Traits of Leadership over a Lifetime

Life has it stages and leadership skills move through those stages with the person. As people change and grow there will be different emphasis on leadership skills as challenges are mastered and new knowledge presented. Despite the changes of life there are some similarities across the stages that run the course throughout a lifetime (Nelson, Schroeder & Welpman, 2014). 

In the beginning of a leader’s life rudimentary skills form in the home and create a foundation for leadership. As life continues this framework is used as a place where new knowledge is learned, incorporated, and then utilized to achieve goals. The process of learning, challenging and developing continues throughout a person’s career. 

Leaders are unique creatures when compared to many other people. They are always seeking to develop and grow regardless of the circumstances they are in. Even though the stages of their life change they seem to hold consistent characteristics that continue to push them to higher levels of effectiveness. These traits are as follows: 

Learners: All leaders are learners. Leaders “consciously following a recursive cycle of experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting, they can increase their learning power” (Kolb & Kolb, 2009, p. 297).  They are people learn from reading and life experience to tone their skills to effective leadership strategies. The process of learning and developing never stops.

Encouraging: Leaders encourage others because it not only moves to higher performance but also encourages stronger interpersonal relationships. Positive demeanor and attitude lead to higher forms of subordinate motivation and performance.

Interpersonal Relationships: Leaders are effective at interrelating with others and building stronger social networks. The development of leadership helps in finding a way for people to connect with and build relationships. Leaders are generally social people who enjoy interacting with other people. They are capable of empathy and caring relationships.

Innovative: Leaders are innovative and think of new ways of doing things. This helps them develop strategies that actually come to new and unique results. They are not the type of people who follow the same path over and over and hope for a new result.

Self-Awareness: Leaders grow in their self-awareness that comes through their experience with themselves in different situations. As they gain knowledge and experience they grow and create higher levels of emotional intelligence.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The Learning Way: Meta-Cognitive Aspects of Experiential Learning.  Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297-327.

Nelson, E., Schroeder, M. & Welpman, L. (2014). Does career maturity impact leadership behavior? Journal of Leadership, Accountability & Ethics, 11 (3).

Leadership Through Stakeholder Collaboration

Leadership is a necessary component of moving groups from one performance level to another. Leaders provide a focal point for collective action, a voice to the will of the people and decision-making capacity when problems arise. Responsible leaders are able to bring stakeholders together to accomplish some important goal. This isn’t possible without considering the multiple stakeholders in any worthwhile activity.

According to Doh & Quigley (2014) leaders are able to use psychological and knowledge-based pathways to impact micro/individual, team, organizational, and societal outcomes. Such leaders have the personal capacity to see how daily activities can impact larger groups of stakeholders to create higher levels of impact. Responsible leaders can impact organizational processes and outcomes to achieve goals.

Consider the different types of stakeholders interested in an organization and the levels by which these can be categorized. The individual worker has a stake in terms of employment, the manager in terms of impact, suppliers who earn revenue, and the general community and society who are impacted by the economic opportunities. The same organization can have multiple people interested in its functionality due to far reaching implications.

Instead of shunning this interest it is possible for responsible leaders to capitalize on stakeholders to create a better functioning organization both on the human-to-human micro level as well as the community level. Individual workers who live and exist within the organization naturally have an impact on the success of the organization and its impact on the community.

It may not seem like it is possible for one person who can have this much influence but this depends on how the leader creates proper workplace environments and open inclusive interactions that can draw interested parties. Consider for a moment how organizations that are fully engaged in the community have a  positive impression that helps their overall impression and public image.

Leadership requires the ability to see the vantage point of multiple stakeholders and how their perceptions envision and interpret organizations. By drawing in such stakeholders across multiple levels it becomes even more possible to increase the amount of collective effort but also draw new ideas from interested parties.

A large part of leadership is about opening up communication lines and developing new ways to get people involved in solutions. Leadership requires not only the ability to think strategically but also how to draw people into that strategic image. Finding a vision that most stakeholders can accept is necessary for greater collaboration and higher achievement.

Doh, J. & Quigley, N. (2014). Responsible leadership and stakeholder management: influence pathways and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28 (3).

Are Satisfied Employees Less Willing to Help Others?

Organizations can be regarded as a system of relationships between individuals. Social exchange theory (e.g. Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) provides a general framework to understand these relationships, arguing that positive interactions are likely to increase cooperation among individuals in organizations. While there is much information about how cooperative relationships evolve, far less is known about how these relationships affect each other. Now, taking into account that employees have multiple relationships as they are dealing with coworkers and with supervisors, the question is whether cooperation in one direction may affect cooperation in the other. 

From an organizational perspective, career systems may be viewed as a means to create cooperative relationships with employees. At the same time, however, they can reduce cooperation among coworkers as they will compete for higher positions. This mechanism was found in a study among Dutch organizations: the more satisfied employees were with their career opportunities, the less willing they were to help their colleagues (Koster, 2014). This suggests that the motivational effect of career systems may be at odds with the conditions that are needed to create positive work relations among employees. Organizations that are based around teamwork should be aware of this potential trade-off of between career incentives and cooperation among employees.

 References

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.

Koster, F. (2014). “When two worlds collide”. Career satisfaction and altruistic organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 9(1), 1-12.

Bio

Dr. Ferry Koster is Associate Professor of Labor, Organization, and Management at the department of Sociology of Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR), the Netherlands. Besides that, he is a researcher at the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His empirical research includes the cross national comparison of formal policies and individual attitudes, the comparative study of organizations, and organizational behavior. A general theme across these studies is the question to what extent and how social context relates to individual outcomes.

EUR profile of Ferry Koster

 http://www.eur.nl/fsw/sociologie/profielen/profiel_mis/10538/

Growing Global Brands-Understanding International Culture

artwork by Dr. Murad Abel

With pressed three piece suits and blazing red ties they look out over the ocean and wonder just how far they need to travel to sell products in lands yet untapped. It wasn’t long ago they built towers where their grandfathers once tilled tobacco, corn, and beans. The montblanc pens are not yet dry but the ideas have long been spent. Just beyond their reach, opportunities again bound but the paths are now covered in asphalt trails that lead back to where brick and mortar ends. Just beyond that wall is something new, a place to gain footing, a vine perhaps that is hardy enough to tow products world round.  Once again the good times could roar if shined shoes are scuffed in the knee deep fields of prosperity. 

 Executives seek once again to find new opportunities to grow their businesses and create expanding opportunities. The global marketplace requires new theoretical lenses that are much sharper than the theories of the past. Global product positioning offers new opportunities that require a more complex way of conducting business and marketing offerings. A single vantage point from a single field of study simply doesn’t consider the complex nature of marketing on multiple continents with different needs and cultures. 

Products are about self-identity. As a new generation is born into the Information Age their identity begins to transcend their individualized cultures. According to McKraken (1986), global brands create an identity, achievement perspective, and perception that symbolize values that are transferred into the way consumers view themselves.  Younger generations are much more aware of different cultures and have meshed their identities into a wider perspective.  They want to be successful, and find a wide array of products that help them further this identity.  They have opportunities to purchase from anywhere in the world and do so with a few key strokes. 

Those companies that can build global brands will find willing followers if their image and products align with the needs of consumers in different cultures around the world. Global brands can create images of superiority, quality, social responsibility and prestige that help them successfully draw in a younger and more enthusiastic crowd (Keller, 1998; Ozsomer & Altaras, 2008). These brands fit within their personal aspirations and represent their chosen paths in life. 

Research by Ozsomer and Altaras (2008) shows that the global marketplace requires more complex theoretical lenses to understand how to develop brand identity that will sell internationally. They believe that consumer culture theory, signaling theory, and associative memory theory have what it takes to develop a corporate image and products that will sell. Each of these theories helps decision-makers understand the varying complex nature of market production where multiple cultures are present. 

Consumer Culture Theory: Global consumers re-contextualize symbolic meaning encoded within marketing programs to develop their individual and collective identities (Holt, 2002). As global products become more apparent it naturally changes the perceptions of consumers. Their exposure to the images and messages encoded within marketing campaigns are adapted to help them create new identities that blend their past to their future.  They will buy that which confirms their aspirations of where they desire to go and the image they would like to portray to others.

Signaling Theory: Companies take actions that signal the value of their products. For example, offering a warrantee with a product will signal that its quality and value is high (Boulding & Kirmani, 1993). Signaling can occur within the company’s strategies, offerings, and actions that can lead to higher or lower credibility on the market. When a company’s credibility is damaged through improper actions their products and future viability are likely to suffer as well.  

Associative Memory Theory:  Consumer memory and how it identifies brands is an important indicator of how customers will view and remember brands.  Memory is seen as nodes of images or information that are connected to other nodes. Each node can be mapped to understand how consumers see products (Collins and Quillian 1972). Ensuring that the company’s image, the product’s images, and the marketing messages are in alignment will help ensure that the nodes connect together correctly.

Each person exists within the context of their culture but this culture is only a vantage point in understanding the rest of the world. As an interconnected generation rises to maturity, they have cultural underpinnings that transcend their local backgrounds. It is these cultural underpinnings, rooted in human nature, where companies can find their best opportunities to sell products. 

Those companies that seek greater global brand awareness will need to relate their products and images to the identity needs of this generation. Some are seeking fame, some wealth, and others recognition but all seek something in the global marketplace. They will choose their products based upon those self and collective identities that fulfill chosen way of relating to the world. 

The three theoretical models offer a different but interconnected way of viewing the products and services developed. Understanding how the company is perceived, the actions that signal value, and the way in which consumers interpret and connect brands is important for develop market oriented products and services.  As products and services are being engineered they should do so within the underlining values that are common to most cultures. 

Boulding, W. & Kirmani, A. (1993). A consumer-side experimental examination of signaling theory: do consumers perceive warranties as signals of quality? Journal of consumer reach, 20 (1). 

Holt, D. (2002). Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 70–90.

Keller, K. (1998). Strategic Brand Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Collins, A. and Quillian, M. (1972). How to Make a Language User,” in Organization of Memory, E. Tulving and W. Donaldson, eds. New York: Academic Press, 310–54.

McCraken, Grant (1986). Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1), 71–84.

Ozsomer A. & Altaras, S. (2008). Global brand purchase likelihood: a critical synthesis and an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4).

The Bounded Rationality of Stakeholder Theory

Stakeholder Theory is an organizational management perspective that attempts to defined the nature and purpose of firms/corporations within society. According to its founder Milton Friedman, the purpose of a firm is embedded almost exclusively in the production of wealth for shareholders (Friedman, 1970). Since this time, the concept of stakeholder has been expanded to include the idea that other entities have a particular stake, or interest, in the organization and can influence its success or failure.

The theory defines who are the stakeholders in an organization and their rights and obligations to the shareholders as well as society in general. The root of the theory is based off of the premise that its purpose is the, "identification of moral or philosophical guidelines for the operation and management of the corporation" (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The theory helps to foster the understanding that the needs of the owners should be realized first before other considerations. However, other ethical aspects of managing an organization in society are important considerations of how companies should operate; the definition of stakeholder has been expanded to include them.

This management perspective helps bridge a gap with classical economic theorists who see the system as separate economic components competing against each other while ignoring the perspective of the management of the firm. The classical approach makes the assumption that all participants in the system are rational and independent (unbounded rationality) while management theorists believe that  the imperfect information and lack of participant's mental abilities would bind them together for decision making into firms and organizations (bounded rationality) (Simon, 1955).

Thus the firm became a resource entity where operational abilities and knowledgecan minimize costs and improve upon market influence (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). It is believed that organizations have the capacity to create market efficiencies through tying together the skills of labor and management into a social function that furthers the interest of its members. In essence, a person joins the firm for resource attainment and hedges their skills which creates more productivity than working alone.

In order for the firm to be effective it must hedge the skills and development of employees to create efficiencies. When these efficiencies are difficult to obtain and employees/managers are capable of a "free ride" the collective benefits will be lessened (Hardin, 1982). The same risks apply when an organization's culture detracts from employee development, unions become obstructionists, or political corruption encourage "free rider" approaches. Adding enough free riders, and inefficient operators to an organization, will detract from the firms missions, purpose, and economic strength.

Coordinators of human capital are combined into what we consider the board of directors. This board should have the skill to develop and create synergy within the organization by hedging human capital to create innovative powers (Mohrman et al., 1995). Thus, the very purpose of the board of directors lies in their ability to increase the efficiency of transactions as well as the innovative potential of the organization.

When a group of skills and abilities come together into an in-group paradigm with productive core values, the stakeholders are able to capitalize on employee's abilities and reap higher market rewards. The firm becomes the psycho-social group with a bundle of rights and obligations (Donaldson and Dunfee, 1999). Each member of the organization must be fully integrated into these groups, rights and obligations if true success of the organization will be found.

Stakeholder theory helps put within perspective the nature and purpose of an organization. At present these two purposes are 1.) shareholder wealth and 2.) other interested parties that have influence over the firm. Even though the theory doesn't specifically state this concept, one could take a very large view that firms are also societal socialization tools and can collectively change the very nature of American values and beliefs. Thus a stakeholder can be any person, group or entity that has a vested interest in the development of the organization and the people that pass through it.

Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P. (1993)Strategic Assets and Organizational Rent. Strategic Management Journal 14, 33–46.

Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. (1995). The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Academy of Management Review 20 (1), 65–91.

Friedman, Milton. "The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits." New York Times Magazine, 13 September 1970.

Hardin, R. (1995). Efficiency, in R. E. Goodin and P. Pettit (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 462–470.

Mohrman, S., Cohen, S. and Mohrman Jr, A. (1995).  Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Simon, H. (1955), A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.  Quarterly Journal of Economics 69, 99–118.