Mission and Vision Statements...

Last week’s discussion revolved around “Mission and Vision.” Contrary to what most people think, a mission is something that is never finished. It is a timeless value. A mission statement is a brief description of a company’s fundamental purpose. A good mission statement should answer the question “Why do we exist?” It focuses on the company’s present state and acts as the compass that drives decision making. It can also act as a very strong motivational statement. It guides the employees in making critical decisions that affect the direction of the company. Mission statements remind the company of their ethics and values. A good mission statement acts as a moral compass, and is the center of being for an organization.  It articulates to the customers what is of value to the organization.  The mission statement should explain why the vision statement is what it is. The aspirations of the company should show why the company even exists. We discussed the mission statements of a few different airline companies. Southwest Airlines mission statement is “Dedication to the highest quality of Customer Service delivered with a sense of warmth, friendliness, individual pride, and Company Spirit.” This mission statement does an adequate job of describing the company’s driving force and intentions. The company does demonstrate all of these characteristics. This mission statement is unique for an airline. The mission statement of Delta Airlines is “We—Delta's employees, customers, and community partners together form a force for positive local and global change, dedicated to bettering standards of living and the environment where we and our customers live and work.” I think that this mission statement has much room for improvement. I would have never guessed that this was the mission statement of an airline before the name of the company was disclosed to me. U.S. Airways mission statement is “Customer service has always been a priority at US Airways, and we are committed to making every flight count for our valued customers. Our promise to you: The safety and satisfaction of our customers is a top priority for our airline.” They have held true to this mission statement so far, and while it is not the most comfortable way to fly, I have never made second thoughts about their concern for safety. These are just a couple examples of mission statements. They are concise and should effectively describe the ongoing values of the company. The difference between a mission statement and a vision statement is that the mission statement deals with the present, while the vision statement deals with the future. A company should be able to draw inspiration from its vision statement. It answers the question “Where do we want to go?” Instead of articulating what you want to do in the present, you are articulating what you want to happen in the future. A vision statement paints a picture of the dream of an organization. Like mission statements, vision statement have a huge impact on decision making and the allocating of resources.

Followership

Followership is the capacity or willingness to follow someone. There are different types of followers. The first type discussed in the reading was the “isolators.” Isolators are completely detached from the group. They do absolutely nothing to aid the group. They are the ones who are secluded and don’t have anything to say at meetings. They are not interested in receiving constructive criticism and don’t care about fellow employees or the leader. They never have any idea about what is going again, which can’t be said for “bystanders.” Bystanders usually know what is going on, but fail to act. They only go along with what everyone else is doing, and usually act out of self-interest. “Participants” put it a little more effort than bystanders and are more engaged. However, they are free agents and only care somewhat. “Activists”, the most ideal type of follower, in my opinion, are the ones who are engaged, active and energetic. They have strong opinions about the leader (they can be good or bad) and can either do a really good job at boosting the leader, or do a really good job at bringing the leader down. “Diehards” are, as the name somewhat suggests, the people who are willing to take anything on in the name of the leader or the entity with which they are affiliated. They are deeply devoted to their leaders, but the opposite can be true as well. Diehards can hate the person/people who are in charge and will stop at nothing to get what they want. After doing the activity that was aimed at helping the class determine whether or not they were good followers, I learned that I could work more in that area. I’m not as supportive as I could be, I don’t really do more than what is asked, and I don’t ever council people who are in positions that are higher than mine. My group and I had to come up with tips on how to council and coach the person in the leadership position. One thing I remember coming with was “be conscious of how you start conversation.” Going up to someone and saying “Here’s what you’re doing wrong” is a lot less effective than “May I make a suggestion?”  We then talked about LMX, or “Leadership Member Exchange.” This theory helps to explain the quality of the relationship between the leaders and the followers as it is assumed that leaders do not interact with and distribute resources, time, energy, and attention to followers equally. We then discussed high quality LMX relationships as having things such as higher levels of leader support and guidance. I formed a study group before one of my midterms and I did notice that some people were more engaged than others. Some people were eager to study the material, while others were there simply to copy answers off of people. One girl sucked all the information she could out of me and then left, without even sharing any of her information. She would be considered an isolator. One of the guys in the group, however, took time out of his day to help formulate a study guide with me. He, on the other hand, would be considered an activist.

Process Theory

Last week we discussed the “Process Theory”, or “Reciprocal Theory” of leadership. This is a much more inclusive style of leadership.  There is frequent engagement between leaders and followers.  We discussed the “Relational Leadership Model”, which encompasses all of the qualities of the Process Theory. The Relational Leadership Model is composed of four standards: ethical, inclusive, empowering, and purposeful. To be ethical is to live in accordance with the rules of right conduct. It is basically making moral decisions. For instance, if you as a leader happen to know that one of your workers is struggling to make ends meet and is having a difficult time at work, it would be more ethical to sit down with that individual and discuss options of improving the situation, rather than firing him or her on the spot. To be inclusive is to embrace different points of view. To run things in an inclusive manner ensures that there is much collaboration, which will ultimately be beneficial to the group. To be empowering is to lift the spirits of not only yourself, but those around you. It is using your words and actions to enable people to perform at their best. Coming into work and criticizing everyone is not the best approach if one is seeking improvement. To motivate your group, you would need to find a different way to go about it. To be purposeful is to know what the goal is. It is to be determined and set on a particular accomplishment. If the group knows what is significant and what they are working towards, the chance that they will be successful is indefinitely higher. Having no clue what the goal at hand is can greatly hinder a group’s ability to function well. These principles have three dimensions: knowing, being and doing. These are all self-explanatory so I won’t elaborate on them. We then talked about the Social Change Model revolves around the individual, the community and the group. It needs to be inclusive, and in this model, leadership is viewed as a process and not a position. It promotes things such as self-awareness, citizenship social justice and service to name a few. Social change is aimed at altering a social structure in some way. Social change touches on many different fields in society. Regarding the individual, one needs to be conscious of self, meaning that they need to know their own convictions, values, ideas, emotions, attitudes, etc. They need to understand how to interact with others. They also need to be congruent, or consistent in their behavior. He or she needs to be authentic. Lastly, he or she needs to be committed. The group needs to be able to collaborate, have a common goal and get through issues in a civil manner. The group needs to show citizenship, in that they have a connection to the community. I just recently signed up for the Relay for Life. I found out about it through HOSA, a group on campus that is certainly showing citizenship by addressing this issue in society: cancer. They have been working together to raise money for this cause. I’m going to participate in the Relay for Life in April. It’s nice to see so many people come together to make a difference.

Behavioral and Situational Theories

Behavioral theory earned attention in the mid-20^th century after the publication of an article for the Harvard Business Review. This theory was created with the opinion that leadership can be learned. It is a consensus that certain behaviors or skills are more necessary than others for effective leadership. This is what separates leaders from non-leaders. During research on this theory, it was determined that there were three skills that pervaded all of the studies and which were shown to be indicators of good leadership. The three determinants of effective leadership are: technical skills, human skills and conceptual skills. Technical skills are the skills that are needed to get the job done. Human skills are abilities to relate to other people and develop good interpersonal relationships. Conceptual skills are skills concerning the ability to visualize and make fantasies become realities. After the class discussed these things, we were given a scenario in which we needed to pick who we would nominate to be a leader. Persons B, C and E were the most picked, if my memory is serving me well. I do not think it was a coincidence that they all happened to be experienced in all three different skill levels. I think that the class considered those with experience in all three skill levels as more qualified to be leaders. The nice thing about this theory is that it suggests that there is more than one type of behavior or set of skills that leads to effective leadership. It also emphasizes the behavioral assets of others. This theory demands that leaders change their styles in response to different situations. Leaders have to take a chameleon-like approach to leading. A leader has to be willing to adjust to differences in whatever environment he or she is working in. This is referred to as the “situational theory” and it consists of two dimensions: directive and supportive leadership. “Directing” is, as the name implies, high directive. However, the supportive aspect is low. This style is concerned with giving roles to members and initiating problem-solving and decision-making. “Coaching” is high supportive and high directive. This approach sounds like it could be exhausting. There is a lot of communication with the coaching style implemented. The “supporting” approach is kind of like taking the role of the cheerleader of the group. There is a lot of recognition of members and active listening. Lastly, there is the “delegating” approach. This is low directive and low supportive. This is taking a laissez faire approach and letting members run the show. A friend and I have been working with people with regards to their health. We make meal plans for them and guide them while they work out at the gym. Personally, I have found that the coaching style is the most effective. Listening to them talk about their goals and desires, while giving them direction in order to achieve those goals has shown substantial improvement in their performances. Without this style of leadership, it would be an arduous task to get them motivated, while still informing them.

Trait Theory

In last week’s class, we discussed the “trait approach.” A component of the trait approach is the “great man theory.” This approach focuses more on leaders than the other approaches to leadership. It is concerned with looking at traits and characteristics of people who are in leadership positions in order to gain a better understanding of what “makes” a leader. This theory generates the idea that there is a specific composition of leaders that a person can be born with, or that a person can work to create for themselves.  Initially, it was thought that only “great” people had these traits, hence the name of the theory. This theory was eventually challenged by speculation of researchers in the mid-20^th century. They purported that someone can be a leader, and have the appropriate traits for one situation, but not be a good leader with the appropriate traits in another situation. That makes sense to me. How could someone be a great leader and have traits that are compatible with every situation? However, it’s been recently shown that personality traits are “…strongly associated with individuals’ perceptions of leadership.” (pg. 16) Needless to say, the trait approach is something which is still being studied to this day. Much research has been done on this topic, keeping it alive in the study of leadership. More than a hundred traits have been synthesized and attributed to great leaders. After it was ascertained that a leader can be good in one situation and terrible in another, the idea that traits had to be relevant to certain situations arose. Stogdill, a researcher who published work in the 1970’s, did a study that linked certain personality traits to effective leadership. The major leadership traits are: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability. I remember being the president of the art club and having to display sociability and self-confidence. It took a lot of confidence to speak to them and be confident about what I was saying, and of course I needed to be a social person to be in this position. I needed to be willing to speak with people and hear their points of view. I also needed to collaborate with all the other group members and make compromises. It was definitely a group effort. We were all the presidents, in different ways. Personality factors correlated to leadership are: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Neuroticism, of course, has a negative impact on leadership abilities. It can really hinder one’s ability to reach his or her full potential in a leadership role. I’d say that the one factor I need to work on the most is conscientiousness. I can be pretty indecisive at times. My opinion completely contradicts what I learned about myself in class, however. That was one of my highest scoring traits in the “Leadership Motive Profile.” Though the trait approach has generated way too many different traits, it is a very helpful approach. This approach really focuses on the leader, which makes it pretty unique.

Leadership Models

The discussion in last week’s class dealt with eras of leadership and the implications of the leaders and followers in each form. The first model of leadership discussed was “Tribal” leadership. This type of leadership revolves around family and is run by people’s fear of not surviving. Tribal members are alienated from goals other than surviving. The tribal leader uses a directive and task oriented approach. This type of approach is mentioned in the reading. They take a high directive-low supportive approach to get work done. It is also required that they have some technical skill because they needed to cooperate with the other members to achieve a goal. The leader is in a leader role because he/she has a skill that is very important for the group to function. An example of tribal leadership that exists today can be found in the United States and Canada. The Sioux people maintain tribal governments in North America and Canada. The leaders make decisions that include: hunting, camp movements, war and peace with their neighbors, and many other community actions. The next model discussed was “Pre-Classical” leadership. In this model, leaders are considered divine amongst their subordinates. They were deeply concerned with spirituality and harbored all of the power. These leaders were usually kings and queens. They had the power to terminate anyone who opposed them and demonstrated strong complicity with churches. The next model is “Classical” leadership. This model took precedence in the early twentieth century. At this time, workers didn’t need very much technical skill. They were given one task, and had to perform the same task over and over again. This consequently made them replaceable, and because they were only doing one thing, they earned very low wages. The leaders, however, didn’t need any technical skill at all. They needed conceptual skill. They needed to work with ideas and concepts rather when with the machinery. Leaders such as Rockefeller and Ford are examples of classical leaders. Workers were overworked and were convinced that their work would build their characters. Following this model is the “Progressive” model of leadership. A coaching approach is taken in this style of leadership. It focuses on empowering employees and unlocking their potential for the good of the organization. Leaders in this model need human skills. Lastly, there is “Post-progressive” leadership. This model addresses the world in which we live today. Leaders of this model must have social perceptiveness and be motivational. They are more concerned with collaborating with team members, rather than be the boss. I experienced this model myself when I worked with a Real Estate company. Once my boss showed me how to do my role, he asked for my opinions about what would make certain things better about the company. He encouraged me and made the work environment very comfortable. I suggested a new way of organizing files and we implemented the idea. It made work more enjoyable and this model, in my opinion, is superior to the ones used prior to this one.

Leadership Over Time

There has been an obvious transformation regarding peoples’ ideas about leadership over the past eighty years. “Leadership” has a multitude of homographs in that it has many different definitions. It is almost impossible to prevaricate about what leadership is, as it is a constantly evolving thing. Events in a period of time can influence society’s sentiments about leadership. For instance, when considering the gap of time between the twenties and fifties, one should expect that views of leadership will adapt to the era in which it is being defined. It is only fitting that leadership was defined as “…an ability to persuade or direct men…” during the forties. The arduous tasks that needed to be performed by not only the men going to war, but by the women who needed to substitute their husbands in the workforce attests to the fact that leaders needed to be persuasive. The propaganda which emanates from this time is another convincing factor that proves people had to adopt new ideas. Thoughts needed to be instilled and emotions evoked, which consequently provoked people to undertake these onerous tasks. Concepts of leadership warrant questions to be asked. Which people are in leadership roles? Namely, which people occupy the highest positions? (I.e. president, vice president, secretary of state, etc…) Is the country in a stable position financially? Is a war going on? Definitions of leadership, whether they are eradicated definitions or definitions which have recently been ushered into the forefront of modern society’s perception of the subject, one thing is certain:

There is no paradigm style of leadership, and the consensus about what leadership is at a particular point in history can reveal a considerable amount of information about that period of time.

When we delve into the fifties, we find that America is in a state of opulence. It was not by avarice that we liberated ourselves from a crippled condition, but by hard work and cooperation between our citizens. Now that America is no longer confronted with paucity and the hindrances that debilitated it only a decade earlier, the leaders of this time can finally retire from trying to coerce people and instead adopt plans aimed at coalescing the country. The fact that the leader’s authority was described as being “…spontaneously accorded him by his fellow group members” during this time gives us a reason to assume that team work was beginning to formulate the backbone of the resilient network we know today.

While leadership has undergone a myriad of transformations, it is still being cultivated. All over the world, multiple forms of leadership are being practiced. There are the menial in spirit, such as Joan of Arc, those who refuse to show fidelity to the law, such as Henry VIII, those who behave profligately, such as Catherine the Great, the stentorian, such as Adolf Hitler, those with seemingly infinite resource and sagacity, such as King David and those who are cunning and brutal, such as Attila the Hun. Even today, we can turn on the television and witness for ourselves the plethora of leadership styles which have sprouted from the past. President Obama is delivering his State of the Union later this evening. I have no doubt that thousands will listen. Leadership has captivated people for centuries, and will until the end of time.