Leadership Theories Critique
The leadership theories I would like to discuss are the (Livingston, 2003) “Pygmalion effect”, (Margolis & Stoltz, 2010) “How to bounce back from Adversary” and (Velsor, 1995) “Why Executives Derail”. The three articles discussed below all have important informative information that all leaders and/ or managers can use to enhance and further their career. These three articles speak directly to me and have influenced the way I lead and manage my team. I chose these three theories, because I believe as a leader it is important to learn how to motivate your employees, how to adapt, remain relevant, and also how to bounce back from difficulties. I will outline below some of the issues leaders and managers face in their career, and that some leadership theories while may usually be effective still has a chance of when properly followed to be ineffective.
The (Livingston, 2003) Pygmalion effect is a theory that believes a manager can pass on their expectation to their subordinate and affect their performance. This is a proven theory that has known to work, leaders and managers and encouraged to use this, but what if the parameters of the theory is flawed? What if the control group was filled with enthusiastic employees?
While this has been proven in controlled environments I do believe that there are a few parameters that have not been considered. Such as the: competency, resilience, and character of the employee. If you consider just these three parameters then the success rate of this theory drops dramatically. If an employee is not competent in what they are doing, how can they be successful? Luck? Not likely. The employee’s competency may be lacking, but if the employee is not resilient when they face an obstacle when attempting to complete the assignment they will not be successful either. Also, competency and resilience might not be a factor, but what if the employee has a poor attitude, or poor character. Every manager has one of these employees, and no matter how encouraging you are, and/ or pass on to them your positive expectations they still are not motivated to successfully complete the task at hand. I believe that this theory only works when the employee has a good balance of competency, resilience, and good character to overcome obstacles. The parameters for which the Pygmalion effect is successful seems unlikely in a negative and low morale work environment as well. After reviewing the Pygmalion effect it seems as though that this is only successful in good office work environment, and also while considering that fact, should positive results be attributed to the Pygmalion effect when in good work environments? I was curious and did a test in a low morale work environment and the staff were very sarcastic, and remained unmotivated to effectively complete their task.
Another leadership theory is that (Velsor, 1995) managers derail usually because they fail to adapt, advance themselves, meet the demands of the business, and also because they fail to grow their team. I found this article to be very relevant in the business management world today. So many executives have become comfortable, and the very skills that got them their numerous promotions they have let gone dull. Practice makes permanent. What I took from this article is that if you want to be a great executive and an effective leader you must adapt and continue to advance your knowledge. The article offers so many ways you can do this. One is by growing a team. The usual perception is that the leader of the team is the only one who can teach or who is knowledgeable, this is not true in many cases leaders learn from their subordinates as well. This helps to spin the wheel in grooming a future leader.
These theories are proven to be true as well. Many managers got promoted young in their career and didn’t fully develop certain skills to take them to the top, and when adversity came they didn’t know how to handle it.
What if this isn’t entirely true? Are there a few parameters missing here as well? Have we considered that perhaps the manager has reached their professional peak? Is everyone meant to be in top management? Of course not. We can even go further to say that everyone does not even possess the potential to be a top manager. My issue with this theory is that just because you have advanced your knowledge, and you have built a fascinating team it is not your passport to executive management, nor is it your resident card for permanent executive status. In this situation, character is a parameter that would derail you. Poor character and personality have left a lot of executive “tycoons” having regrets, because it was the cause of their derailment.
The key concepts discuss in this leadership theory article (Margolis & Stolz, 2010) was: Control, Impact, Breadth, and Duration. It also went further in each concept to discuss: specifying, visualizing, and collaborating. The article spoke in depth about “The Capacity for Resilience” … “The Resilience Regimen”. This article is helpful to all current and potential leaders and managers. At times resilience is not enough. The individual may be resilience, but may not be knowledgeable. Being knowledgeable at times is the difference in how long you are stuck with adversity and also if even you are able to overcome it. The individual might be resilient but if the individual is incompetent then really there still is no overcoming of adversity. The individual might even get themselves into more difficulties than average and as a result they can end up overworking themselves and becoming overwhelmed.
I believe that the theories discussed above can still be helpful, but I do think that the parameters do not produce an entirely truthful result. My main point is that these theories are great to follow and review, but shouldn’t be studied and applied without an open mind. These theories should be applied to the way we manage and not followed directly. Following these theories directly means that we follow word for word and heavily rely and expect the outcome to be as what we have read it to be. Applying these theories mean that we understand them and that we understand they affect the way we manage they do not dictate the way we manage nor the outcome.
References/Works Cited
Velsor, Ellen Van and Leslie, Jean Brittain, 1995, Why Executives Derail: Perspectives across Time and Cultures, Academy of Management, The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), Vol 9, No. 4, (Nov 1995), pp 62 – 72
Livingston, J., (2003) 'Pygmalion in Management', Harvard Business Review, 81 (1), pp. 97-106.
Collins, J., (2005) 'Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve', Harvard Business Review, 83 (7-8) pp.136-146
Margolis, Joshua D. and Stolz, Paul G., 2010, How to Bounce Back from Adversity, Harvard Business Review