.  It is all part of the learning.

I believed when I enrolled in this course that case studies would be an effective and interesting way to learn about leadership.  Nothing can compete with studying the actual cases and analyzing what could have been done better, differently, or not at all in order to get a better understanding of leadership in action.  This module did nothing to change my beliefs on this matter.  If anything, it confirmed that analyzing case studies is important to understanding leadership.  I am happy to be moving on to another module.

~Pete