Leadership in Nursing: \"The How and What

Leadership in Nursing: "The How and What of Leadership"

There are those who would define leadership "as a social influence process in which leaders use interpersonal behaviors to motivate followers to contribute to group goals" (Kaiser, McGinnis, & Overfield, 2012, p 119). Yet, there are staunchly different opinions which present a much different view of leadership and the role it plays within contemporary organizations. According to modern business perspectives, there is less emphasis on the individual being motivating, and more importance placed on the whole of the organization. Thus, there is an internal conflict with using leadership strategies based on a psychological perspective within a business context. Kaiser, McGinnis, and Overfield (2012) explores what real managers working in the field feel about the two polar opposite views of leadership; understanding what elements of leadership are deemed most effective can then be used in contemporary healthcare settings in order to lead nursing staff to accomplish specific and often difficult care strategies.

The concept of how leadership works is still a mysterious concept in all industries. Academic study has long examined the psychological nature of leadership and how it functions within the contemporary workforce. For example, there are those who believe in the social influence as the primary source of power within leadership strategies. Thus, leaders use interpersonal strategies to positively motivate individual behavior. This social influence can then be used as a way to facilitate organizational functions and objectives. There are several views of leadership that are often conflicting when seen in terms of modern management practice. On the one hand, there is the classical view of leadership which posits it is "about influencing people to contribute to group goals" (Kaiser, McGinnis, & Overfield, 2012, p 120). This is a perspective coming from psychology.

Yet, there are prominent examples of strong leadership that is accomplished without this more pleasant view of leadership. Business practices often see leadership has having different important elements that what is seen as crucial from a psychological perspective. Such perspectives "usually emphasize the leadership of functions such as strategy, structure, staffing, and work systems," (Kaiser, McGinnis, & Overfield, 2012, p 120). These are much more technical elements which hold a greater weight, which is stark contrast to the interpersonal view of leadership from a psychological perspective. Kaiser, McGinnis, and Overfield (2012) give the example of Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who was anything but a good leader in the more traditional sense. He was known for his emotional outbursts and complete inability to be flexible in his ideas or demands for Apple employees. Despite this action, Apple's growth soared. When Jobs was replaced in 1985 in favor of a more traditional style of leadership, the plan backfired and Apple sank from its prior rapid growth. As a result, Jobs and his unconventional leadership style were brought back and helped mold Apple into the international powerhouse it is today. This is clearly a different perspective when compared to the view of the interpersonal leader seen within a psychological perspective.

With two conflicting styles of leadership, there can be issues in how organizations can use core elements to succeed in meeting organizational objectives. Each individual perspective views different characteristics to be most important within an effective leader. For example, interpersonal psychological perspectives would place greater emphasis on monitoring, supporting, and collaborating with individual employees. Yet, a business perspective would rely more on "behaviors such as taking charge, exercising control, decisiveness," and other less interpersonal characteristics within a leader (Kaiser, McGinnis, & Overfield, 2012, p 123). As such, most management training strategies focus only on one of the elements, leaving out important parts of the other that could lead to greater productivity if both were combined.

To explore this issue further, Kaiser, McGinnis, & Overfield (2012) undertook a study that examined what role leadership plays within modern organizations and how it can be such a powerful driving force. The study examined the two different views of leadership and how the are effective in motivating employee behaviors. In the research, 4,670 coworkers rated their 421 senior managers based on the two concepts of leadership. Each manager was rated by a small number of employees, with an average of around 11 each. According to the research, "ratings were collected with the Leadership Versatility Index version 3.0 (LVI) multirater assessment instrument" (Kaiser, McGinnis, & Overfield, 201 p 125). There was a scale which included 12 dimensions of behavior. In these twelve, there were behaviors meant to enable and enforce, representing the two types of leadership strategies. This would then enable the researchers to understand what characteristics were valued highest. Regression analysis was then used to statistically analyze the results. The research clearly found that elements of both styles of leadership were rated as crucial within a business context. Thus, Kaiser, McGinnis, and Overfield, (2012) state that "the interpersonal how and the organizational what represent important and complementary components of effective leadership" and that "variables representing both the how and the what were weighted heavily in evaluations of overall effectiveness" (Kaiser, McGinnis, & Overfield, 2012, p 130). Essentially, from a real-world perspective, a true effective leader needs elements of both in order to find success in their leadership practices.

The core concepts of the article can be used in modern healthcare practice as well. A 2006 study conducted by Chen and Baron (2006) shows how leadership was evaluated by Taiwanese nurses. It was clear that nurses in a leadership position were utilizing elements mainly from a transformational leadership perspective, and tending to neglect elements that worked with different strategies. This means that nursing leaders were favoring the psychological and interpersonal perspective of leadership, while often neglecting to use elements of the more business oriented perspective. What resulted was only moderate satisfaction being reported by Taiwanese nurses. This clearly shows that elements of the organizational function style of leadership is still needed within a healthcare setting, as the nurses examined felt that the leadership was not as strong as it could be by using elements from only one of the two strategies.