Leadership Development #
The crux of transformational leadership is in the development of others; hence, the word “transform.” Therefore, it is fundamentally necessary to examine the beliefs about leadership development as a means by which to qualify others for development. Dr. Heine (2007) points out, it is a common myth that “‘So and so is a born leader, a person so richly endowed with smarts and charisma that he or she seems like a walking, talking billboard for genetic predestination’ — i.e. nature over nurture” (Reithel & Finch, 2007, p. 30). It follows that participants in a leadership development program must share the philosophy that leadership qualities may be cultivated in anyone willing to take initiative –not limited to those born with charisma.
It seems fitting to consider the meaning of leadership development. This term describes a grooming process by which to prepare organizational members for leadership within their organizations (Smither, J. W., & London, M. (2007). Leader development is similar in scope but is different in the focus upon the nature of the individual self-preparing for leadership vs. the focus of development of relations between leaders and followers (Day, 2000). It is important to note that much research on the subject clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of leadership training programs (Boyatzis, 2008).
Approach #
There are a variety of approaches by which institutions organize and standardize the selection and preparation of leaders (Riggio, 2008). For example, some hold the view of equal opportunity for leaders to rise from all levels; contrastingly, others believe leaders should be chosen at employment. Still some organizations believe leaders should demonstrate proficiency on all departmental levels, while others believe in development of specialized positions. Still, other views hold greater concern for cultural applications to leadership by defining needs for transformational or transactional leadership theories (Smither & London, 2007).
Regarding leadership development, Riggio (2008) points out that, “nearly every author mentions that leaders must develop awareness of their own leadership strengths and limitations to capitalize on strengths and overcome shortcomings” (p. 387). Irrespective of developmental approaches, it seems that these qualities make up the undercurrent which guides all approaches to the preparation of leadership. It also follows that this applies to the continual development of leadership. With this information in view, it seems advantageous for organizations to foster culture which recognizes personal steps toward continual self-improvement. Theoretically, this should motivate members toward a natural appreciation for their personal growth.
Virtual Factors of Leadership #
Because this proposal aims to develop an online course by which to prepare ministers to develop “smart disciples”, a consideration of distance factors pertaining to virtual communication is necessary. Erskine (2009) identifies four evidence-based factors of distance within virtual environments: 1) geographical; 2); structural; 3) psychological; and 4) relational.
Geographical distance is likely the most obvious factor within the context of virtual exchanges. After all, virtual platforms serve as alternatives to face-to-face communications. Nevertheless, there are a few not so obvious factors. For example, Erskine (2009) observes that people are often less conscientious of time in geographically shared face-to-face meetings than virtual. Additionally, leaders often notice a loss of the convenience for easily calling meetings into focus upon the tasks at hand in virtual settings. However, it should be noted that Erskine (2009) found no differences in the leadership influence in centrally vs virtually located members.
Structural distance describes the presence of leadership/organizational structure when challenged by geographical distance of leaders/organizations. Erskine (2009) found that members tend to experience autonomy and a sense of empowerment when they are distant from the enforced structure by leaders. However, there are also drawbacks to this freedom. Some people do not function well without structure; thereby resulting in difficulties understanding expectations, coordinating tasks, and receiving feedback in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, the research did not find a significant difference between performance and structural distance.
Psychological distance describes negative emotions experienced by a perceived lack of connectedness with leaders. Erskine’s (2009) research demonstrates a correlation between the sense of connectedness members experience with leaders and their perceptions of trust in leadership decisions. Additionally, coloration exists between higher levels of role satisfaction and the willingness to defend leadership through trying circumstances. The implications follow that developmental relations conducted within virtual environments will benefit by emphasizing leader-member connectedness; thereby, fostering trust and contentment.
Relational distance describes the overall perceptions of favoritism relating to leader-member relations within organizations. Organizations function through working roles defined by positional hierarchies, titles, and responsibilities. In one aspect these structures are clearly defined by organizational access, authority, and policies, yet there remain unofficial and ambiguous structures subjectively defined by interpersonal relations (Betts, p. 115, 2004).
People generally embrace organizational environments from at least one of two perspectives: leader to member or member to member (Chung-Kai & Chia-Hung, 2009). As a result, favorable or unfavorable status judgments are formed based upon perceived connectedness with leadership (Northouse, 2010). Naturally, perceived favoritism leads to negative conclusions regarding organizational justice. If a reasonable distance is not held between leaders and the expectations of members (regarding their roles), perceptions of “in” and “out” crowds may form (Deluga, & Perry, 1994). However, research suggests that such distance occurs at the expense of potentially increased levels of intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and member loyalty (Erskine, 2009). Such is the essence of transformational outcomes.
Organizational justice is typically viewed through the lenses of procedural and interpersonal transactions with leaders. Procedural judgments are formed around perceived fairness in the enforcement of policies. Interpersonal judgments are formed by interpretations of direct interactions with leaders. Employee attitudes about job satisfaction, commitment, fatigue, and intentions regarding separation are all affected by perceptions of fairness in matters of procedure, distributions, and treatment. Where trust is low, studies show that even fair conditions have little or no effect on employee cooperation. However, when trust is high, employees are more likely to dismiss, justify, or at least minimize perceived negative circumstances because of their relationships with leadership (Piccolo, Bardes, & Judge, 2008).
Best practices of these findings imply that effective leadership administered through virtual channels maintains a peripheral view of these distances. Their strengths and weaknesses are understood and leveraged to manifest desirable outcomes. Such goals include building relationships which foster trust, empowerment, flexibility, organizational loyalty and role satisfaction. “Exceptional leaders—in terms of their confidence, charisma, and leadership style—motivate followers to focus on aspects of procedural and interpersonal fairness…thus enhancing the utility of organizational justice” (Piccolo, Bardes, & Judge, p. 280, 2008).
Trust #
Trust is a necessary component of positive human relations and essential to effective leadership. This is true between individuals, groups, and organizations. In fact, without trust people remain focused on their individual agendas. It is not until trust is established that individuals will genuinely redirect their energies toward mutually shared objectives (Kath, 2007).
Deluga (1994) identifies trust as the essential element of employee satisfaction, productivity, and leadership effectiveness. Of course, it follows that perceptions of an unfair professional climate is the leading cause of suspicion and loss of trust in leadership. This outcome aligns with equity theory which predicts that employees will give back to organizations the proportion that they believe they are rewarded. Low quality leadership exchanges are directly related to losses of morale and declined productivity. However, high quality relationships result in employees feeling an obligation to return to high quality labor.
Of course, the assessment and establishment of trust is also contingent upon the context in which the trust is required. For example, trust factors may rest more on faith in a technical skill rather than personal character. Nevertheless, trustworthiness is rooted in the credibility and reputation of the recipient. Theoretically, these factors are the products of good interpersonal transactions that lead to commitment to keeping relationships consistently over time (Glasser, 2002).
Because trust is the quintessential of positive influence, leaders should make it a central focus of their relational outcomes. Rogers and Riddle (2006) pinpointed six best practices for developing virtual trust:
- Maintain one another’s self-esteem.
- Support and praise one another.
- Keep sensitive information confidential.
- Stand up for one another.
- Avoid gossip or unfair criticism of others.
- Appreciate one another’s skills and differences
Additional trust building action are “supervisor availability, competence, consistency, discreetness, fairness, integrity, loyalty, openness, promise fulfillment, receptivity and overall trust” (Deluga, p. 317, 1994).
Ethics #
The ethical strengths of I/O Psychology are found on a perpetual focus to improve the dynamics of individual, intrapersonal, and interpersonal human relations within the contexts of organizations (Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 2009). One of the limitations of the practice is a lack of clear principles in terms of written ethical codes for the profession. Some point to the APA’s general code as the standard for I/O ethical conduct. However, this code is written with the perspective of therapeutic psychological practices in mind. For this reason, the APA’s code is not well matched to the I/O practice and profession. Dr. Stephen Behnke, Director of Ethics for the APA reports “The APA Ethics Code is inadequate for I/O psychology” (2006, p. 66).
Nevertheless, there are a few principles from the APA code of ethics which can be applied to this proposal. The General Principals portion of the APA’s (2010) Ethical Code of conduct offer the following examples: Practitioners strive to benefit, safeguard, and do no harm (principle A). Practitioners seek to establish trust (principle B). Practitioners maintain scientific integrity (principle C). Practitioners seek to maintain justice (principle D). Practitioners support the rights of privacy, confidentiality for individuals (principle E).
Cultural Consideration #
On a national level, the US is growing rapidly. The current outcome of this expansion demonstrates the White population is slowing, and minorities such as Latinos are growing at almost 4 times the majority rate. Furthermore, the best-known US minority groups such as Asian, Native, and African, are also growing at rates greater than those of the majority (Zoccolillo, 2008). These are clear indicators that American culture is becoming increasingly more divers. For this reason, there is a greater necessity for multicultural awareness than ever before, and this is only anticipated to increase. Any approach to ethical reasoning should consider these factors in the interest of organizational populations.
—> Click Here to Next: Christian Discipleship: Mooney’s Smart Discipleship Model <— #
5 of 8 #
Research Proposal for Master of Science in I/O Psychology:
National Association of Christian Ministers
Developed Under Supervision of Dr. L. Faibisch
9/19/2014
