On this
week, I have learned several concepts behind being a leader and leadership
roles. People think mangers, leaders,
and CEOs are in control of all aspects of a business or company. Leaders are faced with difficult
decision-making on a daily basis, and how they respond to adversity is crucial
to their leadership style. The overall
performance of a company’s progress is not based solely on the leader, even
though the employees or group members might think so. In Preffer and Sutton’s book, Dangerous Half-Truths About Managing People
and Organizations (p 145), they explained the concept behind the leadership
role.
“Leadership
certainly matters. But the belief that
leaders have a massive influence over performance turns out to be a
half-truth.” Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 194
 |
| photocredit: www.modeltrains.about.com |
An
experiment was conducted to show how leaders were perceived by his or her peers. The experiment used a model train; there were
two participants involved in the experiment.
Participant one was the driver and participant two was the
observer. The driver was led to believe
that he/she was in control of the train until the driver realized that the
experimenter was manipulating the speed of the train. The train ran off the track because of the
lack of control. As a result, the
observer only saw what was visible. The
observer saw the driver had failed at controlling the train, even though the
driving was operated under constraints. Often times in groups, the participants
do not see constrains of the leader.
This can also be defined as the fundamental attribution error. Pfeffer and Sutton defines the fundamental
attribution error as a general effect of “overattributing” outcomes to the
causal agency of individuals (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 195). The observer of the train experiment experienced
what is known as cognitive shortcuts.
Cognitive shortcuts is “placing the blame or giving credit to leaders
when human needs to make sense of the onslaught, or confusing information that
is thrown at them” (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 195). I agree with Pfeffer and Sutton’s analysis on
fundamental attribution error and cognitive shortcuts. Someone has to take the blame when situations
or outcomes do not go as predicted.
Automatically as people, we look at the top for answers. Through my experiences as a Graduate Resident
Director of Housing, I am faced with the half-truths in my leadership
role. There are times, more often than
not, when miscommunication arises on my staff of Resident Assistants. Many
times, I have witnessed my decisions are not seen as compliant for what they
think is logical or justifiable. They use my decisions to how they see fit, not
realizing that what I say is based of constraints I have to following from
housing. Developing a better system of communication between my staff and me can
improve the outcomes in a time of stressful situations.
The second notion that I learned
during this session was the importance of Team Dynamics from Melissa Hunt’s
presentation. Hunt’s three main team outcomes
were to identify and leverage your expertise, enlist early support, and engage
in others. One particular idea that I
previously mentioned in the classic discussion was perceived influence. Perceived influence is giving credit to the
person with the most contributions.
Frequently, groups are asked: who has been the most influential person
in the group? Hunt explains how the
group members always recognized the person who talked the most in the
group. Hunt goes on to explain that the
person who talks the most in a group setting is not necessarily the person who
moves the conversation. I think giving
everyone an equal opportunity to contribute in a group setting is very
important. Allowing everyone to
communicate and express their ideas openly can lead to a proficient group
dynamic. Sometimes as leaders, creating
the environment so people will fill comfortable to communicate is an aspect of
being a good leader. Kim, an executive
in the technology industry, gives this example in Hunt’s presentation. Hunt’s and Kim ideas are great to practice
while in a leadership role. Allowing the
dynamics to develop within a group creates a cohesive bond that provides better
success rates in a team performance.
The article Why Steve Jobs' Exactitude Mattered As Much as His Vision by Geil Browning describes the importance of communicating ideas, visions, and guidelines affectively. Steve Jobs was known as one of the world’s most innovative business man, and known for his leadership style. According to the article, Jobs was known among his peers as a misunderstood and misapplied structural leader. Browning explains that a structural leader is someone who creates a process of structure for success. This is someone who typically does not make rash decisions. Furthermore, Browning explains the principles of creating an effective communication plan through structural leadership. They should put themselves in the mindset of their employees, provide “How-to” information for the employees – and stick to them, and set guidelines on how things should be completed. These principles tie into Pfeffer and Sutton’s description of Be Specific About Few Things That Matter, and Keep Repeating Them (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006, p 206). The idea of setting guidelines and sticking to them is a good way to manage the demands of a company. Setting clear guidelines makes work less complicated between leaders and the people that fall under them. Browning’s evaluation on structural leadership expresses effectiveness on setting clear expectations on guideline.
I also found the idea of perceived influence interesting because as a person who tends to be quite quiet, I do find that although I might contribute in ways that don't require me to speak, those that do speak the most get the most credit. For someone like me, I would like a leader who makes a team feel comfortable enough that everyone speaks and contributes. One topic brought up in this week's material was social loafing. Perhaps this advice to encourage all team members to speak and contribute can minimize social loafing as well.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with what Tina said, I would imagine that social loafing would occur. I can think back to my Honors English class where we received a participation grade. Initially everyone would participate in class but it was typically the same people who raised their hands the most. One we received our grades and everyone realized what was expected out of them, everyone raised their hand all the time. I think that accountability for participation correlates with incentives or demerits and that is the biggest deterrent of social loafing
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that you bring out the point about “the person who talks the most in a group setting is not necessarily the person who moves the conversation … Giving everyone an equal opportunity to contribute in a group setting is very important.” I agree with your opinion. Some people that actually talk a lot and lead the conversation sometimes give non-sense information. Otherwise, some people who keep silent may have a ton of ideas in their minds. I have some ideas to motivate these quiet people to talk and share their ideas. I think it is the leaders’ job to try to get to know each member characteristic. Then the leaders will know how they can pull their team members’ strengths out. Another technique that I think it works with me is, having a meeting away from sitting around the table in the office (a very formal meeting). Going out of the office, having some coffee in a nice café and allowing people to talk can make people feel laid back. It allows people to sit back and relax, and that will make their brains working better than putting them pressure to speak by sitting around the table in a square room at the office.
ReplyDelete