Satisfaction, Effectiveness, and Extra Effort as Outcomes of Veritable Leadership and Measures of Effectiveness.

• Author: Khan, Hamid

INTRODUCTION: THE OUTCOMES OF LEADERSHIP

Satisfaction: Wake up with determination. Go to bed with satisfaction. Anonymous.

Effectiveness: Efficiency is doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right things. Tim Ferris.

Extra Effort: The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is that little extra. Jimmy Johnson

Initial Evidence: On a rainy day on June 26, while sitting on my portico and drinking coffee, I observed first hand a young lady, a post woman, pull up her jeep to the bank of mailboxes visible to me, which housed about fifty residents' mailboxes. It started raining harder. For about 15 minutes, undeterred and with a hat on her head, she was continuing to put mail into mail slots. As I worked as an industrial engineer who studied productivity of workers, I found her gait to be better than 150%. I was, in fact, impressed by her sheer agility. As she finished putting mail and drove past my house, I ran to the other side of the road to get her attention. I told her that I have been observing her for fifteen minutes doing an exceptional work in the rain. I told her that I was writing an article which would be read by many people throughout the whole world on "American Exceptionalism," which draws heavily on three things within the control of every individual and which she had just now demonstrated in the rain: Satisfaction, Effectiveness and Extra Effort (SEE). She responded by gesturing "Bless my heart!" "Bless my heart!" I felt good, and I know that she also felt good. This is evidenced in the results at the end of this paper.

Final Empirical Evidence: As the outcomes of leadership in the highest office is a testimony of election results in no uncertain terms, veritable leadership has been vouchsafed by the singular and popular postal workers in this COVID situation. (Hats off to the postal workers, as shown above, and those that possess strong Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership and who SEE inside themselves their coveted Satisfaction, Effectiveness and Extra Effort (SEE) as perennial sources of motivation!)

Psychological Capital (PsyCap), Psychological Ownership (PsyGown), and Leadership

Psychological Capital (PsyCap) of an individual is determined by the scores from the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ; Luthans et al., 2007a), which draws from widely recognized published standardized measures for each of the dimensions that make up PsyCap: (1) Hope (Snyder et al., 1996); (2) Optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985); (3) Resiliency (Wagnild & Young, 1993); and (4) Self-Efficacy (Parker, 1998). These are the cognitive states of mind--we may call them by the acronym HORSE. The PCQ has demonstrated high reliability and construct validity in earlier studies (Luthans et al., 2007a, 2008b, 2007c).

Psychological Ownership was promoted by Avey and Avolio (2007), with five facets comprising of Territoriality, Ease of Belonging, Accountability, Self-efficacy-b, and Relational Identity (TEASER) to spur the HORSE for affective and effective behavior. The ownership concept of the target subject is either preventive or promotive. Territoriality is considered the preventive psychological behavior, whereas the other four elements are considered promotive psychological behavior. Both PsyCap and PsyGown contribute to Leadership as evidenced in the following model.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ--5X short) and its measurement, thereof, uses a broad range of leadership types, from passive leaders to leaders who give contingent rewards to followers, to leaders who transform their followers into becoming exceptional leaders themselves. The MLQ has 45 questions (this study uses 36 questions) that identify the characteristics of three major styles (Transformational, Transactional, and Passive Avoidant) of leadership and help individuals discover how consciously they measure up in their own eyes and in the eyes of those with whom they work or associate as peers or supervisors. Success in leadership effectiveness can be measured through a retesting program by the publishers of MLQ to track changes in leadership style as a management development framework for after the training monitoring. The MLQ testing program using a Trainer's Guide provides a solid base for leadership training.

FIGURE 7: RESEARCH QUESTION OF SUPERIOR EXCELLENCE Research Question: Is there a relationship between professors' Psychological Capital (Hope, Optimism, Resilience, Self-Efficacy-attitudinal) and Psychological Ownership (Territoriality, Ease of Belonging, Accountability, Self-Efficacy-behavioral, and Self-Identity) and Outcomes of Leadership as follower Satisfaction, Effectiveness, and Extra Effort when controlling for Gender, Education, Ethnicity, and Age? SEARCH FOR A NEW PARADIGM OF SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE

Recent research studies by Luthans, Avey, Avolio, and Peterson (2010) in connecting theory and research with psychological capital (PsyCap) and Psychological Ownership (PsyGown) of faculty members is an emerging core construct that is linked to positive outcomes at the individual and organizational level. However, to date, little attention had been given to PsyCap and PsyGown in the development of teaching professors through training interventions and there have been no attempts to determine empirically if such PsyCap and PsyGown developments have any impact on participants' performance. To fill this gap, the Luthans et al. (2010) study conducted a pilot test of the Psychological Capital Intervention (PCI) with a randomized control group design.

Other authors have suggested university faculty competency models by integration with strategic human resources practices. Krell (2001) states that the Society for Human Resource Development prescribes the use of competency model as a solution to promote the full range talent management process for university professors. The creation and implementation of competency models for strategic talent management focus on increasing university professors' capabilities rather than on providing training (Sullivan, 2005). Whiddett and Hollyforde (2003) also have studied university professors' capabilities and suggest that competencies be used to create selection criteria, form the basis for reviewing performance, compensation and reward decisions, and identify development needs (the gap between expected and actual).

As a logical follow up to the above argument, Scott, Coates, and Anderson (2008) have proposed a model for academic leadership development (ALD) for increasing a professor's capability, indicating that academic leadership development must begin with identifying the gaps in one's capability through a performance assessment process and then addressing these gaps using a mixture of psychological development initiatives or approaches to leadership development.

Pierce (2011) has suggested a new paradigm of Leaders of Higher Education which has uncovered a gap between needs and capabilities. The CAO census of the Chronicle of Higher Education shows that there is a looming crisis in top educational leadership. However, alternatively, Luthans, Avolio, and Avey (2004) have used Psychological Capital and Psychological Ownership and Transformational Leadership in predicting capabilities for future leadership development of faculty (Luthans et al., 2004).

Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) Psychology: Psychological Capital

Luthans (2007) originally developed Psychological Capital in the organizational and human resource management context. Today, the concept of Psychological Capital has expanded its use of empirical assertions and findings with its four stable pillars of Hope, Efficacy, Resilience and Optimism (HERO). The acronym for Hope, Optimism, Resilience and Self-Efficacy (HORSE) has been coined by this researcher to research it as a motive force that is linked to self-reported personal effectiveness, job satisfaction, and extra effort, as well as for life satisfaction. Luthans (2007) asserts that, while every component has its own characteristics and interventions, the concept of PsyCap is greater than the sum of its parts.

Based on appreciation and positive feedback shown by participants in leadership and management development, PsyCap, as a core construct for psychological well-being and coping with positivity, has found empirical validity. Many research articles have used the four elements of PsyCap individually and the total score of PsyCap as a whole. Such interventions have demonstrated positive results in management development of executives in industry, faculty development, leadership development, and effective coaching.

Luthans and Youssef-Moran (2017) have provided a final analysis of the effectiveness of PsyCap for leadership and management development using Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) and Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS), giving special attention to PsyCap development of individuals and the role of positive leadership. The authors posit that PsyCap is an evidence-based core construct. Through its positive approach, scholars and practitioners can leverage it to tap into still largely unchartered territories of human strengths, thriving, and excellence. Emphasis has been placed on the criteria of being positive and effective. PsyCap is theory-and research-based, validly measurable, developmental, and related to desirable work outcomes. Researchers have helped PsyCap to grow and maintain its scientific rigor and practical relevance. The solid foundation established over the past 15 years, and constantly reviewed and improved, supports PsyCap's positivity in general as a valuable capital resource for individuals, teams, and organizations.

Positive Organizational Behavior (POB) Psychology: Psychological Ownership

Psychological Ownership (PgyGown) has been researched as a positive resource for impacting human performance in organizations in the area of human resource management, and management development. PsyGown has five...