Month: October 2018

Historically, many brick and mortar-type academic institutions have struggled in creating the innovative and dynamic learning environments necessary in order to successfully engage adult learners; which, as an unfortunate consequence, often results in poor retention rates and inadequate provision for professional development of instructors or professors. Fortunately, through modern advancements in mobile technology, the internet and research in andragogy, this trend is decreasing as both adult learners and institutions greatly benefit from a vast array of these available resources.

Malcolm Knowles, the foundational thinker of andragogy outlines security in self-concept, past experience, readiness to learn, practicality, internal motivation and the reason for learning as six basic assumptions when creating a good learning experience for adults. As a lifelong learner, I believe that most adults enjoy and understand how their unique blend of capabilities contribute to their sense of self-concept and how it helps to develop practical and relevant means of achieving their life and learning goals. Not only does a reservoir of past experience benefit present and future decision-making in one’s career, but for me personally, has become a tremendous resource in which to integrate within group tasks, critical-thinking exercises and within the overall learning infrastructure.

Ultimately, with maturity comes a greater self-awareness and concept of time, or in the case of adults, a lack thereof; therefore, like Knowles, I believe that for adult learners, practicality can be a very powerful motivator in driving the readiness to learn because they know exact why and how they can apply the learning. Through my undergrad, I have had the pleasure of working alongside adults who enjoy immediate reciprocal benefits as it relates to their professional output when immersed in an andragogic environment that supports their preference for learning. As a pioneer in the study of multiple intelligences, specifically in pedagogy, Howard Gardner (1995) supports this when he states, “education works most effectively for most individuals if these differences in mentation and strengths are taken into account” (p. 208). In other words, like children, ‘differences’ in terms of the degree and measure of one’s self-awareness, self-regulation, discipline, and motivations, adults too, will undoubtedly thrive when an androgogous-minded curriculum meets their maturity, expectations and experience.

Matt

Gardner, H. (1995, November). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myth and messages. The Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 200-203, 206-209.

Even though the fruits born out of a servant leadership approach can vary depending upon one’s perspective, the root of servant leadership remains the same – “the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” (Northouse, 2016, p. 226). Having said that, the style and implementation methods in which a servant leader selects can also vary depending upon the construct and context of the situation. For instance, although a servant leader keeps a familiar host of universal characteristics in reserve for one-on-one interactions, the sequence, delivery method, timing, and make-up of groups requires a set of slightly different characteristics to coordinate activities. Based upon my experience leading groups, by integrating a stakeholder register as a means to persuade others, communicating foresight through meetings and finally, simply listening during group development can greatly boost efficiency and effectiveness in when coordinating group projects.

In my experience, one of the most important actions a leader can take prior to assembling a group, consists of setting some time aside to reflect upon, strategize, or even interview for possible needs, relational conflicts, biases and desires of potential group members and stakeholders. Regardless of project scope or size, this data can be easily developed and documented in the form of a data table, or what is commonly referred to as a stakeholder register. This tool is very effective when applied throughout several project management processes, offering leaders, and if shared with the group, a means to efficiently understand each other, background, expectations, strengths, and sometimes weaknesses to accelerate group integration and the forming process so that the group can move efficiently onto tasks. As a servant leader works “to convince others” to join the group or persuade them to become willing participants in the visioning process, this tool not only maps skills, traits and experience, but gives the leader a sense of the overall group construct, showcasing helpful statistics to consider when choosing effective decision-making techniques, and the predictability in how the group would interact with each other and approach combined tasks (Spears, 2010, p. 28).

Once the project group forms, meeting(s) should take place to formalize and legitimatize actions needed to charter the project and discuss the specific goals and objectives required to align with the vision. Even before specific roles and responsibilities are assigned, the most important action a servant leader can take during this initial process, involves setting the tone; which consequently, communicates openness and their ability to foresee the process to its successful end. In my experience, I have found storyboards to be a useful tool in sharing past mistakes and decisions as a means to pivot off those experiences, which subsequently communicates an “ethical dimension” in terms of how accountable the servant leader is to both the result and the process (Northouse, 2016, p. 228). In his article, Larry C. Spears (2010) states that “understanding lessons from the past, the realities of the present and likely consequences of a decision for the future” will help the servant leader demonstrate a measure of authenticity which as a byproduct, strengthens consensus and increases the members’ shared confidence in terms of quickly transitioning and synchronizing as a group as they move towards the assignment of roles and responsibilities (p. 28).

Finally, when establishing roles and responsibilities for the group, a servant leader should simple be prepared to listen to other members. Unless the discussion requires an intervention to re-establish respectful discourse, or a necessary re-alignment to bring the conversation back on point, I prefer to wait until all members are heard so I can acknowledge their viewpoints and validate their perspectives in how they specifically relate, and apply to the goals and objectives. By allowing the will of the group to freely move, it helps the servant leader “clarify that will” which also reveals any observations or suspicions as it relates to bias in what is being said and what is unsaid (Spears, 2010, p. 27).

Matt

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

Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25-30.

In each generation, the sporting world produces players, coaches, and even owners, who demonstrate a phenomenal grasp of how team leadership influences and enhances performance and in turn, produces the desired outcomes envisioned. Leaders such as football coach Vince Lombardi, baseball owner George Steinbrenner and basketball legend Michael Jordan all understood that their strength, influence and power only existed because of a relationship to, or with, something or someone else. As a means towards greater organizational empowerment, living legend Wayne Gretzky considered every player on the team to have an equally important role, thereby exemplifying excellence and commitment “to the team’s goals, giving members autonomy to unleash their talents when possible” (Northouse, 2016, p. 372). As captain, Gretzky established the vision, set the tone, stirred their hearts in order to perform and develop as a team, demonstrating a measure of humility and principled leadership not often seen in team sports.

With the exchange and sharing of roles happening at such a fast pace, hockey reminds us that leadership, both on and off the ice, is a fluid process of performance and development “that is available to everyone” especially when team behaviours become synchronized (Northouse, 2016, p. 8). Task accomplishment and team maintenance are two critical functions required to generate this type of synchronization and team effectiveness. Performance, or task accomplishment, is the “quality of the outcomes of the team’s work”, and development, or team maintenance, is “the cohesiveness of the team and the ability of team members to satisfy their own needs while working effectively with other team members” (Northouse, 2016, p. 368). Quality, or team effectiveness requires enabling conditions such as a compelling purpose, the right team of real people, clear norms of conduct, a supportive organizational context with team-focused coaching (Northouse, 2016, p. 369). Additionally, a clear, elevating goal, a results-driven structure, competent team members, a unified commitment, a collaborative climate, standards of excellence, external support and recognition and principled leadership are all characteristics of team excellence (Northouse, 2016, p. 369).

In my own experience, our Monday morning meetings have become a collaborative climate in “which members can stay problem focused” (Northouse, 2016, p. 370). We establish the boundaries and context so that team members are able to freely contribute without fear of ridicule under an agenda that keeps us centered on task. Additionally, a clear goal is established in order to filter proper tasks for each team member. We make a habit of repeating the goal during the meeting so that we keep it at the center of conversation. Finally, performance and development require some form of standard of excellence “so that members will feel pressure to perform at their highest levels” (Northouse, 2016, p. 370). We established guidelines long ago as it relates to how we approach other staff, and each other in the conduct of business serving the purpose of completing tasks by publishing a “footprints to success” as a benchmark for team functioning that lays out expectations for conduct.

Similar to Gretzky in the locker room, the press room, or an on-ice practice, during team leadership events, the reciprocal and integrated nature of the process requires that at least one participant sets the tone leading from a foundation of values and beliefs that solidifies performance underpinning the vision for success (Northouse, 2016, p. 371). In other words, principled leadership “consistently relates to team effectiveness” (Northouse, 2016, p. 371) and impacts the team directly via four sets of processes – cognitive, motivational, affectively and coordination. Within the context of my own team, I find helping the team handle stressful circumstances by establishing clear goals, assignments and strategies greatly increases our performance, effectiveness and time management. Via these affective means, establishing my own vision and context of where we are along that path at the beginning of tackling complexity, inevitably roots out any uncertainties or doubt the problem presents us. Ultimately, without a foundational set of principles underwriting a leader’s vision, goals and objectives, the team can get complacent from focusing on the task at hand and drift towards ineffectiveness. The great one once said, “you’ll never catch me bragging about goals, but I’ll talk all you want about my assists”; therefore, it is all about the effectiveness of the team and not the contributions of a single leader or follower.

Matt

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

Unlike the Roman-era power/leader-member exchange style of leadership as expressed through the Jewish Pharisees and Sadducees of His time, Jesus Christ flawlessly demonstrated how to capture and appeal to, hearts and minds when one looks for “what is right with people rather than emphasizing what is wrong with them” (Searle & Barbuto Jr., 2011, p. 107). By no means did this type of leadership begin with Jesus, but in the context of the most typical leadership approaches of His day, He might as well have started it. In his book Leadership, Peter G. Northouse (2016) states that servant leadership is a paradoxical approach that runs counter to common sense (p. 225); however, when Jesus creates clarity from the complex through parables, heals emotionally, behaves ethically, empowers, puts followers first and creates value for the community (and the world) at large, servant leadership is less paradoxical than one would think.

As One who clearly exemplifies this component of servant leadership, Jesus had an advantage in terms of being fully aware; however, other leaders He was training may not have had a reservoir of experience to draw upon with understanding human behaviour. Similar to emotional intelligence’s (EI) component of self-awareness as “having a deep understanding on one’s emotions, strengths, weaknesses, needs and drives” (Goleman, 1998, p. 84), a servant-leaders awareness is a characteristic which develops from knowing oneself and how they impact the world around them. In slight contrast to this very ethereal-like emotional connection to oneself as a means to serve others, a psychodynamic approach aligns with clinical mechanisms to understand behaviour of both leader and follower striving to “create reflective practitioners” (Northouse, 2016, p. 307). Although the psychodynamic approach digs deep into “underlying irrational processes and dynamics governing human behaviour” (Northouse, 2016, p. 324), in my opinion, the awareness of a servant leader is generally less rigid, more holistic, and like Jesus, extends a consistency in model to all followers, not just a select group.

Matt

Goleman, D. (1998, November). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 82-90.

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

Searle, T. P., & Barbuto Jr., J. E. (2011). Servant leadership, hope, and organizational virtuousness: A framework exploring positive micro and macro behaviors and performance impact. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 107-117.

As we navigate the turns, barriers and junctions along the road of leadership, the more distant the old guideposts of traditional leadership appear in the rear-view mirror. Even more so beyond contemporary thought and theory, modern-day businesses and organizations are beginning to recognize the value in performance, and to the bottom-line, when working with leaders that employ greater transformative versus traditional leadership approaches. By no means does this new paradigm make the task of motivating other towards a common goal any easier, but in a “dynamic external environment where employees are empowered with greater responsibility and are encouraged to take initiative and risk” (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004, p. 89), re-humanizing the measure and approach when influencing others is creating many positive exceptions to the old rules.

To paraphrase Peter G. Northouse (2015) in his book titled Leadership, transformational leadership offers some very broad appeal emphasizing the importance of morals and values in a process which influences followers to not only accomplish more than what is usually expected of them, but demonstrates success in what can be achieved as a group when minimizing the role of individual self-interest (p.161). Apart from drifting uncomfortably close to what some would consider trait-like qualities, transformational leadership is personally appealing to me because its approach is, in a sense, mission-like, tethered to a perspective which places value on nurturing change and inspiring positive growth in others over one-self.

As an approach used by many, transformational leadership is woven throughout public, private, for-profit, not-for-profit and institutional sectors the world over. Once lawyer, turned airline pioneer and co-founder of Southwest Airlines, Herb Kelleher developed a vision to challenge the status quo, rooted in orientating attention towards the needs of others from a purpose-driven perspective, while swimming in the mire of a highly risky industry fueled mainly by hardened profit-driven perspective. With a strong charismatic style, Herb believed and developed “a process of influence of reciprocity in relationships that benefit both parties” (Cote, 2017, p. 5); and apart from his clarity of vision, Herb created all hierarchal points in the company to behave as “transforming contexts” (Northouse, 2016, p. 180). Not only did he implement a process of job-exchanging, so that each employee could benefit from experiencing each other’s roles and tasks, but Herb expressed a desire that all Southwest employees would get treated as their first, and only best customer; which ultimately, as a subsequent mechanism of this investment, generated a sense of ownership producing service levels for their flying customers beyond anything ever encountered in commercial air travel before.

Matt

Cote, R. (2017, September 13). Vision of effective leadership. International Journal of Business Administration, 8(6), 1-10.

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

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Tranformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Hello Monica

As we age, it seems that these “processes” of development throughout our lives often manifest in usual and familiar patterns. Your well-articulated post revealed a few important things relating to these patterns, especially as it relates to this “practical wisdom” you had mentioned. These stages of development seem to comfortably align with Psychologist Bruce Tuckman’s stages of group development – forming, storming, norming and performing. Like Cahalan’s (2017) “practical wisdom” for individuals, groups of people walk through a similar process:

In the Beginning – Forming

Advancing in Practice – Storming

Competence in Practice – Norming

Expertise or Unknowing – Performing

Your query at the end of your post asks what natural skills or environmental influences impact or impede the development of those beyond Stage 1 or 2? I suppose it could be a broad range integrating a mixture of all those elements; however, in the context of leadership, critical thinking and individual development, I would consider approaching those stuck with a wide array of communication techniques, placing focus on behavior, not personality and lastly, let them be themselves. Ultimately, as you mentioned, any development in life or with others may just be about one’s choice.

Matt

Hello Norm.

Not only was your post relevant to my own walk in terms of creating an environment of safety for those who wish to test theory and self-discovery, but you prompted some thoughts as it relates to process delivered and the autonomy in process created.

That transfer of knowledge is key for any leader/follower relationship, especially when characteristically revealed with the obvious humility and selflessness; however, I like how you framed the contrast between having the employee adapt to an employer changing the process with redesigning the job as a means for the employee to develop the conditioning to anticipate and response to their own desired outcomes. The fear, as demonstrated in my life sometimes, is whether your team, employees or followers are equipped with the right tools, techniques and experience to think critically for themselves. Trust must be visible and present in order for an employee to feel safe to approach the leader/manager in times of doubt and challenge in order to dive deeper into greater analytical and critical thinking approaches.

Matt