This week, I had the opportunity to learn about
authentic leadership. According to Luthans and Avolio, authentic leadership
“results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors
on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development” (as
cited by Rowe and Guerrero, 2013, p. 295). This sounds like a great style of
leadership as it promotes self-awareness and positive behavior. However, there
are always differing views regarding theories. This blog will examine two
differing statements related to authentic leadership.
“Authentic leadership
is proposed as the core of effective leadership needed to build trust because
of its clear focus on the positive role modeling of honesty, integrity, and
high ethical standards in the development of leader-follower relationships”
(Wong & Cummings, 2009, para. 1).
Critics attribute
authentic leadership to a way to manipulate and deceive followers. Martin and
Sims (1956) and Bailey (1988) wrote that all leaders must be manipulative to
succeed.
Though these two
statements focus on authentic leadership, the opinions they offer are total
opposites. How can a leadership theory that is supposed to be based on honesty,
integrity, and self-awareness revolve around manipulation? A Google search of
manipulative leaders will find articles about infamous leaders such as Stalin, Lenin,
and Hitler. When I think of manipulation, only bad things come to mind. I
picture move characters like Aaron Sampler from Primal Fear or Gordon Gekko
from Wall Street manipulating people along their way. So, are authentic leaders
really just great manipulators?
According to Stachowiak
(2014), there is a difference between manipulation and leadership. All leaders
are in charge of getting their followers to work towards the completion of a
goal or mission. The completion of a goal or increase of production takes a
level of persuasion on the part of the part of the leader. Technically, all
followers react to a level of persuasion. As an accountant, I want to make sure
that I follow all statutes and auditing regulations. Why? Because if I don’t I
could create a negative audit and harm the company. I am persuaded by the
negative aspects of my actions. A child may also have to be persuaded to clean
their room. The parent may offer an allowance or ice cream for a clean room.
However, a leader should not turn persuasion into manipulation. Manipulation
occurs when a leader influences or persuades a follower to do something that
only benefits the leader whereas leadership benefits both the leader and
follower (Stachowiak, 2014).
The elements of
critical thinking can be used to compare and contrast the two statements
regarding authentic leadership. According to Nosich (2012), people have
intentions in all of their actions. These intentions or objectives are known as
the purpose of our actions. A common ground between the two statements would be
the purpose. In both instances, the leader is trying to lead productive
followers. However, the point of view would differ greatly in the two
statements. The first statement, which promotes authentic leadership, would
come from a leader who is attempting to develop their followers through trust
and honesty. The purpose of the leader who abides by the second statement does
not relate to follower development. This leader would only be concerned with
production by any means necessary including deception.
The assumptions of the
two statements would also differ greatly. The leader who abides by the first
line of thought assumes that a mixture of honesty, integrity, and trust are the
perfect recipe to build a strong relationship with their followers. They think
that this ethical relationship is the key to being a successful leader. The
leader who believes in the second statement does not assume that honesty and
trust are important. They assume that if they manipulate and use their
employees to be productive then maybe there is a reward in it for them. Their
assumptions do not include a healthy leader-follower relationship and (in my
opinion) they couldn’t care less.
The implications are
also dissimilar between the two statements. According to the Nosich (2012), the
implications question what follows the action or reasoning. The implications
for the second statement could be catastrophic for a leader and organization.
If the followers begin to understand that they are being manipulated and
deceived, then morale, trust, communication, and production could all begin to
decline. Individuals do not like to be fooled or used for personal gain, so the
authentic leader who manipulates could quickly see repercussions due to their
actions. However, the authentic leader who makes an effort to create trust
while strengthening the leader-follower relationship could see positive effects
for their actions. Who would you rather work hard for- the leader who
unethically manipulates you or the leader who trusts you and acts ethically? I
know who I would stay late or come in early for if asked.
I have always seen the
good in people, so it is hard for me to believe the authentic leadership, or
any type of leadership, is simply manipulation and deceit. However, returning
to an early topic, I believe that persuasion plays a major role in authentic
leadership. Leaders may need to persuade their followers to buy into their
mission. Northouse stated that authentic leadership will only be successful if
followers identify with the values of the leader and exhibit a large degree of
buy-in (as cited in Rowe and Guerrero, 2013). I see authentic leadership as a
method to inspire employees instead of manipulating them. One technique used to
create buy-in while helping followers to identify with the values of the leader
is a springboard story. According to Denning (2011), “A springboard story
performs the most useful thing a leader can do: communicate a complex new idea
and inspire action to implement it (p. 59). Authentic leaders should utilize
springboard stories to persuade their followers to buy into the vision while
creating trust and self-awareness. This method could act as a bridge between
the two polarized statements regarding authentic leadership.
References
Denning,
S., (2011). The leader’s guide to storytelling; Mastering the art and
discipline of business narrative. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning To Think Things
Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum.Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc
Rowe, W. G. & Guerrero L. (2013). Cases in
Leadership. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc.
Stachowiak, D. (2014). The Difference Between Manipulation and
Leadership. Retrieved from http://coachingforleaders.com/manipulation-and-leadership/
Wong, C. & Cummings, G. (2009). The influence of
authentic leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff.
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227526741_The_influence_of_authentic_leadership_behaviors_on_trust_and_work_outcomes_of_health_care_staff
No comments:
Post a Comment