Welcome!

You have found BU's Leadership Corner. On this blog we explore the topic of leadership with our Masters of Science in Leadership community and the general public. We aim to provide quality content which will be useful to your everyday life. Leadership is not a simple subject, but through open discussion we may all advance. Explore, and let us know what you think!

Monday, April 11, 2011

The Coming Crisis in Leadership?

This week we're happy to feature an article by one of our upcoming graduates of the Masters of Science in Leadership program.  This content was recently posted in Stanton Chase's International Executive Newswire:
http://executivenewswire.com/2011/04/the-coming-crisis-in-leadership-by-andrew-kruger/ 




If you’ve been listening to the news lately, you may be wondering where all the leaders have gone.  Where are the Churchills, the Kennedys, the Ataturks, and the Welshs?  Now, more than ever, our countries and our companies need real global leadership.  And this might be the problem.  All this globalization might be pulling the rug out from traditional models of effective leadership.
Leaders frame reality for others.  They perceive events and then interpret them for their followers in a way that motivates action.  Currently the US government is on the verge of a shutdown.  If you ask a Republican leader why, he will frame the event in terms of the failure of Democrats to rein in spending.  But when you ask a Democratic leader, he may blame the other side for stonewalling any compromise.  Each is trying to convince as much of the population as they can to see things their way.  I think it’s the only reason Sunday morning news shows exist.

Leadership researchers Smircich and Morgan concluded that a person emerges as a leader in large part “because of their role in framing experience in a way that provides a viable basis for action, e.g., by mobilizing meaning, articulating and defining what has previously remained implicit or unsaid, by inventing images and meanings that provide a focus for new attention, and by consolidating, confronting, or changing prevailing wisdom.”

This concept can be seen as the distillation, or basis, of many of other leadership theories.  It explains the leader-follower relationship by underscoring why followers do or do not accept another as a leader (does the leader’s narrative work for them in creating meaning from what they see?).  It underscores Leader-Member-Exchange (LMX) theory, as the management of meaning by the leader influences the perceptions of organizational justice of the follower (the leader’s effective use of narrative in explaining why justice occurred will affect the follower’s perception of such, and subsequent depth of relations between the two).  Even the “great man” theory and other trait- and behaviour-based leadership models lean on this framework: does the leader have what it takes to effectively create meaning for followers that they will accept and act upon in desirable ways?  Is the leader motivated enough to do this?  Driven enough?  Smart enough?

Crafting a narrative isn’t as easy as it sounds.  A leader must develop open communication channels both upstream and downstream in order to receive and deliver messages with minimal distortion and delay.  Reports and briefings may provide some information, but the savvy CEO will also have his ear to the ground by interacting regularly with all levels of the organization.  This should be informal as well as formal.

Many people (all people?) struggle to make sense of their world.  They absorb news and information and try to assimilate it into a coherent view.  The more solid this view, the more confident they are acting in accordance with it.  But the problem is this: with the advent of communications technology and the evaporation of cultural borders the common man has much more access to all kinds of data on a daily basis.  Much of it is conflicting.  The more data there is to understand, the more difficult it is to create one clear worldview through which to grasp it.

When people’s worlds were smaller, it was easier to create a narrative that made sense of the observations and “reality” that people experienced.  Leaders had only so many concepts and observations to weave into their narrative.  It was easier to motivate people to action because one frame of reality—one story—could explain everything they saw.  And if a leader chose the right story, he could line up motivated followers to his cause.



Increasingly people are bombarded with many more variables than can fit in a concise narrative, and as such faith in some traditional leaders and their interpretation of events has waned.  Twitter and smartphones transmit the experience of any person across the world in seconds.  Virtually all public events are digitally recorded, and the video lives forever online, waiting to catch the unwitting politician or CEO in a moment of hypocrisy.  Leaders can no longer change their narrative without being called out for being inconsistency and disingenuousness (fans of the Daily Show will recognize this  Jon Stewart’s main modus operandi).

What some might call the current crisis of leadership is a reflection of this.  Most leaders, save for some religious ones (I’m thinking Eastern traditions here), can’t create a narrative which meaningfully encompasses all the stimuli most people receive.  The more people know, the harder it is to tell them what to think.  And the world is not a black-and-white place; shades of gray are now obvious to all.
I’m not sure what this may mean for the future of leadership, although one hypothesis is that we will increasingly see a split between two modes of thought- the first being a dogmatic and closed-minded adherence to the old story, where any contradicting information is summarily ignored or discounted (Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann come to mind), and the other is one that increasingly accepts a narrative so expansive and inclusive that it can’t inspire followers to take action.  This can be seen in Taoist or Buddhist narratives of accepting the interplay of opposites and holding two contradictory thoughts in one’s head at once—a koan of sorts.  The consequence of this is a feeling that “there is nowhere to go, there is nothing to do, there is no one to be.”  How do you inspire someone to act on that?

While the tidal wave of technological revolution affects us all, there are tactics for the aspiring leader.  First, choose your audience carefully.  The smaller the target the better you can manage meaning.  Second, do your research to know what they know.  If you send out a company-wide email explaining why the organization has to make budget cuts next year, make sure that month’s newsletter doesn’t cover the lavish executive retreat the C-staff just came back from.  Third, frame events to motivate employees in the right direction.  The best stories inspire people toward an event (e.g. increased revenue) rather than away from something (e.g. decreased spending).

As for the state of global leaders, I don’t envy their challenge.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Actualized Leadership and the Lugano Leadership Academy


From July 5th through 9th Boston University and the Taylor Institute will be hosting a Leadership Academy in Lugano, Switzerland.  This executive workshop, aimed at middle to upper-level managers, will be featuring among its teaching team Dr. Will Sparks.



The following background on Dr. Sparks is directly from his website, drwillsparks.com:

Will Sparks is an Associate Professor of Behavioral Sciences at the McColl School of Business at Queens University of Charlotte.  He serves as the Director of Leadership Initiatives and founded the MS Program in Organization Development in 2008 at the McColl School. Concurrently, he is a Visiting Professor of International Management with Franklin College in Lugano, Switzerland.
He is a Principal with William L. Sparks & Associates, LLC, a professional services firm focused on leadership and team development, corporate creativity and innovation, and change management.  He is also a Managing Partner with Peter C. Browning & Associates, LLC, and consulting firm providing services to corporate Boards of Directors. 

He has consulted with a variety of organizations in the public and private sectors, including the U.S. Navy, GlaxoSmithKline, Anheuser-Busch, the Bank of America, Duke Energy, Wells Fargo, the YMCA of Greater Charlotte, the United Way, the American Red Cross, and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Will has published numerous research papers and book chapters, and has contributed articles to The Charlotte Observer and the Charlotte Business Journal.  He has also appeared in several Charlotte-area media outlets, including the CBS affiliate WBTV Channel 3, News Carolina Channel 14, and on “Charlotte Talks” on the NPR affiliate WFAE 90.7.  He is a coauthor of the book, The Combustion Research Facility: A Model for the 21st Century Open-User Facility, an R&D management case history published by the Department of Energy. 

He is the author of the forthcoming book Actualized Leadership to be published in 2012.  He received the Fuqua Distinguished Educator Award for excellence in teaching at Queens in 2003 and 2005. In 2009, he was awarded the inaugural McColl School Leadership in Teaching Award.
He holds a B.A. in Psychology and Philosophy from Winthrop University, an M.A. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Human Resource Management from Appalachian State University.  He completed his Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior and Development under the direction of Dr. Jerry B. Harvey from the School of Business and Public Management at The George Washington University where his research focused on group dynamics, organizational culture, and leadership.

Attached below is a link to a podcast on Actualized Leadership by Dr. Will Sparks.  It's well worth the listen:


Join Dr. Sparks, Gary Knell of Sesame Street, and the rest of the BU/Franklin College team at the Leadership Academy.  We hope to see you there for four days of training, seminars, and executive networking!


Friday, April 1, 2011

In-Groups and Out-Groups: Leaders Playing Favorites


Whether they know it or not, leaders tend to segregate followers into in-groups and out-groups.  Members of in-groups enjoy a closer relationship with the leader, more attractive work and assignments, and more recognition for their efforts.  They also have higher satisfaction levels with their boss and experience less role-related stress (most likely as a result of the better assignments!).  Simply put, in-group members get more attention and support from their leader.

Out-group members may tend to be viewed more as interchangeable commodities by the leader.  They have more distant relationships with their boss and usually are assigned less challenging and less rewarding work.  The relationship tends to be seen as distant and based on economic exchanges (you work, I pay you for it).  These followers are more likely to have issues with their boss, and may even file grievances. They certainly are less motivated to perform and report lower levels of job satisfaction.

Landing in the Right Group
As followers, we'd all like to be in the in-group, of course.  And as leaders it would be great if our relationships with our followers were all high-quality, like those with our in-group members.  So why would anyone want the out-group to exist?

According to Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, people essentially self-sort into in- and out-group members early on.  Those first couple of interactions with your new boss are very important.  Depending on how you respond to the first assignments and interactions as a follower, you are quickly steering yourself into either one group or another.  You are defining your relationship going forward and essentially telling your boss which group you want to be in. 

Here's how it works:  As a leader makes requests to a member (or follower), that member responds in a certain way.  He may either embrace the request and fulfill it to the best of his ability, or take a lazy or shortcut approach.  From this initial exchange a leader starts to make an impression of the member:  This guy is on the ball and delivers, this other guy doesn't.

Usually the leader starts out slow with small requests, and escalates their importance.  By observing how well members respond, they are then segregated (consciously or unconsciously) into in-group and out-group members by the leader.  Once those roles are formed, they are very hard to change.  Every so often a leader may give an out-group member a chance to redeem herself and get back in, but this is not common.

Performance
In-group members are not only more satisfied in their work, but they have higher performance as well.  They perceive that they are treated well for their efforts, so they are more motivated to perform.  Out-group members feel like the cards are stacked against them.  They are not motivated to work hard, because they feel that they will always be on the outside.  These guys work may just hard enough to not get fired, rationalizing that if their only motivation is a paycheck (as opposed to attention and status of the in-group), then they will scale back their efforts to match that pay.

Conclusion

In much leadership theory, it is important to ask "Ok, so what does this mean to me?"  The lessons here are these:

Implications for Followers
If you are a follower (employee, etc):  make sure that when you start a new job you make that extra effort in the first months.  Be aware that your boss will be looking to see whether you are trustworthy, hardworking, and capable.  This is your chance to get in the in-group, that inner circle that is close to the boss.  If you have been at a job for a while, ask yourself which group you are in.  If you are in the out-group, make efforts to approach the boss for more challenging and demanding work, and deliver when you get it.  You may be able to fight your way in to the in-group after all.  But remember that if you are not happy in your work, or you feel that you are not treated fairly, look at your own actions as well in the context of LMX and see if you had anything to do with your situation.

Implications for Leaders
If you are a leader, be aware that you have an in-group and an out-group of followers.  You may have noticed placing people in one or another, or maybe it just happened unconsciously.  There is nothing wrong with having these two groups, as long as you frequently open your doors to the out-group and give them a chance to perform to earn entry into the in-group.  One example would be every three months choose a member of the out-group and give them a challenging assignment.  If they step up to it and excel, consider bringing them into the fold.  You want everyone to be in the in-group as you will then be surrounded with capable, happy, and motivated people.  Your leadership will be more effective as you work through this team.

One good resource on this is The First 90 Days by Michael Watkins: