Month: September 2018

In his original post, Chris outlines some fantastic examples as it relates to the tug-o-war which often exists between knowing when to lead, when to manage, and frankly when to give up control to others (often a very effective means of leading). Before I answer his poignant question, no situation will ever require in absolute terms one, or the other; however, what is key is “leader-driven leadership” (Vacher, 2018) as a means of influence regardless of what form it takes, or vehicle driven by. Someone needs to always set the tone. If not, all other instruments of influence, which include managing, will lack in effectiveness and efficiency.

Chris touched upon some key aspects and activities of both management and leadership, but as I reflected upon his post, it occurred to me that adopting an emergent tone from a position of assignment invites risk. So what is the problem? Risk is a part of life. When Chris asks us if we would find more comfort influencing from an emergent or assigned role, I believe in utilizing what the situation calls for. However, based upon experience, the risk lies with what some would consider “activism” when moving into a role outside of your assigned position. Sadly, some holding assigned organizational positions fiercely protect their turf, especially from what I have personally found when others work to influence from an emergent role within their territory.

Be strategic folks.

Matt

In response to Ryan Morrow’s original post surrounding a leader’s ability to develop personal goals at the same time aligning with the greater common goals of the group, Morrow asks us “how then should a leader respond to an individual who is no longer working towards the common goal”? The question is valid, and one in which we encounter throughout our lives – just think teenagers living in your home. From my experience within the workplace, I have to respond to these scenarios on a regular basis and find myself looking at it as an opportunity for growth. My main source of respite when managing rogue activity within a group first lies with self-reflection as it relates to how I can better identify interests and needs of the individual in question. Second, my obligation to let the individual know that they have been heard is key, but as a consequence of including the entire group in the visioning process communicating the value to individuals and the group as a whole, each individual is granted inclusive rights in the group. This approach builds trust and respect regardless who abstains from a commitment to the goal; therefore, I would much rather solicit buy-in through a transformational versus transactional style of leadership every time.

Matt

I believe the path towards servant leadership lies dark unless first illuminated by one’s competency for empathy, authenticity and self-awareness. Although much more than a path, servant leadership is a lifetime process which for me, has oftentimes been plagued by a myriad of struggle in the process of understanding myself, my strengths, weaknesses and the impact and I have on others (Northouse, 2016, p. 202). It is important to note in the context of this forum that as a consequence of including others in our struggle through the process of understanding this discipline, collectively we are communicating humility and admitting weakness we all share to some degree.

I chose to comment on three servant leadership principles which regularly challenge me in the context of leading others. Challenges which manifest not from the sense of my own commitment to growth, but the result of negative impacts from operating in an environment that works to subvert ideals and values rooted in servant leadership principles. Stewardship is “about taking responsibility” (Northouse, 2016, p. 228) and an example from workplace would take the shape when honorably defending the policies and principles of the organization and its people in the face of the temptation to concur an opposing comment. By extension, conceptualization also aligns with one’s sense of goals and direction as the flag bearer for the future and to “be a visionary for an organization” (Northouse, 2016, p. 228). By example, I try to demonstrate this principle by weaving the master plan/goal through daily verbal and non-verbal instruments during the same time we work through smaller challenges and obstacles.

Finally, the most challenging of my three principles is the process of healing. Northouse (2016), defines this aspect of servant leadership as “helping followers become whole” (p. 228). Although I deeply care about the well-being of those I lead, I am desperately constrained by an organization that frowns upon crossing the line into one’s personal life. Furthermore, as Northouse (2016) states, “healing is a two-way street” (p.228); therefore, the follower may feel pressured to expose or reveal their needs, ultimately resenting the leaders’ practice in supporting them through this principle. I suppose the crux of the discussion lies with how badly both sides are willing to open themselves up to vulnerability. If a follower resents or is uncomfortable with openness, should the servant leader throttle down their zeal and rhetoric for the benefit of both, or remain driven alone leaving the door wide open for the follower to participate in the future?

Matt

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Although leadership as a process exists in many forms, its measurable effectiveness upon others remains naturally subjective from varying perspectives. That being said, apart from the limitless theories and pragmatism one may utilize to influence followers to “achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2016, p. 6), by formalizing leadership into assigned and emergent roles, we can better understand the underlying mechanism(s) in practice.

In his book titled Leadership (2016), Peter G Northouse separates leadership into two common forms, namely “assigned and emergent” (p. 8). Assigned leadership is exercised through a formal title or position, whereas emergent leadership is earned or granted via the support of followers. In my own life, I have led from, or engaged with both forms, but gained so much more in the sense of building authenticity when given the chance to emerge as a leader. Years ago, an opportunity developed to console, guide and strengthen those in my workplace outside my hierarchy who struggled with a leader practicing coercive power from an assigned position of leadership. Without interfering with the existing chain of command, I was able to build their trust and respect, giving them emotional tools to help them overcome this strife. In reflection, I am thankful to have watched these individuals put into practice the skills I shared with them in terms of self-awareness, self-regulation and humility in service.

As Northouse (2016) states, leadership is a “complex process” (p. 17) which functions to model itself via standalone positions or sharing space with other concepts such as with management; however, what both leadership and management happen to share is markedly eclipsed by their differences. The essential activities of management are “planning and budgeting, organizing and staffing, controlling and problem solving”; meanwhile, leadership consists of “establishing direction, align people and ultimately, motivate and inspire” (Northouse, 2016, p. 14). In the act of engaging followers, I have engaged both processes by way of assigning tasks, deadlines, rules and agendas through management and via leadership, communicating vision, possibilities and by way of encouragement, the means to move beyond what the followers deem possible for themselves and their goals.

Based upon 27 years in business, I believe both approaches are equally essentially to the overall health of the organization because ultimately, implementing a vision requires good management in order to achieve the goals to realize the vision. My personal struggle remains with how to effectively balance both without diluting the value of each approach in the process. What needs to be discarded in lieu of the other?

Matt

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

In his book titled Leadership (2016), Peter G. Northouse defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 6). Even though this definition certainly captures the essence of what most formalized concepts and modern theories weave throughout their reasoning, there still remains limitless expressions of what leadership is, and how it continues to evolve over time. Nevertheless, despite the broad dialogue of what leadership is, or its value in approaches, structure and components, I appreciate the fact that through definition, Northouse defends the component of influence in leadership as a process, rather than a trait.

As a component of leadership, influence is more than just a static feature between one another or between those in a group; but at its best, an exchange in humility through reciprocity and servanthood. Therein lies the value in the leadership component of process as a “transactional event” (Northouse, 2016, p. 6) – it is neither a linear one-way event demonstrated often by the concept of power, but an opportunity to empower others through a process. Influence suffocates in a leadership vacuum, but flourishes and breathes life within the context of groups who are learning and sharing in the process. This environment supercharges growth, most specifically with groups of followers that share a belief or devotion towards common goals. In the context of goal attainment in group context, Jesus would undoubtedly be considered the original architect of forming, storming, norming and performing. Given His ultimate power through process, what one measure of influence did He use to hold those closest to Him together, and on point to goal?

Matt

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.