Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Explain in that leadeship, relational dialectics theory and combing leadership and relational dialectics theory.
Typology: Thesis
1 / 129
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
A Project presented to the Faculty of the Communication Department At Southern Utah University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Master of Arts in Professional Communication by JARED SETH WILCKEN Dr. Suzanne Larson, Project Supervisor March 2010
The undersigned, appointed by the dean of Humanities and Social Science, have examined the thesis (project) entitled AN APPLICATION OF LEADERSHIP AND RELATIONAL DIALECTIC THEORY presented by Jared Seth Wilcken, a candidate for the degree of master of Art in Professional Communication, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance.
Dr. Suzanne Larson
Dr. Brian Heuett
Dr. Stan Gwin
Communication Graduate Director
Dr. James H. McDonald, Dean College of Humanities and Social Science
There are many individuals that have helped guide and direct me through this process. It would be impossible for me to overstate how valuable my committee chair, Dr. Suzanne Larson, has been in helping me envision and complete this project. I could not have completed this project without her constant support and encouragement, even when I would drag my feet. She not only provided a wealth of ideas, but also took the class while I was attending my wedding. I also acknowledge my committee members Dr. Brian Heuett, and Dr. Stan Gwin, whose knowledge and expertise were invaluable in putting together this project. I appreciate the many professors who taught both undergraduate and graduate courses that prepared me in many ways to be successful in this task. A special thanks to Dr. Kevin Stein and Dr. John Smith for instilling in me the methods of classroom instruction that helped me learn and helped me provide a quality classroom experience. A special thanks goes to Pam Halgren, who, with a smile on her face, was always encouraging and willing to help find what I needed when it came to the nuts and bolts of teaching the course. And finally, I couldn’t have completed this project without the encouragement and patience of my wife (whom I married while teaching this course). I love you, Julie. ii
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................................i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................................ii CHAPTER
shifts in leadership and leadership theory that have greatly impacted leadership within organizations. Max Weber believed that there were “parallels between the mechanization of industry and the proliferation of bureaucratic forms of organization (Morgan, 1997, p. 2 as quoted in Stone and Patterson, 2005). Just like technology changed the way in which organizations did their work, hierarchical bureaucracies changed the way organizations structured leadership. Organizational goals became the driving force to create performance standards. One shift changed the focus from performance standards to the needs of workers. If workers needs were met they simply performed better. That productivity would improve when workers needs were met was reinforced by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and the well known- Hawthorne studies. The focus on worker needs led to a shift in leadership focusing on the behavioral factors as- sociated with reaching organization goals. Chester Barnard, a leader in this effort, suggested in his 1938 book, The Functions of the Executive , “that the individual is a region of activities which are the combined effect of physical, biological, and social factors” (p. 14). As part of this shift, came Mc- Gregor’s famous Theory X and Theory Y that suggested workers were either lazy and needed to be told exactly what to do (Theory X) or were motivated and would work to accomplish organization goals on their own (Theory Y). Transactional leadership ushered in another major shift in leadership practices. This style of leadership focused on managing outcomes, by meeting the needs of individual workers. A com- mon example would be the exchange of rewards based on a workers adherence to company goals or policies. Stone and Patterson (2005) suggested that transactional leadership is still the most prevalent type of leadership practiced in today’s organizations (p. 6). Transformational leadership took relationships between leaders and followers to a whole new level, suggesting that everyone works together to create greater development of the organization.
While it appears that transactional and transformation leadership are similar, there are big difference between these two leadership styles. “Transactional is based on bureaucratic authority, focuses on task completion, and relies on rewards and punishments (Tracey & Hinkin, 1998). Transformational leadership...is concerned more about progress and development” (Stone & Patterson, 2005, p. 7) of the individual. This has been a major shift in leadership theory and practice. Leaders were no longer required to measure work and ensure that the most effective person did it in the most efficient manner-which did not always increase the organization’s productivity and profitability anyway. Leaders now needed active involvement from the followers to achieve the organization’s goals (Stone & Patterson, 2005, p. 7). Today, leaders have increased their focus on the relationships inherent in organizations (Barnard, 1938; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Stone & Patterson, 2005). This focus lends itself perfectly to a better understanding of Relational Dialectic Theory and how it relates to effective leadership. Relational Dialectic Theory Introduced in the early 1990’s, Relational Dialectic Theory (RDT) is an interpersonal com- munication theory that explains in part the dialectics (or tensions) that exist in relationships (Wood, 1997). Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery (1996), the developers of the theory, explained that the dialectical perspective shows how the complexity and disorder of social life “is a dynamic knot of contradictions, a ceaseless interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies” (p. 3). Prior to the introduction of RDT, many scholars suggested that relationships were linear and followed a pattern of development from acquaintance to an ideal end state. Relationships either moved toward an ideal end or simply ended (Gamble & Gamble, 1996). RDT advanced a new way of looking at relationships. Baxter and Montgomery believed that relationships weren’t linear and were characterized by change. Contradiction, the driver of that
objects, because their actions become reified in a variety of normative and institutionalized practices that establish the boundaries of subsequent communicative moves. (p. 13) In all of our relationships, we choose to act a certain way based on past relationships, as well as on the responses we receive from current dialogue. These various factors in how we communicate are described as praxis. The final major component of RDT is totality. Within the idea of totality are two different concepts. The first is the location of the contradictions present in the dialogue. Contradictions are “jointly owned” by both parties involved in the relationship. RDT suggests that the contradictions are created and live inside the dialogue that takes place between two people. Because both parties created the dialogue, both parties own the contradiction. Secondly, contradictions overlap with other contradictions creating what is referred to as a “knot of contradictions.” These two ideas come to- gether to form totality. Griffen (2008) succinctly combines these concepts defining RDT as follows: Social life is a dynamic knot of contradictions, a ceaseless interplay between contradictory or opposing tendencies such as integration-separation, stability-change, and expression- nonexpression. Quality relationships are constituted through dialogue, which is an aesthetic accomplishment that produces fleeting moments of unity through a profound respect for the disparate voices. (p. A-3) Unlike many theories dealing with relationships, RDT is not centered on the idea that rela- tionships are linear or balanced. Baxter indicates that “relational dialectics...displaces the notion of a center with a focus on ongoing centripetal(forces of unity)-centrifugal (forces of difference) flux. There is no center, only flux” (Baxter, 2004b, p. 186). In other words, relationships aren’t going to balance, they are simply going to move and change throughout the relationship.
Wood (1997) indicates that these dialectics “are ongoing, always in motion, forever chang- ing. Dialectics are not static balances between contradictory impulses. Instead, they are fluid relationships that continuously evolve” (p. 205). In relation to the constant change associated with RDT, Montgomery suggests that: We are subject to cultural messages that tend to portray relationships as much simpler than they are, much more idealized than they are, much more smoothly unfolding than they are. Rather than aim for that ideal, I think we should enjoy the messiness of them (Montgomery, 2002). Historically, Baxter and Montgomery focused primarily on romantic relationships, boyfriend and girlfriend, husband and wife and couples (Montgomery, & Baxter, 1998; West & Turner, 2007). As the years have progressed, the use of RDT has expanded and been used to study multiple types of relationships including leadership relationships (Collinson, 2005; Wood, 1997). Leadership and Relational Dialectic Theory While it may seem logical to combine leadership and relationships, there have been a limited number of research studies that specifically look at relationships in leadership. There is, however, no shortage of speculative information on the importance relationships play in leadership (Kouzes and Posner, 2007; Collinson, 2005, Zigarmi, Blanchard, O’Conner, & Edeburn, 2005). In sharp criti- cism for current leaders, and in support of the importance of relationships within leadership, George (2003) suggests that old leadership styles won’t work in today’s society. Today’s employees demand more personal relationships with their leaders before they will give themselves fully to their jobs. They insist on having access to their leaders, knowing that it is in the openness and the depth of the relationship with the leader that trust and commitment are built (p. 23).
tion. I wanted to incorporate passion and a challenging curriculum into this course. I remember one of my favorite classes during my undergraduate education and recognized that I enjoyed the course because the instructor was passionate about the topic and took the time to engage me in the learning process. I wanted the same thing for this leadership course. I also wanted a course that students would find both challenging and enjoyable. I wanted them to walk away hav- ing learned and applied information that would benefit them not just during the course, but also for their entire life. Also important for me, was the ability to expand the knowledge of and ability to study leadership. I wanted to enlarge the way students looked at leadership and the ability to im- prove both personal leadership and general leadership practices for students. I selected the text A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Leadership by Brad Jackson and Ken Parry (2008). I was particular about this text for two primary reasons: I really liked how the text provided a starting point for many different types and styles of practicing leadership and I didn’t want the course to get bogged down in one particular type of leadership practice. The short chapters and varied topics allowed for a quick introduction to many leadership practices. I could then follow-up by applying RDT to determine if RDT had a place in specific leadership theories and practices such as the Social Identity Theory of Leadership, coaching, or change management. I also enjoyed the passion Jackson and Parry brought to the topic of leadership study. They self-disclose their enthusiasm for the topic at the very onset: “Leadership scholars tend to be the to- ken dreamers, the chronic optimists and the hopeless romantics that you will find huddled together in small clusters at most business schools. We are no exception to this pattern” (p. 7). With the text selected, I needed to describe the course and decide the desired outcomes. The course description (see appendix A for complete course syllabus) indicated that the course would
“focus on the role of leadership using Relational Dialectics Theory emphasizing effective leadership skills including flexibility in relationships, critical thinking and problem solving.” With this descrip- tion in mind, I identified five objectives/learning outcomes that I wished to accomplish during the course. First, I wanted them to understand the value of leadership. As has been previously discussed, there is no shortage of research indicating the importance of leadership in our world. I wanted each of the students in this course to walk away with a clear understanding that they would participate in the process of leadership throughout their lives. This would be accomplished both through reading the assigned text and their leadership theory analysis or study of current leaders. During the course of the semester, each student would need to select three leaders, one business, one political, and one athletic, social, or religious and write a three page paper detailing their leadership and if it related to RDT. The second objective of the course was to examine and determine the role of relationships in leadership. I believed that this could be accomplished, in part, by studying multiple leaders in a vari- ety of settings and looking at how relationships played a role in their success or failure as a leader. The third objective was to understand that there are many different styles of leadership being used today. There is no one correct method of effective leadership, therefore the class needed to study different styles and see how they applied to today’s leaders. This objective was also to be realized through their readings but also through their reflection papers, or application of leadership theory and styles to their individual circumstances. The mid-term project, requiring a detailed reading and analysis of a current leadership book also provided an opportunity to understand and apply different styles of leadership. The fourth objective was to recognize and identify the characteristics of quality leadership.
These dialectics changed the way I presented information to the class and added to my understand- ing of RDT. I started the course with a class discussion of leadership followed by several days of study- ing RDT. The remaining class periods focused on tying RDT with various leadership theories and practices, something that would prove frustrating for many of the students, which I will discuss in the next section of this paper. The course periods followed a fairly consistent pattern of reviewing leadership theory/practices followed by an in class application activity. For this paper I will give three examples of reviewing theory and then applying that theory. The first was used when explaining RDT to the students. I explained the idea of totality, or how different contradictions overlap and how they are interrelated. Following our discussion, I had stu- dents in the course create a human knot. This knot was created by having the class gather in a tight circle. Each person then took one hand and grabbed the hand of someone across from them. This was repeated with their second hand, creating one large connected knot. The object was to try and get out of the knot without any one person letting go. The class was unable to get untangled and we had a good discussion of how totality works. The second example was also toward the beginning of the course. I took a class period to teach about the various styles of leaders. We discussed the differences and similarities between trans- formational, transactional, charismatic, narcissistic and anti-narcissistic leadership. The following class period I split the class into two groups. I gave each group a container full of Lego’s and asked them to build a tower. They were secretly given a specific leadership role to assume while building the tower. The various roles given included: a pompous leader (narcissistic); an alluring leader (char- ismatic); a team leader (transformational); a group leader (anti-narcissistic); a production manger (transactional) and several followers. The objective was to build the tallest tower within a specific
time frame. This activity allowed the students to take the material we had previously discussed in class and apply it in a simulated leadership experience. We had a very active discussion following the activity about these different styles of leadership and which might be the most effective in various situations and the role of RDT in each of these different styles. The third example dealt with the class discussion of followers and the different styles of fol- lowers. Leaders as followers included discussion about co-leadership, co-producers of leadership, shared leadership and followers as recipients of leadership. I found this topic to be of particular interest as so much of what has been written about leadership seems to exclude the follower (Jackson & Parry, 2008). After our instruction on this topic, I had the class participate in a group bidding project, which I created based on memories of a similar activity I had previously seen. There were four groups and five rounds. Each round allowed each group to bid a 1 or 2. The combination of the numbers earned or lost each group a certain amount of points. I outlined for each of the groups the way that they could bid and earn points (see Appendix C for complete details). If each of the groups bid a 1 all of the groups would earn points. However the incentive is such, that one of the groups will often break away and bid a 2 so that they will increase their points while hurting the other three teams participating. At various points in the activity, I would allow discussion between the groups. Now the twist with this activity is that I had each group participating as one of the styles of “follower as leader”. This activity proved to be one of the most engaging and created some pretty strong emo- tions between various class members. The dialogue after the activity allowed me, as the instructor, to relate their experience to various follower practices and help students apply the different ideas we had
books and then wrote a five-page paper reviewing the book through the lens of RDT. I could clearly see from this assignment those in the class who understood RDT and were able to make application to today’s leadership practices. The final assignment was to put all of the course material, both theory and application into practice. Students were placed into four groups at the first of the semester, and would work as a group to present leadership training using RDT as the basis for a leadership development session. I was very impressed with the effort by students to do this final project and believed that it indeed had students using many of the skills they read about and practiced during the semester. Outcomes I undertook the opportunity of applying RDT to leadership and trying to determine the value of using RDT to help us understand leadership. Throughout the course we looked at many different styles of leadership and at the conclusion it was clear that RDT does provide a perspective that allows leaders to view relationships differently and improve their leadership through quality, although not perfect, relationships (Collinson, 2005; Jackson & Parry, 2008). It is also clear that RDT can be taken a bit too far in applying it to all leadership scenarios. After having completed the course and this project, I will move forward using what I learned to continue to help individuals become better leaders through RDT. From the very beginning, I felt an intense pressure to provide a quality classroom experi- ence. Throughout this process, I learned how difficult it is to create instruction for thirty-one classes, or 2,480 minutes of total instruction. I spent hundreds of hours in preparing and teaching this course. After countless discussions, arguments and presentations this class of 18 students shared a mixed bag of results as to how RDT can be applied to leadership.
While nearly 85 percent of the students said I was able to use examples or demonstrate appli- cation of the subject matter, there was also a sense of overkill when it came to our discussion of RDT and leadership. One student commented, “This course was no more than beating the dead horse called relational dialectics theory” (Student evaluations). I would have to agree that our discussions focused a great deal on how RDT could be applied to different leadership situations. I learned that RDT won’t always apply to every style of leader, but for many styles, there is value in understanding the principles of RDT. After all the hours of study, research, and application, there are three principles that can have the biggest impact on effective leadership. The first is an understanding that relationships don’t have to be perfect. If a leader understands the importance of relationships in a leadership setting and is constantly working to make those relationships as effective as possible, they will be a better leader. It would be interesting, and valuable to the field of leadership, to do further research studies into the different leadership styles and the type of relationships each style creates or fosters. Secondly, leaders need to understand that relationships are interrelated. When a leader understands how relationships are connected, they will work to improve the relationships within the organization. Finally, with an understanding that relationships are created in the dialogue between two people, that leader will do all they can to create positive dialogue, and thereby encourage positive relationships and positive leadership. The students in this course capped their experience and this project with the following definition of leadership. Their definition combines the best of each of the objectives of this course as well as Relational Dialectics Theory. They concluded that leadership is “the process of influencing others to accomplish goals. Effective leaders work hard, listen, are trustworthy and organized, they look for opportunities for improvement and service through integrity and the desire to build rela-
