Theories in Action / Week of July 9

Behavioral theorists tend to agree that leaders exhibit behaviors that are task-oriented, relationship-oriented, or some combination of the two. My first and second weeks as a remote intern at the Wilson Center made me re-evaluate my understanding of these fundamental concepts in leadership. In the Asia department, I work under Michael Kugelman. Over the last few years, I have been an active reader of his work, in awe of his knowledge and expertise about South Asia’s politics. Before my first Zoom meeting with him, I was intimidated, to say the least. My implicit leadership theory (ILT) told me that given Mr. Kugelman’s style of writing and critical analysis expertise, he would exhibit task-oriented behaviors towards me. Yet, the exact opposite happened every time we had a video discussion about assignments/expectations, leaving me pleasantly surprised. Scholars such as Hersey & Blanchard are correct about leaders exhibiting a combination of both leadership behaviors depending on follower readiness, at least when applied to my leader. Mr. Kugelman is incredibly task-oriented when it comes to work that needs to be done, but the behavior that comes with that seems to be masked by email. Perhaps this is my silver lining for a remote internship experience. Assignments are completed in a timely manner when communication occurs over email in a task-oriented manner. However, discussions about politically sensitive topics and meetings occur within a relationship-oriented landscape (thanks to my supervisor’s leadership style). This has worked to my benefit, as the intimidating feeling bubbling under my skin before working with Mr. Kugelman went away and allowed me to do better and bolder work going forward.

During the second week of my internship, a subtle incident occurred that made me speculate about why or how leaders may choose to exhibit task or relationship-oriented behaviors based not solely on follower “readiness” but social position awareness. Mr. Kugelman set up a group call with three other interns and myself for introductions and work assignments. When I joined the call, perhaps unsurprisingly, I noticed that all of the interns in the Asia department were South Asian nationals or of South Asian heritage. Although it was a pleasant transition away from the feeling of being an outnumbered minority member in an academic/professional environment, it was also a moment of reflection on meaningful allyship. Mr. Kugelman, as a white man with decades of experience in his field, was humble in his conversation/views and wanted his interns to lead the conversations. As a first-week intern who did not know if her news analysis or political views on the week’s subject matters were legitimate (whatever that means), I was frightened to say something silly in front of him. Yet, Mr. Kugelman’s body language, feedback, and comments towards all of us were overwhelmingly encouraging and, in my opinion, precisely what was needed to foster a safe and comfortable environment.