Discussion: View Thread

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Misguided use of "person-in-charge": AVOIDING EITHER OR APPROACH ...

  • 1.  Misguided use of "person-in-charge": AVOIDING EITHER OR APPROACH ...

    Posted 08-27-2012 18:43
     
     
     ...
     
    namaste George:

    I have always admired your work on LMX, because it makes sense in my personal experience and I also find it useful in understanding leadership.  Leadership has always drawn human attention because of the charisma this person has in inspiring masses of people.  Gandhi inspired millions in his life time, and continues to do so.  Even people who never met him during his life time, or even saw a glimpse of him, were inspired by him, called themselves Gandhi-vAdI (a follower of Gandhian ways), and emulated him in their own lives. My father was such a person, and I became a Gandhi-vAdI without knowing it -- implicit socialization.

    LMX reminds us that charismatic leaders do not emerge out of context.  They work with people, invest in people, and earn their respect.  Gandhi's closest associates had HIGH-LMX relationship.  Not all leaders grow to become like Gandhi, but LMX remains the foundation on which leadership is built.  That is your insightful contribution to leadership, to my understanding.

    I hope you notice that Gandhi had both HI-LMX with his close associates (and a LO-LMX with his detractors, all who believed in violence as the method to liberate India from the British rule) and charismatic relationship with thousands of others.  LMX is local, with people we are in contact with.  An elected national leader will always have LMX and charismatic relationship with people.  So, perhaps there is value in using both theses approaches to understand leadership.  I do understand that our deans will probably be limited to LMX model.  However, some university and organization presidents may have charisma, beyond the personal contact with people.

    Person-in-charge is probably one such context that cannot be just avoided.  Most leaders are in charge of some task or organization.  So, even if we study their behavior in the LMX context, they still are in charge, and that may do something to them and others.  The buck stops here is synonymous with person-in-charge.  In his farewell address in January 1953, President Truman said, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job."

    So, perhaps person-in-charge should not be just thrown out.  Perhaps we should find a way to synthesize it by measuring it, manipulating it, or controlling for it.

    Please continue to inspire us.

    If you think the comment will be useful to others, you can forward it to the listserve, or I can post it.  But if I have completely missed your point, I don't want to clutter other people's e-mail and waste their valuable time.

    Have a wonderful week.

    Bhawuk

    On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:57 AM, George Graen <Lmxlotus@aol.com> wrote:
     
     

    A scholarly review of researchable theories of managerial leadership reveals that most define it as focusing exclusively on or including as a major component the "person-in-charge" (Graen, 2012a).  This is a possible disconnect.

    This happens when the "person-in-charge" has no managerial leadership in the business unit.  Logically, such cases both have the person and have not the construct of interest.

    A way to correct this misconnect would be to reject the use of "person-in-charge" altogether.

    One theory has consistently rejected the "person-in-charge" concept (Graen, 2012b).  This theory defines managerial leadership as the art of solving "wicked problems", of forming unique strategic alliances (USA) with instrumental people and jointly tackling common problems.  Note, this includes nothing about the "person-in-charge". 

    I propose that we stop using the "person-in-charge" because it has caused a good deal of wasted effort by colleagues.  What do you think?

     

    Graen, G.B. (2012a). The new LMX theory: The missing link of interpersonal strategic alliances. In M.G. Rumsey (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership, Oxford University Press, pp 359-375.

    Graen, G. B., (2012b). Overview of future research directions for team leadership.  In M. Rumsey (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership, London, UK: Oxford University Press, pp 167-183.

    George Graen

     

     




    --
    Dharm P. S. Bhawuk
    Professor of Management and
    Culture and Community Psychology
    2404 Maile Way
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
    USA
    Work: 808 956 8732
    Home: 808 955 2052
    Cell: 808 342 2939
    FAx: 808 956 2774
    Web: http://bhawuk.shidler.hawaii.edu/



  • 2.  Misguided use of "person-in-charge": AVOIDING EITHER OR APPROACH ...

    Posted 08-27-2012 18:58
    Good Evening,
     
    The statement "Person in Charge" can be found in 33CFR154 regarding designated facilities in the U.S. Coast Guard
     
    Person in Charge can also be found in the maritime arena.
     
    Don Ball
     
    Don A. Ball
    USCGR Retired
    "A veteran is someone who, at one point in their life wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America " for an amount of "up to and including my life." That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it."
    -- Author Unknown
    From: George Graen <Lmxlotus@AOL.COM>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 6:42 PM
    Subject: Fwd: Misguided use of "person-in-charge": AVOIDING EITHER OR APPROACH ...

     
     
     ...
     
    namaste George:

    I have always admired your work on LMX, because it makes sense in my personal experience and I also find it useful in understanding leadership.  Leadership has always drawn human attention because of the charisma this person has in inspiring masses of people.  Gandhi inspired millions in his life time, and continues to do so.  Even people who never met him during his life time, or even saw a glimpse of him, were inspired by him, called themselves Gandhi-vAdI (a follower of Gandhian ways), and emulated him in their own lives. My father was such a person, and I became a Gandhi-vAdI without knowing it -- implicit socialization.

    LMX reminds us that charismatic leaders do not emerge out of context.  They work with people, invest in people, and earn their respect.  Gandhi's closest associates had HIGH-LMX relationship.  Not all leaders grow to become like Gandhi, but LMX remains the foundation on which leadership is built.  That is your insightful contribution to leadership, to my understanding.

    I hope you notice that Gandhi had both HI-LMX with his close associates (and a LO-LMX with his detractors, all who believed in violence as the method to liberate India from the British rule) and charismatic relationship with thousands of others.  LMX is local, with people we are in contact with.  An elected national leader will always have LMX and charismatic relationship with people.  So, perhaps there is value in using both theses approaches to understand leadership.  I do understand that our deans will probably be limited to LMX model.  However, some university and organization presidents may have charisma, beyond the personal contact with people.

    Person-in-charge is probably one such context that cannot be just avoided.  Most leaders are in charge of some task or organization.  So, even if we study their behavior in the LMX context, they still are in charge, and that may do something to them and others.  The buck stops here is synonymous with person-in-charge.  In his farewell address in January 1953, President Truman said, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job."

    So, perhaps person-in-charge should not be just thrown out.  Perhaps we should find a way to synthesize it by measuring it, manipulating it, or controlling for it.

    Please continue to inspire us.

    If you think the comment will be useful to others, you can forward it to the listserve, or I can post it.  But if I have completely missed your point, I don't want to clutter other people's e-mail and waste their valuable time.

    Have a wonderful week.

    Bhawuk

    On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 5:57 AM, George Graen <Lmxlotus@aol.com> wrote:
     
     
    A scholarly review of researchable theories of managerial leadership reveals that most define it as focusing exclusively on or including as a major component the "person-in-charge" (Graen, 2012a).  This is a possible disconnect.
    This happens when the "person-in-charge" has no managerial leadership in the business unit.  Logically, such cases both have the person and have not the construct of interest.
    A way to correct this misconnect would be to reject the use of "person-in-charge" altogether.
    One theory has consistently rejected the "person-in-charge" concept (Graen, 2012b).  This theory defines managerial leadership as the art of solving "wicked problems", of forming unique strategic alliances (USA) with instrumental people and jointly tackling common problems.  Note, this includes nothing about the "person-in-charge". 
    I propose that we stop using the "person-in-charge" because it has caused a good deal of wasted effort by colleagues.  What do you think?
     
    Graen, G.B. (2012a). The new LMX theory: The missing link of interpersonal strategic alliances. In M.G. Rumsey (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership, Oxford University Press, pp 359-375.
    Graen, G. B., (2012b). Overview of future research directions for team leadership.  In M. Rumsey (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership, London, UK: Oxford University Press, pp 167-183.
    George Graen
     
     



    --
    Dharm P. S. Bhawuk
    Professor of Management and
    Culture and Community Psychology
    2404 Maile Way
    Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
    USA
    Work: 808 956 8732
    Home: 808 955 2052
    Cell: 808 342 2939
    FAx: 808 956 2774
    Web: http://bhawuk.shidler.hawaii.edu/