Influencing
Culture
Leadership
involves dynamic interactions with individuals whose strengths and weaknesses
are shaped, and are being shaped, by experiences. Effective organizations,
composed of many individuals, accomplish specific goals, which can often be
measured in data. In terms of educational leadership, questions often frame conversations:
What are the subject area proficiency
rate of various grade levels?
What are the attendance rates of
students and faculty?
How many parent complaints are filed?
What are the various fund balances?
How many accident free miles have
busses traveled?
How much money has been expended on
preventive maintenance?
What is the annual staff turnover rate?
What is the average time for a maintenance
request to be addressed?
Answering these
questions can be a simple endeavor; however, the activities, directed by
leaders, which produce the answers are quite complex. Every factor is influenced
by human interactions. As leaders understand how experiences shape the psychology
of their team members, they can bring to bear influence on culture, shaping corporate
and individual psychology.
Inward
An
effective leader must believe that psychology is, in part, plastic. If
attitudes and motivations are static, there is no need for leadership, only
management. The only hope for organizational efficacy lies in hiring and
firing. This is a limited, inaccurate view. To prove this out a leader only has
to examine him or herself. Do not stop; however, at asking what are my
strengths and weaknesses? Ask why are they my strengths and weaknesses?
The
Clifton Strengths’ Strength Finder is a tool for such reflection. A recent self-assessment
with Clifton revealed my top three strengths:
learner, individualization, and achiever. As I read the results, I
considered the experiences that shaped me, and those that are still shaping me.
For example, my lead theme was learner, and I acknowledge the validity of the
claim that the “subject matter that interests you most will be determined by
your other themes and experiences” (Gallop, 2000, p. 1). Identifying experiences which built this
strength into me is easy. My childhood was conducive to learning, and in my
present professional context this strength has been an asset. I am constantly
encountering new problems in various arenas: bus maintainence, network
infrastructure, law and policy.
None of my strengths were as easily connected to experience
as my second, individualization. “Your Individualization theme leads you to be
intrigued by the unique qualities of each person. You are impatient with generalizations or “types”
because you don’t want to obscure what is special and distinct about each
person” (Gallop, 2000, p. 2). As a father to two beautiful African American children, I
confess that thirteen years ago this would not have been revealed as a strength.
Only since parenthood, and more passionately as time passes, do I become
“impatient with generalizations or ‘types’ because I don’t want to obscure what
is special.” Here impatient is not strong enough for me. I become angry.
Lencioni’s (2002) observation that leaders often avoid conflict to protect
others, holds true with me (p. 206); however, when I perceive a people being
treated unfairly because of something unique about them personally, I lean into
conflict. Here I am prone to risking too much.
Strengths Finder identified my third theme as “achiever.” The assessment that I “must learn to live with this whisper of discontentment” shouts at me (Gallop, 2000, p. 2). If the assessment had been taken in real time during a work day, instead of a slow, reflective Saturday, this strength may have ranked higher. I’ll readily admit that for me “if a day passes without some form of achievement, no matter how small, you’ll feel dissatisfied” (Gallop, 2000, p. 2). Maslow’s (1943) focus on the need to be held in high esteem, and his claims regarding the elusiveness of satisfaction, more than whisper to me (p. 8). I see all of this rooted in a - proud son of a maintenance man- chip on my shoulder, which I carry into every setting. My main method of achieving has been making myself necessary by producing at high levels, because as Lamar (2017) notes there is a “difference between accomplishments and astonishments." When possible I strive for the later. Creating and maintaining positive relationships has also been a method of achievement for me, which mitigates the external disruption achievers often cause in a workplace, but leaves plenty of room for personal, internal disruptions. Without intervention from Wendy and weekly transcendent experiences, the achiever theme takes its toll.
Strengths Finder identified my third theme as “achiever.” The assessment that I “must learn to live with this whisper of discontentment” shouts at me (Gallop, 2000, p. 2). If the assessment had been taken in real time during a work day, instead of a slow, reflective Saturday, this strength may have ranked higher. I’ll readily admit that for me “if a day passes without some form of achievement, no matter how small, you’ll feel dissatisfied” (Gallop, 2000, p. 2). Maslow’s (1943) focus on the need to be held in high esteem, and his claims regarding the elusiveness of satisfaction, more than whisper to me (p. 8). I see all of this rooted in a - proud son of a maintenance man- chip on my shoulder, which I carry into every setting. My main method of achieving has been making myself necessary by producing at high levels, because as Lamar (2017) notes there is a “difference between accomplishments and astonishments." When possible I strive for the later. Creating and maintaining positive relationships has also been a method of achievement for me, which mitigates the external disruption achievers often cause in a workplace, but leaves plenty of room for personal, internal disruptions. Without intervention from Wendy and weekly transcendent experiences, the achiever theme takes its toll.
Application
But
the point of psychological study is not to tease out internal puzzles. The
point is to become a better leader, by realizing that all members of the
organization have strengths that have been shaped by experience. Understanding
the root of these strengths can help build on the strength. A core belief of
mine is that the organizations that I lead ultimately become stronger if we
build on strengths instead of focusing solely on weaknesses.
Accepting
that strengths are a result of experience puts the leader in a mind frame to
shape experiences for the team. Lencioni (2002) asserts that all dysfunctions
are rooted in a lack of trust (p. 188). Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy values emotional
safety (p. 169). Trust and feelings of
safety are provided by experiences influenced by leaders. However, a realistic
understanding of limiting factors is prudent. Accepting that people, by
nature, are never satisfied is necessary, for it is easy for leaders to overplay a hand, striving for unattainable pots (Maslow p. 8). Not every perceived organizational
weakness can, or should, be addressed. Also, leaders must understand the prior experiences
that direct, and sometimes limit, the skills of employees. Many staff members
will have been educated in cohort models which often promote cliques and competition
(Lei, et al, 500). Leaders must know that prospective employees who were
academically successful may not prove to be assets, while others who did not excel
in this academic climate may prove to be very effective.
Spending
time and energy on understanding motivations, experience, and psychology yields
a return in organizational leadership.
References
Gallop (2000). Clifton Strengths Finder.
Maslow,
Abraham H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Lamar, Kendrick. (2017). The Heart Part 4. Damn. CD, LP, Digital Download. Top Dog.
Lei, Simon.,
Denis, Gorelick., Short, Keily., Smallwood, Lauren., Wright-Porter, Karen.
(2011). Academic Cohorts: Benefits and
Drawbacks of Being a Member of a Community of Learners. Education, 131, 497-504.
Lencioni, Patrick. (1995). The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. San Francisco:
Josey-Bass.
Posts
