Analysis and Synthesis prior to research

Leadership and Power

Week 1-2

Introduction

Evolution from monarchical systems and the old guard (i.e. political, economic, and social constructs)(Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Agho, 2009)

Leadership includes relational factors among lower, middle and upper levels in the organization (Judge & Bono, 2000; Oshry, 2007)

Leadership and management are made up of dynamic interchanges and depending on the scale of influence or organizational structure, both are responsible for the tangible and intangible goals and outcomes (Senge, 2006; Oshry, 2007, Meadows, 2008).

Important to note

Leadership contemporarily still has significant work to be done academically (Balthazard, Waldman & Warren, 2009).

Data from onsite or day to day emergent leadership models is in its’ infancy (Agho, 2009).

Research on employee development is mostly theoretical and not always situational (Judge & Bono, 2000)

Increased awareness of the gaps pertaining to gender and culture have precipitated scholars and practitioners alike to reflect on their realities and in some ways, their practices (Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009; Ayman & Korbik, 2010).

Main Ideas

The frameworks of transformational and transactional leadership can be aptly utilized to illuminate the elements of leadership and the constructs that exist within them such as: (Vicchio, 1979; Ayman, Korabik, & Morris, 2009; Conger & Lawler, 2009; Azman, Mohamad, Rafiuddin & Zhen, 2010)

authority

dyadic and group methods

role culture or gender

Power is defined as the ability to invoke positive or negative influence organizationally, within teams, and individuals (Lam, Huang, Snape, 2007; Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Agho, 2009 ).

Includes elements decision making, incentivization, relational differentials, as well as legitimacy due to positional standing or expertise (Morgan, 2009; Agho, 2009; Bolman & Deal, 2013).

Main Ideas Cont’d

Emergent leadership includes transformational and transactional leadership as well as builds in contingency as a result of the nature of being adaptable, contextual, and interrelational (Judge & Bono, 2000; Azman, 2010).

Multi-directional approaches which include dyadic and individually based actions or interactions are part of the top down, bottom up, inclusive leadership frameworks (Oshry, 2007; Bolman & Deal 2013).

Leader-member exchange is important to building capacity, sharing and working within a common vision, attaining real time data to inform decisions, supplant followership, and self organizing group activities(Judge & Bono, 2000, Ayman & Korabik, 2010)

Main Ideas Cont’d

Personality typologies are important but so are competencies and acumen (i.e. fostering trust, workplace norms, shared vision, androgyny) (Hogan, Curphy & Hogan, 1994; Senge, 2006)

A systems oriented approach which includes multiple feedback loops fosters an iterative, adaptable, an emergent learning and working environment (Meadows, 2006; Markham, Markham & Smith, 2015)

Contemporary examples of emergent leadership and top down-bottom approaches can include Google (built-in innovation time), Blackberry (product design and production cycle), HCL (inverted management pyramid) (Hamel, 2014)

Considerations

These elements are situational, contextual and on a continuum.

Nothing in this discussion is all or none.

The evolution of leadership-followership is still evolving due to globalization, technological advancements, access to knowledge and information, and the shifting business landscape (Bathazard, Waldman, Warren, 2009; Ayman & Korbik, 2010)

Conclusion

Strong leadership encompasses the ability to harness followers through various cognitive, behavioral, and psychological methods to increase contribution, efficacy, and performance of teams (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008).

Structures such as dyadic interchanges, knowing when to lead from the front, middle or back situationally, and having a level of wisdom that supports a, “me to we” dynamism is integral contemporarily (Vicchio, 1979; Balthazard et al., 2009; Conger & Lawler, 2009; Markham et al., 2015)

Provocations

Emergent leadership amalgamates past and contemporary aspects of leadership theory and frameworks. Why in practice has there been a lag in implementation? (Too easy to keep the status quo? A Lack of data and trust to confirm this methodology?)

Does androgyny in leadership support the dissolution of barriers to equitable entrance (i.e. cultural or gender related)

Can capacity in teams be inherently built? What mechanisms and leadership competencies need to be present?

How does leadership typologies compare in your own professional context to that of research?

Do you believe that the best leaders have exceptional emotional and cultural quotients?

References

Agho, A. O. (2009). Perspectives of senior-level executives on effective followership and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(2), 159-166. Retrieved from the SAGE Premier database.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.

Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65(3), 157–170.

Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Warren, J. E. (2009). Predictors of the emergence of transformational leadership in virtual decision teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 651–663.

Bolman, L. G. & Deal. T. E. (2013). Making sense of organizations. (5th ed.), Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A., & Lawler, E. E. (2009). Sharing leadership on corporate boards: A critical requirement for teamwork at the top. Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 183-191. Retrieved from the ScienceDirect database.

Hamel, G. (2014) Management Innovation eXchange. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.managementexchange.com

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 751–765.

References cont’d

Markham, S. E., Markham, I. S., & Smith, J. W. (2015). At the crux of dyadic leadership: Self–other agreement of leaders and direct reports — Analyzing 360-degree feedback.Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 958-977. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.001

Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Oshry, B. (2007). Seeing systems: Unlocking the mysteries of organizational life. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2008). Trust and leader-member exchange: A closer look at relational vulnerability. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(2), 101-110. Retrieved from the SAGE Premier 2010 database.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Vecchio, R. T. (1979). A Dyadic Interpretation of the Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness. Academy Of Management Journal, 22(3), 590-600. doi:10.2307/255747