A511.5.3.RB- Remote Transformational Leadership

What was the point of the research?

The point of this study was to look at the effectiveness of remote leadership.  Remote leadership refers to managing employees from off site, mostly due to the large amount of people working from home.  

What were the hypotheses?

The authors hypothesized that remote leadership can be just as effective as face-to-face leadership. They also hypothesized that individuals exposed to e-mail messages containing a charismatic or intellectually stimulating message would express higher levels of task motivation, and demonstrate higher levels of performance on a laboratory task than individuals who received e-mail instructions that did not contain these aspects of transformational leadership.

What was the research method used?

In the first study the method used emails to determine if leadership styles can be conveyed through writing and if a positive tone of writing verses a negative tone can produce positive results.  

The second study was to examine the effects of remote leadership on motivation and performance using a laboratory-based investigation.  Data was collected from undergraduate students.  They were each given a survival scenario in which they rank the importance of certain items.  They then turned the scenarios in and were given an email written with messages written in different leadership styles.      

Were the results supportive of the research goals?

The results of both studies showed participants appropriately identified the intended characteristics of the remote leader.  The study also showed that when the emails were charismatic or intellectually stimulating preformed better.  The results suggest that remote transformational leadership can still have the same positive effects on performance and attitudes that occurs within face-to-face interaction. 

Of what value was the research?

With today’s technology the number of people working remotely is increasing.  This included people working from home as well as ones working in different offices around the country or even the world.  One of the biggest issues with remote employees is how to manage them from afar.  This studied showed that remote leadership is possible and can be effective.  More over it shows how to be the most effective while leading remotely.  This research could change the way businesses view employee location.  

A511.4.3.RB-Leadership Traits

        The two components of managerial motivation are personalized power orientation and socialized power orientation.  One describes the use of power to satisfy a personal need, complete with the flaunting of material things.  The other is about using power for the people.  This was one of the most important concepts that stood out to me, I had always realized people used their power for self-absorbed reasons but never thought it was an actual phenomenon.  I feel once leadership goes to a person’s head and they forget about the real reason they are leaders.  

Another concept that I felt was significant was the three-factor taxonomy of skills: technical, interpersonal and conceptual.  They all play different yet equally important roles in leadership.  It is important to have the process and procedure skills as well as the people skills and logical skills to be a good leader.  

For me my most prevalent skills are interpersonal in nature.  I have always been a people person, which is why I have been in customer service for over 20 years.  I can connect and relate with both customers and colleagues in ways that have advanced my career.  I have been fortunate enough to be both technically and conceptually adept also.  I am a quick learner and can pick up on most things while on the job.  I also have no desire to own or flaunt material possessions and I believe a good leader is all about the people around them.  

     I recently applied for the assistant manager position at my current job.  In the interview I was asked what my strengths and weaknesses were, to which I replied, “my strengths are my adaptability and people skills and my weaknesses are my limit knowledge of the computer system.”  I also explained that my lack of knowledge with the computer system is a result of lack to time and instruction.  I feel my skills and background qualify me for the job.  We will see what the cards hold.            

A511.3.3.RB - Power and Influence

As a supervisor I do not hold much in the way of position power, however I do hold some personal power.  I hold both referent and expert power in my position.  The referent power I hold stems from the lack of power held by upper management.  The assistant manager above me has very little respect coming from the agents below me.  She has also done very little to earn any respect.  As I am the one left in charge on the busiest nights of the week and I am sympathetic to their needs and challenges they tend to go above and beyond more often with me than with the assistant manager.  

As most of my staff is new to the job within the last season they ask a lot of questions, with this I gain expert power.  I have the knowledge they need and they know they can trust the answers I give them.  I would like to think I use their need for information as a teaching tool for them to learn from.  The training for my team’s jobs is minimal at best.  They are not given enough computer training to the job they are asked to do, this leads to on the fly demonstrations in front of guests.  Not the most ideal situation for anyone involved.  

The amount of personal power I have in my position is a direct result of my ability to lead.  As I hold nothing in the form of position of power the only power I can hold is personal.  I feel I have earned that with my staff as I recently applied for the job of assistant manager and most of the staff has given me their support.  I would like to believe the support is a result of my ability to lead and not the current assistant manager’s lack of ability.  

When I look around our department I see a lot of dysfunctional LMX systems.  We have a small group of leaders who are close friends and spend a great deal of time together outside of work.  While this is natural and somewhat expected to happen within a work environment it can be taken to an extreme.  Certain privileges and rewards are given to those who are a part of the group, which can set up a dynamic with the rest of the staff that is not so positive.  Othamn (2009) defines dysfunctional LMX as a condition where others perceive the high quality exchange between a leader and certain member in the work group as an inequality.  Another large problem within the department is the gossip, which I know happens in most work situations, but it seems to be out of control in my office. 

Othman, R., Ee, F., & Shi, N. (n.d.) (2009). Understanding dysfunctional leader-

member exchange: Antecedents and outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 337-350.    

Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc

A511.2.3.RB-Supportive Behavior

Yukl (2012) defines supportive leadership as a variety of behaviors that show consideration, acceptance and concern for needs and feelings of others; all used to help build and maintain interpersonal relationships.  There was a point in time where leaders were expected to remain business oriented and strayed away from any getting to know their followers personally.  This made for a cold office environment, with very little interactions and low morale.  Supportive leadership changes this situation.

I have used supportive leadership in my position as a supervisor, I feel connecting with employees is the best way to encourage people and to get through rough times.  In my field of hospitality some nights are extremely difficult, we deal with unhappy guests, people who have been driving for hours and are tired and some that are just plain miserable in general.  There are times when there is one agent whose interactions with guests are all negative, not due to the agent’s performance but the guest’s behavior or circumstances beyond their control.  On nights like these I use a few of the guidelines for supporting Yukl (2012) outlines: provide sympathy and support when person is anxious or upset and bolster the person’s self-esteem and confidence.  In the case of an agent having multiple bad interacts with guests that were not a result of the agents actions it can be important to remind them they are doing a good job, even if they don’t feel like they are.  It can be difficult to return to the counter after being berated for a period of time, I have found that after showing sympathy and reassuring the agent they are doing what they need to be it makes it a bit easier. 

I have not had a chance in my career to develop subordinate skills, however I feel Yukl (2012) makes some very good points on how to accomplish this.  As I have recently applied for a promotion these guidelines come at an opportune time for me.  If I am hired as assistant manager then I will be responsible for training and overseeing all agents’ performance.  After reading the guidelines I mentally broke them down into two categories which when combined will lead to success for the agents.  The first category is developing a person’s performance internally by acknowledging and supporting their desires and goals. The second category would be providing external training and reinforcement for specific job skills and tasks.  Providing external support seems most obvious: encourage attendance at relevant training activities, provide opportunities to learn from experience and encourage coaching by peers when appropriate.  Some leaders overlook the importance of developing an employee internally; they are only looking at the employee’s completion of specific tasks and not the whole picture.  When a leader shows concern for each person’s development, help the person identify ways to improve performance, provide helpful career advice, be patient and helpful when providing coaching and promoting the person’s reputation (Yukl p66-67), the entire company can benefit.  

Yukl’s (2012) guidelines for recognition struck a cord with me.  When it comes to recognition my experiences have been that the people that are most deserving don’t always get the praise they deserve.  Multiple times in my career I have seen people recognized for mediocre performance only because they routinely perform subpar, while people who consistently perform at high levels are not recognized as their work is always of high quality.  This is negatively reinforcement, the message is sent that if you perform poorly most of the time you will be more rewarded when you do something well than if you consistently perform at a high level.  This type of behavior on the part of the leaders can lead to resentment among employees; I have seen it first hand.  Leaders need to understand all levels of recognition and that at some point everyone is worthy of it.  

Supportive leadership as set forth by Yukl (2012) has given me a great perspective into the type of leader I want to be.  I want to be a leader that people can turn to when they are having an issue and trust that I can help them solve it.  I want to be a leader who can develop not only person’s external skills on a job but their internal skills as well.  And lastly I want to be the type of leader who can find a reason to recognize every person on my team.  Hopefully with these skills I can become the great leader I desire to be.      

 

Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in Organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.