Implementing Humanistic Leadership in EMS to Improve Retention

Leadership for most of the Western world has been seen through the lens of economics, lending itself to a more managerial approach for most of industrial society.¹ When viewing management theory and how it affects leadership, leadership theory, and the real-world application the path becomes clearer when looking at the past. Dating back to as early as the 1700’s, controlling the flow of goods and services was the focal point of merchants, producers, and sellers.¹ Those working for them were commodities to be controlled along the same lines as goods and services. Worrying about their employees’ feelings and psychological engagement were not in companies’ strategic plans.¹

When the industrial revolution began in the Western world, employees became part of the profit-loss statement.¹ This was seen in the Fordian philosophy of each person’s worth was based upon their spot on the assembly line, and not what value they brought to the company.¹ One of the shifts that has occurred in our post-industrial society has been a more holistic view of the employer/employee relationship. One of those areas is taking a more humanistic viewing of the employee. This humanistic view has one core tenet: dignity.

Humanistic Leadership

Pirson looked at how dignity has been viewed over the course of industrial and post-industrial history.1 What she found were three interpretations of this historical macro view. Interpretation one looked at dignity as a noncommodity that doesn’t have a basis in business but is focused on intangibles such as nature and life itself. The second is that each human has inherent dignity that transcends from the intangible into the business world but is not something management should focus on. Lastly, the third approach sees dignity as part of each person and can be earned and lost through their actions.

This third interpretation is what helps bring the focus of humanistic leadership theories into view. Management can no longer view their employees as commodities and or expenses on a sheet of paper. They must be viewed as individuals and allowed to obtain, enhance, and/or embrace their dignity within the institutional structure.¹

Humanistic leadership attempts to bridge the divide in the inherent power dynamics associated with traditional managerial approaches.² Fircks views a humanistic leader as someone who, “tries to unite opposite trajectories within one dynamically adaptive system.”² Those opposing trajectories are the needs of the company versus the needs of the employees. When taking a humanistic approach, leaders try to bridge that gap while respecting the needs of the company and incorporating the dignity of those charged with meeting those needs.

Fircks added another dimension of humanistic leadership: novelty.² By providing novelty within the working environment, the humanistic leader helps enhance employee dignity by challenging them in new and productive ways.²

Humanistic leaders understand the frailty and fragility of human nature and embrace these qualities.² Unlike what was seen in the Pirson study, where these qualities were considered weakness that must be avoided and, or ignored¹; Fircks views these qualities as part and parcel to the human existence.² Accepting these qualities from a leadership perspective shows the human side of the leader to their followers with the hope that they will also accept both the good and bad qualities they hold within.

What is humanistic leadership then? Humanistic leadership is when leaders embrace their faults and their qualities and then use both to make sure their employees’ dignity is respected, enhanced, and fully realized. In the end, realizing one’s humanity is the central tenet of humanistic leadership, using that humanity to drive decisions.

One of the reasons humanistic leadership has come to the forefront was to combat the roles of toxic leadership and corporate scandal(s).³ Humanistic leadership must incorporate and enhance human dignity,¹ therefore, leaders who use this leadership strategy/theory will find it markedly more difficult to create a toxic environment for their people,¹ whether by accident or though thoughtful action. Toxic leaders are antithetical to the core values of humanistic leadership. Toxic leaders, “violate or negatively affect trust and well-being of employees.”⁴ Toxic leaders infringe upon the dignity aspect of humanistic leadership and thus, can’t claim to be a proponent and/or practitioner of any leadership theory/strategy; they’ve lost that right and have now become a manager—but more importantly, a toxic manager.

Do Your Leaders Measure Up?

EMS is chock full of people calling themselves leaders. If you’re one of these, I challenge you to look at the above, and ask yourself: Do I, or the leaders in my agency, meet and/or exceed the criteria above? The answer more than likely is no. For those of you that call yourself a leader, are you truly one? Would your people agree with your self-assessment?

Within EMS journals, conferences, online forums, and academia there are constant discussions on how to be a better manager, but there is little to no discussion on how to be a better leader. I feel there are a few answers to those questions. One, they confuse the terms or think they are interchangeable when they are diametrically opposite of each other. Two, it’s all about power. Managers hold the power to either themselves, or those within their power circle (or so they think), while leaders understand that the power they have is only granted to them by something called followership.

Followership

Followership can be best defined as, “the willingness to defer to another in some way.”⁵ Another undercurrent for followership falls under both Implicit Leadership Theories (ILT) and Implicit Followership Theories (IFT). Both Junker, et al.⁶ and Foti, et al.⁷ looked at followership through the lens of IFT and ILT. ILT matters because without followers, leaders cannot exist.⁶

IFT has grown in its inclusion in academic leadership studies during the past decade.5 IFT at its core, “represent the respective views of the followers.”⁶ When studying followership, the followers must be the impetus while not excluding the leaders.

Followership is more than just being led. Followership is about a contract, whether verbal or written between the leader and those that choose to follow.⁵ Followership impacts humanistic leadership through an unwritten contract. All followers have an internal set of values, mores, and norms and because of this, they are only willing to follow leaders who adhere somewhat to these values.6 Followers tend to follow their inner values, yet they can look past those values if they see performance value in their leadership.⁷ This adds another layer to the ongoing balance between leaders and followers. Quint Studer saw these layers and unwritten contracts play out during multiple tenures as CEO of healthcare systems. He found that leaders must reinterview each day with their staff so they will choose to follow them.⁸ Leaders who take their followers for granted will eventually lose their followers, thus leaders need to remain cognizant of this and actively re-engage on a routine basis.

Retention in EMS

EMS retention has become a hot-button topic within the last few years, despite it being a problem since I entered the field in 1999. When I read articles, hear conversations, listen to lectures/conference discussions on retention, keeping a straight face is difficult. We talk about money, benefits, protocols, shift hours, and even uniforms, yet why are we as a profession always looking outward when it comes to retention? For those of you that may be confused as to why I would say that, go back and re-read the section on followership, then return to this section.

Most people leave organizations because of the people running it. Let that sink in: People are leaving EMS because of those in positions of power in EMS. The followership principles we talked about in the last section are how I came to this conclusion. EMS pay has increased markedly over the past few years, yet the retention rates have not increased. Benefits have improved as well, yet has retention followed? One constant that has yet to change is a lack of leadership, but more importantly, a complete absence of understanding regarding followership and why it’s so important for organizational health, employee engagement, and retention.

Works Cited

1. Pirson, M. (2019). A humanistic perspective for management theory: Protecting dignity and promoting well-being: JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(1), 39-57.

2. Fircks, E. F. (2020). Existential humanistic leadership (EHL) as a dialogical process: Equality of the non-equality in organizations. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 54(4), 719-741.

3. Milosevic, I., Maric, S., & Lončar, D. (2020). Defeating the toxic boss: The nature of toxic leadership and the role of followers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(2), 117-137

4. Mahlangu, V. P. (2020). Understanding Toxic Leadership in Higher Education Work Places through Betrayal Trauma Theory. Bulgarian Comparative Education Society, Paper Presented at the Annual International Conference of the Bulgarian Comparative Education Society (BCES).

5. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104.

6. Junker, N. M., & van Dick, R. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(6), 1154-1173.

7. Foti, R. J., Hansbrough, T. K., Epitropaki, O., & Coyle, P. T. (2017). Dynamic viewpoints on implicit leadership and followership theories: Approaches, findings, and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 261-267.

8. Studer, Q (2003). Hardwiring Excellence: Purpose, Worthwhile Work, Making a Difference (First ed.). Gulf Breeze, Florida: Fire Starter Publishing.