A511.7.3RB Inner Work for authentic leadership

  What is authentic leadership?  How do followers respect the authorities of those that have it?  Does the the military breed authentic leaders, do we see ourselves as genuine leaders because of stripes or bars tell us we are or is there some other reflection process that makes us good leaders?

  Authentic leadership is a leadership style that "emphasizes sincerity and genuineness (Authentic leadership (2015)."  It establishes that the leaders stay true to their own values and principles.  It involves being open and honest, deciosn-making, mistakes, to both the leader and the followers.  At the very essence it is about being transparent with the follower or authentic (Wood, 2007). 

  The military requires open and honest communication between the leader and the follower.  It exemplifies their demand signal.  Since the formation of organized military thousands of years ago, we have stood by these demands.  This demand has not changed for authentic leaders.  The military in itself trains us to believe that we are good leaders, we go through our lives with new promotions, leading troops, putting on those new stripes or those new officers colors.  We move from gunner to platoon sergeant to a staff job.  We spend twenty years presuming that we are authentic leaders.  I have done this; this however does not mean that I was an authentic leader.

  Authentic leader means that I was genuine to my own values and principles and that I was willingly to accept criticism and feedback.  I was open to new ideas and to my mistakes and reflect and even adapt my own leadership practices.  At my last job I was responsible for the stand up of a new mission area and handpick 25 new troops. This exciting request a new squadron standup and I started four previous squadrons before, so this was not my first time.  As the troops started to arrive one bye one they tested by authentic leadership, some tested me from day one.  They tried to see what the bounds of my own principle would be, how far would I go to defend them, to stand up fro them, to get hem what they needed to get the job done.  What lengths would I go for them? 

 Everyday I called an "Afternoon Huddle" with my senior team to discuss the day, I would ask for feedback honest, and open--the kind of "Let me have it!".  This was a open discussion about anything they needed it could be personal, it could be mission related, it could be secretive, it did not leave the room.  And they would let me have it, with all due respect.  I would reflect on what they had to say, taking notes, jotting things down, even drafting the next days war plans on the board, so I would not make the same mistakes twice.  I listened and made changes, I adapted where I could and where I needed too in order to both be authentic to my principles and to get the mission done.  I was willingly to admit mistakes, I was willingly to discuss and debate, I was not willingly to argue or to fight.  I was willingly to present evidence and counter evidence.  I was willingly to be open and honest and to communicate all requirements.  This required great comprise between myself, the team and the mission.  But at the end of the day the team respected me more for it.  This is authentic leadership.

References

• Authentic leadership. (2015). In J. Mcray (Ed.), Leadership glossary: Essential terms for the 21st century. Santa Barbara, CA: Mission Bell Media. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/login?url=http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/mbmlg/authentic_leadership/0

• Wood, G. M. (2007). Authentic leadership: Do we really need another leadership theory?

A511.6.3RB Leader from the Past

A leader from the past

This is an exciting blog.  The blog is a reflection about my past leaders and their positive and sometimes negatives qualities of transformations on me and the society around me.  How can one man or woman change a society in two or three years, is that possible or has the system made this not capable?  Can one officer revolutionize and a create a movement, change a new ocean current toward a specific goal?  Did I work harder for the greater good or harder for the individual out of respect of the officer?

Transformational leadership is a style of leadership that should result in the follower wanting to become the leader, if expertly executed the follower should reach a higher level of performance and the society as a whole benefits (Kendrick, 2011).  It seeks out to increase the followers motivation and performance through a transformation, leader inspires.  They motivate, the leader should be the followers role model as a cross benefit the society as the whole benefits (Transformational leadership, 2015).  However this can be a negative tasnformation as well.

I have had many leaders in the military some good some bad.  A couple of assignments ago I had a leader who could not inspire.  Northouse (2016) describes this as pseudotransfomational leadership (self-consumed, exploitative  power oriented).  He wrongfully thought that he moved the unit and that he inspired me to do great things.  This was not the case, instead he was moving the imagine for his own power and imagine.  He had a negative approach.  He attempted to transform the unit in his imagine.  This backfired at the lower levels and though he was promoted, it cost my morale, my units morale, the mission, and will continue to haunt the unit for many more years.  

One of the most inspirational leaders that I have worked for has been Col Curtis Herdanez.  His leadership after we saw a unit go through a squadron commander get fired, we needed a leader, we needed inspiration, we needed motivation, we needed to find our way out.  An example was during a convoy, I was the commander driving the convoy back from a mission, when the previous commander was relieved of command; during this return to base he drove to meet us and personally escorted us back to base for no other reason but to show us he was on our side and team.  Scraps demonstrated to me, from the get go that he was willing to go the extra mile under all circumstances to support me and my family.  He inspired me to continue going, during on particular field exercise he came outside to work with me and my team in the pouring rain just to help us setup and then bought lunch and dinner for me and the team just to motivate us.  He found out what moved us and why?  He did this not because he had to but because he wanted to.  He knew what motivated me and why.  He tried it is for those reasons why I worked so hard to move the organization and he society change under his command.  His under current was there the entire time it was up to us to figure how to surf it.  I respected and respect him and the rank not just the rank.

References

• Kendrick, J.  (2011). Transformational leadership. Professional Safety, 56(11), 14.

Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership; theory and practice. 7th edition (seventh ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

• Transformational leadership (2015).

  

A511.5.3RB Mid-Term Reflection

Lead like great conductors

 Over the past few weeks we have examined the different leadership approaches from the academic prespectpective.  We have examined leader-member exhange, path-goal theory, behavioral and situation approaches to leadership.  We have examined the intricacies of each of these applications including the depths of the theories.

This mid-term review is an excellent point of reference as Itay Talgram gives us a role up of different leadership practices in by examining different musical conductors and their style of leadership.  He examined how conductors guide the orchestras in their own way (2009).  in the first case the conductor is using a behavioral country-club style with a slight middle of the road management to relax the orchestra, as describe by Northouse (2016).  Everyone is happy, he is relax, his hands are in his pockets and his body language demonstrates that he is neither feverous nor scared.  He is allowing the stories of everyone around him to be told.  This is very similiar to one of my finest commander I have ever work for she was always relaxed even under intense pressure.  She had trust that we could do our job and trusted us to get the job done and we enjoyed doing it for her.  She allowed for individuality while transforming us into a team.  

The second conductor is controlling described by Talgam, commands his orchestras with situational leadership and controls the dynamic through demand response through direction and coaching.  You can see it in the body language of control and snap of the music.  A person can almost fell the command of the baton as the orchestra is intemdiated by the stroke of the hand.  While the conductor ceterinaly is a great conductor this approach may not work for the exploration of the individual.  It controls the behavior of all the followers without allowing for support of the individual.  I currently have a supervisor who is like this conductor and pushes me and team to his own will and it has broken me down.  He offered very little support and the outcomes have had a negative outcome on my morale while the mission has succeeded.  One can feel the tension in the air when he walks in, we perform for the mission not for the person or the joy of the music.  

An intersting parallel to things we have learned about leadership, this this week is the way Talgam describe's the conductor Carlos Kleiber (Talgam, 2009).  This conductor encompasses the path-goal theory.  During the short presentation we watch the conductor point out the individual of each of the musicians with different guidances approaches, noticing behaviors that work for some but not for all.  We notice his posture and his eye contact, we noticed the conductor letting the individual explore the next layer of music.  Is this not the very idea of path-goal?  In this case, I have rarely seen this used correctly as the ultimate goal of any leader of so many would be to lead like an great conductor and allow the orchestras to play for you not you play for them (a cut scene at the end of the Ted Talk).  The military tends to force the music instead of allowing the music to play.  This type of relationship takes time and effort that very few people are willing to put in.  I hope that through this course I can learn different tools to become a better conductor.      

References

Itay Talgram "Lead like great conductor" (2009) TedTalk. https://www.ted.com/speakers/itay_talgam

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing

Vandergrift, R., & Matusitz, J. (2011). Path-goal theory: A successful columbia records story.Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21(4), 350-362. doi:10.1080/10911359.2011.555651

A511.4.3.RB Locus of Control

My locus of control

    What is Locus of Control (LOC)? Is it real or is it connected to other parts of personalities?  Does my behavior influence my own outcome or fate?  Or is this just taking charge of my own emtions and understanding of the situation?

   First it is important to define what LOC is and is not?  LOC is "defined as the degree to which an individual expects that a contingent relationship exists between one’s behaviors and outcomes" (Ryon, 2014).  Further research in LOC breaks it down further into two major divisions: internal and external.  People with internal LOC tend to believe that have responsibilities of themselves and their own attitudes and actions and destines (Locus of Control, 2009).  While people with external LOC have tendencies that their behaviors are controlled and influenced by outside influences.    

   I do believe that people control their own desires, behaviors, performance and motivation and outcomes.  I think that things like organized religion are often misinterpreted with trying to control folks outcomes, even in Christianity there are underlying tones of "God gave us free will" and that our fate is not controlled instead we are meant to decide for ourselves.  It is when that text is used for influence that the central message is lost.  An example is an often misinterpreted passage "an eye for an eye".             

   After taking the Rotter's Locus of Control Scale test, the evidence indicates that I favor high internal locus of control.  This means that I control my own outcomes and my own beliefs and performance.  While there are influences along the way, good leaders, my wife, my demographic, and my upbringing for the most part I control my outcomes.  In my military past supervisors have attempted to control my outcomes/my behaviors and to get me to adapt to them.  This does not work for me, supportive behaviors work best for me, directive behaviors tend to throw me off and my outcomes are no longer focused on myself.  I need to feel like I am integral part of the team and the decision making (Northouse, 2016).  Path-goal is a good leadership approach for me as it allows people with high level of internal LOC to work with the leader to adapt for the follower and to understand how behaviors can play a role in people lives.              

References

• locus of control (2009).

Northhouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th edition). Los Angeles, CA:       SAGE Publications, Inc.

• Ryon, H. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2014). The role of locus of control in daily life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 121-131. doi:10.1177/0146167213507087

A511.3.3 RB Directive and Supportive

My experience and misuse of Directive and Supportive Behaviors.  

       This weeks blog is about the my experiences between supportive and directive behaviors.  What are the differences in the two? When is it appropriate to use each of these behaviors?  When are these behaviors misused?

       My experience in situational leadership and behavior is mostly a military one.  Military leaders are unique and cannot be easliy compared to leaders in the civilian world (Yeakey, 2000).  We have luxuries of demand response when required, we have attitudes that can control a battlefield or shape the future of next generation of American leadership; for example the current Secretary of Defense.  This burden or gift ensures that democracy is secure, that our Constitution is defended and our way of life is maintained.  But this burden or gift starts with leaders at every level applying situational leadership correctly, when and where it is appropriate and not to misuse this empowerment.  We have to understand how poor leadership application can quickly erode mission and morale.           

      Directive behavior is "highly directive and low supportive," the leader that correctly or incorrectly assumes not to trust or empower the follower (Blanchard, 2008).  This type of leader becomes a necessity during some crisis action (not all) and when the follower is new to the task.  This form of leadership can have a negative affect on an old solider or a experienced Airmen, as in my case.  I am very aware of this type of leadership and its recourse to the outcome of the task.  I currently have a supervisors who misuses this style of leadership every single day, because he assumes that he is the only expert and that there is no other.  If you will allow me for a quick digression to explain his background.  He is a retired O-5 in the Air Force and is currently a GS-13 in the Civilian Service.  I have informally worked for him for the past 15 years and now directly work for him.  My experience with him is he forgets that I am extremely experienced in the task of which I am asked to perform and instead of motivating me he will treat me as I have no experience.  He will attempt to treat me as if my opinion does not matter.  This indeed is the oppposite of the reality, I have never let him down and have always produced for him, there is simply no room for this behavior in our organization.  He uses directive leadership with me everyday in every case, calling me out in front of peers and colleagues as if I was not even present.  This type of misuse deteriorates our relationship to the point where it is toxic.  His behavior is so toxic that it breaks our sacred bound of trust, defined by Blanchard (Lynch, 2015).  His mantra was mission first, then people.  

     Supportive behavior is the opposite.  It is the description that the leader supports the follower.  They encourage, listen, facilitate growth, and work on the follower.  This requires trust in both the follower and the leader.  This form of leadership works best with folks that have extensive experience in the field.  The leader and follower both are expected to retain the mutual trust and the relationship.  This form of relationship is forms a bound that last can last a lifetime.  It can lead to quality and sometimes appropriate country-club style management (Northouse, 2016), because both parties understand the relationship and the expectations and entrust each other to take care of each other.  I have experienced this first hand in my military service while working in the field during my last deployment, my senior officer understood my capabilities and let me run the missions with very little guidance.  He trusted that I would make the right decision when and where that was needed.  In returned we built a bound of trust and a relationship that last to this day.  Instead of directing me on what to do and when to do it, he asked me about my family, brought me and my troops water, even through BBQ's when we just needed a break.  He would take the time to get to know me and my style under pressure instead of applying unwarranted pressure of his own.  He understood the magnitude of his job and I entrusted him to take care of me (not the mission).  His mantra people first then mission.               

References

Blanchard, K. (2008, May). Situational Leadership. Leadership Excellence, 19.

• Lynch, B. (2015). Partnering for performance in situational leadership: A person-centred leadership approach. International Practice Development Journal, 5

Peter Northouse (2016) Leadership: Theory and Practice 7th.  Sage Productions Ca

• Yeakey, G. W. (2000). Hersey and blanchard's situational leadership theory: Applications in the military

A511.2.3RB Reflecting on Leadership Traits

My leadership toolbox.  

       What is the make up of my leadership traits?  What are the traits would I add or remove that can prepare me for the leadership tasks?  What makes a good leader under combat and what makes a good leader in the boardroom?  How can I person like me go from one extreme to another?

    In order to find some gaps that I need to work on first, I need to look at what is my leadership makeup; examining my own reflection this week, I have found both positive and negative traits.  What traits are important to my leadership style?  In the trait approach I found at good time-to-subordinates ratio, technically knowledgeable, and the clarity of concepts are my strong traits.  This time management is not about me but for my troops and subordinates and the time I spend with them. They know that during the normal work day I am dedicated to them, helping assisting and ensuring that I am available all the time for them.  Sharmi wrote that "time is crucial for the understanding of the leadership relationship" (2011), I think I expound this out more to ratio.  

Technical knowledge is important to me, I have to understand what my subordinates are working on and ensure that I completely understand it.  This is not informational or knowledge power, but instead simply empathy and sympathy and personal involvement in their job (Leadership traits, 2009).   This not only gains me credibility with my troops but helps me understand their problems and how I might be able to help.  The last trait that I observed this week is clarity of concepts.  Throughout my experience, I often do not look at the small details but instead stay steadfast on the clarity of the concept.  Change is always around us, in the military ranks, change happens every two or three years, commanders and senior management changes out all the time. A lack of clarity can have detrimental affects on the relationship and the mission (Burnes 2012).  I have mission commanders rotate in and had no idea on 

     Knowing that these are my traits that I have observed, what could I add or what is distracting me from the ability to lead properly?  There are may distractors that I prevent me from leading in every situation and no matter the cause, one particular that comes to mind is my emotional intelligence and its relationship to my mood, or the trait of intellectual humility (George 2000).  In my previous class I wrote about this trait in my final paper and it is still something I need to understand when it distracts or prevents me from leading.  Intellectual humility, is as J.P. Moreland indicated, the ability to open minded and thoughtful. To challenge but not criticize, to understand another view point but not feel superior.  Intellectual humility (IH) is an abstract virtue in modern psychology (Tanesini, 2016).  It is the concession that we can recognize and admit that we do not know everything about everything and have limitations to our knowledge.  To recognize one’s IH limitation and remove unhelpful biases requires an internal observation of courage, honesty, commitment and knowledge in a social and self-reflective dimension.  

      The challenge is how important is this trait in my everyday life.  I face this difficulty “reaching the truth in a reasoned way” as defined by J.P.Moreland (1997) every day in my job both in the social and self-reflective dimensions.  In my squadron and in my position inside the Air Force organization, it is important to recognize the one’s own limitation factors.  Identifying that I am not always the subject matter expert in front of senior officers, civilians and industry, can be intimidating and can lead to a loss of a career, multi-billion dollar assets or even lives.  My experience with this trait has shown both good and bad outcomes.  My supervisors trust my knowledge, and I am usually the first person assigned to a new squadron establishment.  For the past 15 years, I have established three new units and countless small teams.  Too much IH and one becomes intellectual arrogant, too little and the application of all my other traits are unbalanced.  In one particalur  example, I became so arrogant with knowledge that my I lost any personal relationship that I had at the unit.  When I wrap IH properly with my strengths I find a unbalanced leadership style that seeks out truths, understands empathy and yet hold truths closely without much acceptance of others.  

References

• Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Leadership and change: The case for greater ethical clarity.Journal of Business Ethics, 108(2), 239-252. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1088-2

• George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations,53(8), 1027-1055. doi:10.1177/0018726700538001

• Leadership traits. (2006). Partner's Report, 6(2), 9.

• Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time: Some implications of (not) taking time seriously in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 307-315. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.006

• J.P. Moreland (1997) on Intellectual humility 
  http://afterall.net/quotes/j-p-moreland-on-intellectual-humility/

Tanesini, A. (2016). Intellectual humility as attitude. Philosophy and Phenomenological

Research, doi:10.1111/phpr.12326