Showing posts with label follower. Show all posts
Showing posts with label follower. Show all posts

Sunday, November 1, 2015

A511.3.3.RB_Power and Influence

                        
     A511.3.3RB – Power and Influence














MSLD 511: Organizational Leadership 
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Worldwide: Online Campus

November 1, 2015








         




Power and Influence




Power and influence are two of the more scary topics for me personally. I had a strong suspicion, which Yukl (2013) confirmed, “that too much position power may be as detrimental as too little.” We have seen many instances throughout history when man has abused power and influence for personal gain. It obviously is a fine line between finding enough power and influence to lead and taking advantage of the power and influence one finds themselves in. Of course just the opposite may be said of great leaders, which have been abound in history as well. According to Yukl (2013), there are five power sources.



Expert power is power based upon employees’ perception that a manager or some other member of an organization has a high level of knowledge or a specialized set of skills that other employees or members of the organization do not possess (Grimsley, 2015).”

The nature of expert power is only a source of power “if others are dependent on the agent for advice. The target person must recognize this expertise and perceive the leader to be a reliable source of information and advice. Perceived expertise is more important than real expertise (Yukl, 2013).” It is imperative that organizations seek expert power like in-house legal counsel, or CPA’s for finances.




Referent power specifically comes from “when others trust what we do and respect us for how we handle situations (Abudi, 2011).” This power is “an important source of influence over subordinates, peers, and superiors, but it has limitations (Yukl, 2013).”

The nature of referent power is “a person willing to do special favors for a friend, and they are more likely to carry out requests made by someone they greatly admire. To gain the agent’s approval and acceptance, the target person is likely to comply with agent requests, imitate the agent’s behavior and have similar attitudes (Yukl, 2013).” They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, which is obviously written in regards to a leader influencing and being imitated by follower (s).




Legitimate power “comes from having a position of power in an organization, such as being the boss or a key member of a leadership team (Abudi, 2011).”  “Members of an organization usually agree to comply with rules and directions from leaders in return for the benefits of membership (Yukl, 2013).”

The nature of legitimate power is electing a leader “based on tradition and the provisions of a legal charter or constitution. Any deviation from the selection process considered legitimate by members will weaken a new leader’s authority. People evaluate not only whether a request or order falls within a leader’s scope of authority, but also whether it is consistent with the basic values, principles, and traditions of the organization or social system (Yukl, 2013).”




Reward power “is the perception by the target person that an agent controls important resources and rewards desired by the target person. More control over scarce resources is usually authorized for high level executives than for lower-level managers (Yukl, 2013).”

The nature of reward power is “the target person’s perception that the agent has the capacity and willingness to follow through on promises. The target person’s perception of agent reward power is more important than the agent’s actual control over rewards. Reward power can influence people even when the agent makes no overt influence attempt. People cooperate more with an agent who has substantial reward power in the hopes of getting some rewards in the future (Yukl, 2013).” Reward power seems to be very popular in the American business culture.



Coercive power is “conveyed through fear of losing one’s job, being demoted, receiving a poor performance review, having prime projects taken away, which is typically through threatening others (Abudi, 2015).”  

The nature of coercive power is actually “prohibited in many nations. Managers once had the right to dismiss employees for any reason they thought was justified. But it may now swing either way, up and down the corporate structure. Subordinates have the capacity to indirectly influence the performance evaluation of their boss. Subordinates can damage the reputation of the boss if they restrict production, sabotage operations, initiate grievances, hold demonstrations, or make complaints to higher management. Subordinates can also remove a leader from office (Yukl, 2013).”

There is a theory that basically “argues that leaders develop differentiated dyadic relationships with their subordinates, also known as the leader-member exchange  - LMX theory (Othman & Shi, 2010).
           
“The recognition that a leader’s behavior can sometime be dysfunctional is in line with the emerging interest in destructive leadership. These intolerable behaviors include abusive leader behavior such as bullying. This research by Otthman & Shi (2010), suggest that one form of destructive behavior exists when leaders develop high quality leader-member exchange that are dysfunctional. Such abusive behavior can include indifference, hostile actions and deviant behaviors towards a work team member. This happens when the high quality leader-member exchange developed by a leader with the in-group is based on a flawed assessment of the in-group members’ contribution and performance. As a consequence, out-group members perceive unfairness and may develop negative reactions to this situation. LMX theory is distinct from other leadership theories because of its focus on the dyadic relationship between a leader and his followers.”

I did experience a work situation with this sort of dynamic a few times. There was a leader in position at a very high level of the organization that thought his staff performed better in an abusive environment. This particular leader perceived that his team would perform better by threatening job security - a lot. The outcome from this behavior was a financial nightmare within only a few months of my employment. It turns out that this leader pushed his team so hard and so fast that the company acquired too many assets in a short amount of time. The team did not take the correct steps to process the due diligence, so the company was short on cash flow and vendors were placing the company on credit hold. The leader had to follow through on his threat of not keeping staff, and let us all go. I think it is in my best interest to find the happy medium between power and influence to lead my teams. 

References:

Abudi, Gina (2011). The 5 Types of Power. Intuit. Retrieved from http://quickbase.intuit.com/blog/2011/08/26/the-5-types-of-power-in-leadership/

Grimsley, Shawn. (2015). Expert Power in Leadership: Definition & Examples. Study.com. Retrieved from http://study.com/academy/lesson/expert-power-in-leadership-definition-examples-quiz.html

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, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 13: 978-0132771863.

Thursday, October 29, 2015

A511.2.3RB_Supportive Behavior






                       
A511.2.3RB – Supportive Behavior














MSLD 511: Organizational Leadership
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Worldwide: Online Campus

October 29, 2015








         








Supportive Behavior
"Support is showing concern for the needs and feelings of other people (Yukl, 2013)." Supportive leadership behaviors are "listening, praising, and sharing information about the organization, sharing information about self, facilitating problem solving, asking for input, and providing rationale. Emotional intelligence is significantly related to supportive behaviors. There are four supportive behaviors: listening, sharing information about the organization, asking for input, and providing rationale. Managers with higher emotional intelligence are more likely to engage in supportive behaviors than managers with lower emotional intelligence (Benson, Nimon, & Zigarmi, 2012)."


The result of supportive leadership is "building and maintaining effective interpersonal relationships, essentially winning loyalty and friendship. It also increases subordinates’ self-confidence and reduces the amount of stress on the job (Yukl, 2013)." When managing staff, it is wise to be supportive when applicable. Listening to the problems that arise, addressing the dilemmas that occur throughout production and troubleshooting using problem-solving techniques are critical to effective leadership. Many situations arise during production where staff may need to troubleshoot or make decisions, but due to circumstances, may not be privy to all information as it relates to organizational needs and requirements. It is in the best interest of the organization to have a leader who shares information with the team, so team members have clear direction.


All levels of organizations
As the quality manager of a facility, I aspire to become an emotionally intelligent and supportive leader. I know that it is important to foster and maintain a stable environment in which information passes through the executive staff down to management and further downward through the chain of command as it regards direction and goals. Suggested guidelines for the implementation of supportive measures are: "showing acceptance and positive regard, providing sympathy when a person is upset, fostering a person's confidence, and being willing to help with personal problems should they arise (Yukl, 2013)." 



If one of my quality inspectors is harassed, which sometimes does occur, I immediately try to remedy the situation by pulling the harasser aside to ascertain what led to the harassment. Typically, the action has nothing to do personally with the quality inspector but more to do with personal issues the harasser is experiencing. Regardless, I continue my process by going back to my staff to assure them that I am ready to protect and help them in any situation. Because we do not have a human resource department, management must resolve all human resource issues. 





Being a Supportive Leader
If there are inquiries regarding a method I need to implement, executive management may be available to satisfy my inquiry, and likewise, I am always available to receive inquiries from my staff. This allows for open dialogue, which is imperative for everyone involved, as it results in clear lines of efficiency. For example, over the last six months, the quality, efficiency, and output have increased. As well, we work to foster cooperative relationships, a process that has improved the work environment, positively impacting employee attendance. I do not hesitate to praise and recognize subordinates who do a good job or who try a newly authorized method. And, I compliment or acknowledge top executives after they have had to make a tough decision. Being supportive of vetted decision-making is very important for everyone.

Mistakes vs. Bad Decisions
I also believe that recognizing mistakes are crucial to learning processes, because we can collectively learn what works and what does not. But what is the difference between making a mistake and making a bad decision? A mistake is something we do without intention, while the bad decision is something we make intentionally, often without regard for the consequence (Millburn & Nicodemus, 2015). This may be an important element in understanding when one needs to be a supportive leader.







Reference:
Benson, J., Nimon, K., & Zigarmi. (2012). Manager's Emotional Intelligence, Their Perceived Use of Directive and Supportive Leader Behaviors and Resultant Employee Satisfaction. Journal of Business Administration Research. Vol 1, No. 2. ISSN 1927-9507. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1436080910?pq-origsite=summon

Millburn, Joshua Fields, & Nicodemus, Ryan. (2015). Mistakes vs. Bad Decisions. The Minimalists. Retrieved from http://www.theminimalists.com/mistakes/

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall