A511.6.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A511.6.3.RB – Meaning

            How can we describe meaning? What is the definition of meaning? The Merriam-Webster encyclopedia defines meaning as, “the thing one intends to convey especially by language: purport” (2015). The Harvard Business Review, Getting Beyond Engagement to Creating Meaning at Work, provides examples and guidance on why leaders are in need to find a cause or meaning while working. When a leader is in search of meaning, the word itself is profound deeper into finding what makes an individual happy. Whether the job you are assigned to provides a lot of money or not, if you soul is not invested into what you do, then there is really no cause for a meaningful future. “People have to create the meaning of their work and their lives, and that process requires skill and practice, not just luck” (Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010, para. 2).

            While reviewing and reading some famous quotes provided by this week’s module, my favorite one is by the co-authors of The Why Work, Dave and Wendy Ulrich. They stated, “In organizations, meaning and abundance are more about what we do with what we have than about what we have to begin with” – what they are trying to exemplified by saying this, is that the real meaning of anything can only be found by making the best of a situation with what you have. Gary Yukl (2013) has a very interesting perspective about the roles and attitudes of a leader. He believes that, “the attitude-centered approach involves changing attitudes and values with persuasive appeals, training programs, team-building activities, or a culture change program” (p. 111). In other words, “meaning” starts with an empowering leader. What constitutes an empowering leader? A leader that does not see obstacles when is faced with challenges and encourages others to follow the same path while not demanding but leading by example and making others copy the same behavior willingly.

            Moreover, Yukl (2013) finds it essential to “convert resisters into change agents who will transmit the vision to other people in the organization” (p. 111). By doing so, as explained by Ulrich and Ulrich (2010), they believe that leaders who infuse meaning to their followers are prone to work harder, are more creative and determined, and become a considerable asset to the company (para. 3). When followers can understand the cause or meaning of their work, their contributions are bigger and their morale is higher. Additionally, the acceptance of a meaningful job, introduces an employee who is happy and motivated to be where he or she is. Consequently, Gary Yukl describes specific leadership behaviors that are found to be relevant to increase member’s commitment to share objectives including:

(1) Articulating an appealing vision that links the task objectives to member values and ideals; (2) explaining why a project or new initiative is important; (3) setting task objectives that are clear and challenging; (4) planning relevant performance strategies for attaining the objectives; and (5) empowering members to participate in planning activities and developing creative solutions to problems. (2013, p. 255).

            Nevertheless, finding the significance of meaning depends on each person’s personality and is more of a choice than a skill. "The executive must find a way to communicate the vision in a way that attracts and excites members of the organization" (Kouzes & Posner, 1987, p. 106). The word meaning is a very strong responsibility, which we acquire by listening and watching the best examples. And a leader’s capacity to influence meaning to others depends on accepting “what role they play in this process” (Ulrich & Ulrich, 2010, para. 3).

References

(n.d.). (2015). Merriam-Webster. An Encyclopedia Britannica Company. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meaning

Ulrich, D., Ulrich, W. (2010). Getting beyond engagement to creating meaning at work. Harvard Business Review. HBP Blog Network. June 2, 2010. Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/2010/06/getting-beyond-engagement-to-c/

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. (8^th ed.) Dorling Kindersley / Pearson Education, Inc.

A511.5.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A511.5.3.RB – Remote Transformational Leadership

•    What was the point of the research?

The article, Remote Transformational Leadership, attempts to analyze transformational leadership by demonstrating the finding of the two studies conducted with different students. The author’s purpose is based on whether leaders can direct electronic communications effectively without interrupting the main idea, which is delivering the message. While critical thinking “begins with asking questions; thinking critically about solving a problem, on the other hand, begins with asking questions about the problem and about ways to address it” (Nosich, 2012, p. 6). Therefore, Kelloway, Barling, Kelley, Comtois, and Gatien (2002), conduct two studies in search to differentiate between a transformational electronic mail communications and charismatic email with problem solving tasks.

•    What were the hypotheses?

Different hypotheses were found in between the two studies. In the first study, the author’s main concern was to answer: “Can recipients perceive and accurately identify leadership ‘styles’ communicated by e-mail? (Kelloway et al., 2002, p. 164). In addition, they wanted to understand if, “receiving an e-mail with a positive (i.e. transformational) leadership message as opposed to a negative message (i.e. management-by-exception or laissez-faire) perceived to be associated with positive outcomes?” (Kelloway et al., 2002, p. 164). The authors, Kelloway et al. (2002), expected to find that emails sent from supervisors would have no effect if used with a laissez-faire style. Another hypothesis they found was that individuals are greatly exposed to motivation and higher levels of performance if they were to receive charismatic or intellectual stimulating email messages.

•    What was the research method used?

To initiate the research, the first study conducted a review of one hundred and seventy five students, while the second study had one hundred and five undergraduate students. The research method they used was laboratory-based investigation. “As in most areas of investigation, the use of a laboratory- based procedure is most appropriate in the early stages of research when the questions of interest focus on internal validity” (Kelloway et al., 2002, p. 167). Moreover, they also had students read one vignette by using the vignette approach and perceptual variables. Furthermore, most of the data they gathered was based on self-reports, mono-method, and mono-sources. The second study included both a laboratory environment, and a survey technique to collect data following the group interaction.

•    Were the results supportive of the research goals? Of what value was the research?

To begin with, the results presented in the first study do not provide a firm foundation for concluding remote leadership can be effective. Continuously, after evaluating all the results, it was easy to conclude individuals do identify the difference between leadership styles when it comes to email. In the second place, based on their hypothesis, e-mails containing transformational leadership messages were associated with greater interpersonal justice and satisfaction compared to messages based on the management-by-exception or laissez-faire styles. “Transforming leadership appeals to the moral values of followers in an attempt to raise their consciousness about ethical issues and to mobilize their energy and resources to reform institutions” (Yukl, 2013, p. 329).

References

Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., Kelley, E., Comtois, J., & Gatien, B. (2002). Remote transformational leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 24 (3), 163-171.

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum (4th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Riggio, R. (2009). Transformational Leadership Theory - Its Definition, Function, and Application [video file]. Retrieved from http://transformleadership.org/files/2011/07/dr_ron_riggio.mov

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. (8^th ed.) Dorling Kindersley / Pearson Education, Inc.

A511.4.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A511.4.3.RB – Leadership Traits

            This week’s module readings have thought me about the importance of a leader’s traits and skills. How the success of a company or organization deeply depends on the effective use of traits and skills of a manager. When it comes to motivation, it implies a significant power for a leader. Someone who is able to motivate their own persona or others can create wonders. While evaluating what motivates managers, the theories encountered were self-confidence, personal integrity, narcissism, and achievement orientation. One way or another, this four specific traits motivate leaders in positive or negative ways. On the other hands, if managers want to motivate their subordinates, then energy level/stress tolerance, internal locus of control, emotional stability and maturity, personal integrity and need for affiliation are positive motivators.

            Managerial motivation reflects on what provokes an individual to make efforts in order to demonstrate superb skills. Consequently, managerial motivation can impact people in two ways, positive or negative. High energy level and stress tolerance from a leader results in trust. An effective leader or manager’s main goal should be creating a trustworthy organizational environment. In addition, if a leader is trustworthy, then he or she has earn the title of the self-confidence theory. If you do not believe in yourself, then nobody is will. Nevertheless, a measured level of confidence needs to be alert at all times. According to Yukl, “excessive self-confidence may make a leader overly optimistic about the likely success of a risky venture, and it may result in rash decisions and denial of evidence that a plan is flawed” (2013, p. 144).

            Another trait that stands out is internal locus of control. In other words, locus of control states how an individual truly believes his actions are a results of pure faith or chance. Although this trait alone does not bring effectiveness to an organization, this type of leaders “take more initiative than externals in discovering and solving problems” (Yukl, 2013, p. 144). In a similar way, emotional stability and maturity provides stability to the follower’s psychological power. Yukl (2003) delivers the term emotional maturity, “as a person who is emotionally mature is well adjusted and does not suffer from severe psychological disorders” (p. 145). Moreover, Gary Yukl idea of skills and effective leadership encompasses technical skills to be ahead when it comes to knowing the organization’s technology tools. Then, conceptual skills, which in general leaders make use and involve “good judgment, foresight, intuition, creativity, and the ability to find meaning and order in ambiguous, uncertain events” (Yukl, 2013, p. 153). Lastly, interpersonal skills are an effective way to carryout a leadership position. Interpersonal skills enhance the relation between followers and agents, since there is a clear and honest interest in motivating others, getting involved with followers, or understanding the attitudes and feelings of others.

            After analyzing my leadership skills, traits, and competencies, I believe I posses positive examples of a good leader but have a lot to improve. To begin, I have always consider myself an individual with the ability to manage my emotions. Emotional intelligence is a key factor for the success of a company or any place. Hence, I feel very strong when it comes to showing apathy out of respect to my followers. In relation, another trait I would like to say I am good at is learning ability. When you grow-up moving from one place to another, you learn to love the instability of changing friends, school, etc. Therefore, change in an organizational setting comes natural to me and does not make me upset in any way. Accordingly, I feel, as I am flexible and willing to accept those changes at work. Rosabeth Kanter (2011) stated, “there’s needs to be a flexible look at both ends of the spectrum in any situation.” 

            In relation to my strong skills, I believe they influence my value at work since cultural change at an organizational level is happening. I cannot take complete credit for the change, but I do know that I work hard to make sure what I do is always done with all the efforts I could have given, even if it is not perfect. The best feeling is to feel appreciated and valued for the hard work your put on and now my job is in the process of considering me for a management position. On the other hand, contingency theory and situational variables may assist the process of my job valuing my skills. Contingency theory describes, “how aspects of the leadership situation can alter a leader’s influence and effectiveness” (Yukl, 2013, p. 169). I believe I can make use of the Path-Goal Theory where followers or subordinates find satisfaction in any task assigned. Path-Goal theory is not complex but requires a motivator who wants to influence his or her followers into acquiring new approaches to old habits. If I make use of this theory, I may be able to start changing bad habits into better ones and still have the organization satisfied.

References:

Kanter, R. M. (2011). Zooming: How effective leaders adjust their focus [video file]. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saNj6B0Vasw&feature=youtu.be

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. (8^th ed.) Dorling Kindersley / Pearson Education, Inc.

A511.3.3.RB_DellElceCamila

A511.3.3.RB – Power and Influence

            After studying about power and influence tactics, I was able to learn many theories and ways to approach such topic. The author Gary Yukl (2013) describes how organizational power can be acquire and how it can be lost. Amarjit Singh from the Organizational Power in Perspective journal believes “Power and influence are fundamental human phenomena that are deeply ingrained on the psyche and conscious personality of individuals. The difference between proper and improper use of power is the difference between success and failure, high and low productivity, motivation and disillusionment” (2009, p. 165). Similarly to the social exchange theory, Gary Yukl (2009) finds a leader’s success dependable very much on the person’s loyalty, capabilities, and the impact his or her involvement has to reach the organization’s goals. Additionally, to have power could also mean to have information power. The use of controlled information makes a leader a resourceful tool for an organization, but like everything, with great power comes great responsibility. Therefore, a source of power can successfully take a leader’s power to the top but it could also demonstrate lack of commitment, thus, subordinates are no longer dependent on such information. 

            Likewise, strategic contingencies theory emphasizes in the importance of providing unique expertise, which in return makes an organization dependable on a leader to critically solve problems. Gary Yukl (2013) uses institutionalization when influencing or protecting existing sources of power by exercising political tactics. In other words, “the evolutionary shift in power described by strategic contingencies theory can be delayed by the use of these political tactics, but if top management lacks the expertise to develop an appropriate strategy for responding to changes in the environment, the performance of the organization will decline” (Yukl, 2013, p. 201). Hence, very little research has been done about the consequences of power. Although, inconclusive results have been obtained, the correlation between leadership power and the consequences reveal that “effective leaders have more expert and referent power than less effective leaders, and they rely on their personal power more than on their position power “ (Yukl, 2013, p. 201).

            On the other hand, it can be said that power comes from influence. There are three different types of influence processes: (1) Instrumental Compliance: when target follows orders and in exchange receives tangible rewards; (2) Internalization: the target accepts and is committed to follow orders because they respect the same morals as the agent; and (3) Personal Identification: target complies to the agent’s request because they feel identified and would like to please and become like the agent. In addition, these processes are influenced by, what Gary Yukl (2013) calls, influence tactics. These tactics are composed by another set of three general types: (1) Impression Management Tactics; (2) Political Tactics; and (3) Proactive Tactics. In order for the influence towards the leader’s target to be successful, there are three ways to anticipate the outcomes. Commitment is a very important part of an outcome since it refers to the effort made by a target and build by the agent (leader). Compliance is an outcome where the target is hesitant to follow the request and only provides minimal effort. Lastly, resistant is when a target is completely in disagreement with the request of an agent and as a result compromises the outcome and is unsympathetic about it. 

            While reflecting on the power I personally bring to my work place, I get to explore what are the sources of that power? What is the nature of that power? How is it used or not? And how is that power related to your ability to lead or follow?

            Working in a high-pace environment where every second counts, like retail, I believe most of Gary Yukl’s sources of power are used. Legitimate power is used every day at work since subordinates are aware of the chain of command and they understand I am their lead on duty. Associates at work agree with the company’s rules because the benefits such as, vacation, time off, flexibility, and rewards are valued. I personally cannot reward my subordinates but I do use my power to influence them into doing their work, so that the company can use reward power on them. The organization will provide three percent for every protection plan is sold and it gives away a ten-dollar gift card for every five credit card applications an associate opens. “Reward power depends not only on a manager’s actual control over resources and rewards, but also on the target person’s perception that the agent has the capacity and willingness to follow through on promises” (Yukl, 2013, p. 195). 

            Moreover, the upper level managers but not myself use coercive power. As a leader, I am in charge to guide my associates (subordinates) on how to get the work done, to have structure at work, and to comply with the companies’ rules. Referent power is a source I get to experience a lot. Many times, I feel like my managers influenced me with their good leadership skills and I end up pleasing them in whatever they need or want because I feel I can be loyal to them. In the contrary, I tried to incentivize my subordinates by always pointing out their positive skills and trying to be subtle when providing a constructive critique.  When it comes to expert power, my position allows me to know more about the software we use, how to do certain transactions, what rules apply to what, and so on. Hence, my subordinates are in constant need of my personal power much like the information and ecological power source. 

            Finally, have I experienced high quality LMX situations within my workplace, which are dysfunctional in the sense that Othman et al describe?

            When it comes to LMX (Leader-member exchange), I have not directly experienced it but I have seen it happening and somehow I did not like it. Othman, Foo, and Ng (2010) explain “the leader-member exchange (leader-member exchange) theory basically argues that leaders develop differentiated dyadic relationships with their subordinates” (para. 2). That said, in different occasions, one of my managers has the tendency to let everyone know and talk bad about other people’s work. As we were upfront and we saw one of subordinates walking in, she made a comment and made a noise of desperation by saying, “I hate working with this girl, she does not know what she is doing unlike you guys; you are much better than she is.” When I first heard that, my reaction was of surprise. After reflecting on what she said, I realized how dysfunctional it was and that if I was in my coworker’s shoes, I would not have liked her comment. I believe that she does not have ethics and she probably earned her manager position with time and not because she knows how to be one. Everyone seemed to be okay with that comment and even felt flatter by it. I just felt uncomfortable and wish she had directed her opinion to her bosses and see how they can help that subordinate to become better.

References

Othman, R., Foo, F. E., & Ng, L. S. (2010). Understanding dysfunctional leader-member exchange: Antecedents and outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4), 337-350. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731011043357 

Singh, A. (2009). ”Organizational Power in Perspective.” Leadership Manage. Eng., 9(4), 165–176.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations. (8^th ed.) Dorling Kindersley / Pearson Education, Inc.