Month: October 2018

Posted on

Blog Post One

Being fully-equipped to meet the needs and demands of today’s leadership environment can often require a methodical approach in the decision-making process. As an effective means of building consensus within the groups in which I lead, we collectively make every attempt to channel our discussions through an inquiry type process. This enables equality of voice and affords everyone the opportunity to engage alternate solutions through a structured format. In their book titled, The Thinker’s Guide to Analytic Thinking, Linda Elder and Richard Paul (2012) discuss the inherent value when “reasonable people judge reasoning by intellectual standards” (p. 8). In the context of my own workplace, when we underpin the value of reasoning within our decision-making via a standardized process, we give ourselves a clear and consistent model to evaluate anything we encounter. As a team, we make every effort to be concise and thorough in this process especially when evaluating risks, but alas, time is not always on our side; therefore, as a means to efficiently evaluate our thinking, we often deploy a small selection of typical standard/key points (Elder & Paul, 2012) listed below in rank of importance.

  1. SIGNIFICANCE – this standard focuses our attention on what is important, not the trivial. A question can be framed asking if the facts are important, or if this is the central problem or idea to focus on?
  2. CLARITY – the meaning can be grasped and is understandable. A question asks for an example or illustration to help define the meaning or issue at hand.
  3. ACCURACY – free from errors or distortions. Is it true? Discussion asks for verification from other sources in order to test the results.
  4. DEPTH – the complexities and multiple interrelationships that is prompting the query – what factors are making this a difficult problem?
  5. BREADTH – encompassing multiple viewpoints asking – do we need to look at this from another perspective?
  6. FAIRNESS – as a leader, monitoring any personal bias influencing others. Do I have any vested interest in this issue? Am I being sympathetic to other viewpoints?

As exhausted by Elder and Paul (2012), there are other intellectual standards in which one can deploy when evaluating ideas, thoughts or actions; however, rest assured, critical thinking usually invites some form of conflict. Ultimately, the benefit of following a process of analytical or critical thinking is that although the process invariably invites tension, it helps us develop greater impartiality, rationality and perspective.

Matt

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2012). The thinker’s guide to analytic thinking: How to take thinking apart and what to look for when you do. Tomales, California: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Posted on

Response to Ruiz – Light from Many Lamps – Part 1

Ruiz, thank you for a very thoughtful and perceptive post. I particularly appreciated the integration of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a means to unpack the John Burroughs’s passage because apart from understanding that the “secret” is in “doing something”, the measure or degree of that happiness, is directly proportional to what needs have already been met.  Additionally, I agree with you completely as it relates to how the activity of work exerts itself upon a man’s state of happiness, and more importantly, what transpires in his heart when that work vanishes. Looking back to the authors text, Burroughs (1951) states “blessed is the man who has some congenial work, some occupation in which he can put his heart” (p. 5); therefore, to the leader, this is a call of understanding and action to supplant the threat of idleness in those we lead, helping them discover meaning through task or voice.

Matt

Burroughs, J. (1951). The Secret of Happiness is Something to do. In L. E. Watson, Light from Many Lamps (pp. 3-7). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Posted on

Response to Daneen – Light from Many Lamps – Part 1

Daneen, nice work in your post capturing the essence of leadership in this sorrowful, yet inspiring passage, especially as it relates to the degree in which courage, compassion and conviction will manifest under crises. A few things captured my attention as I read your script – one, the role of the environment upon the practice of leadership and two, the degree at which risk exerts itself upon our ability to demonstrate the very best in ourselves.

It is truly amazing the influential power of so few words and their impact upon millions of lives, but so much more amplified when considering the environmental situation in which they are born out of. My rhetorical query is rooted in asking what specific tools or techniques need to become permanent assets in order to demonstrate those same qualities across a wide spectrum of experience and need? Conversely, is it less about the leader’s toolbox and more about the resources that the follower has at hand to decode or interpret the leader’s message? For instance, will I be able to communicate the same measure of courage, compassion and conviction when the environment, experience or followers change? Maybe the measure of impact is associated more with the readiness of the follower, or the collective state of a group, rather than the prowess of the leader and their words? When considering that theory, our tasks as leaders would be to empower the follower, so when inspiration strikes, they have the necessary means to decode, interpret and exercise the value.

Secondly, you mentioned how these qualities can be magnified in desperate situations; therefore, like the environment, risk can enhance a leadership opportunity, or it can strike fear, resulting in an opportunity lost. Ultimately, Lieutenant Farrow was thinking solely of his mother and wife to be; however, in the context of leadership, let us simply consider the limitless velocity and amplified power that spoken or written word holds, especially under great sacrifice be it on the battlefield, our workplace, or in our homes.

Matt

Posted on

Response in Response to Sarah – Light from Many Lamps – Part One

Sarah, thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my Light from Many Lamps (LFML) post. You raised some great questions and through your clearly articulated sense of place within the paradox of servant leadership, I can appreciate your conflict. In Leadership (2016), Northouse fires the chapter off the starting block when he states in the first sentence that it is “an approach to leadership that runs counter to common sense” (p. 225); therefore, most people in the world would agree with everything you stated in your reply.

As it relates to my chosen works in LFMP, your observations are correct about my post. In a particular section, Wolfe (1951) states, “the good life demands a working philosophy of active philanthropy as an orientating map of conduct” (p. 13). Presumably, most philanthropists receive an abundant measure of happiness and pleasure when they give of their time, talent and treasures; therefore, similar to Wolfe’s writing, a servant leadership approach produces a pattern typical of the same emotional return when giving attention to others.

To your point and query about growing tired of this leadership, I would have to say that it has always been an approach that equally benefits the leader and the follower. My personal experience with servant leadership falls within two categories – those that have led me, and those I have led with this approach. Ultimately, servant leadership is complex; however, even in the most unsupportive work environments, the practice for me, has always cleared a path for relational connections of great substance and influence as it relates to accomplishing mutual and individual goals. Do not give up on this approach, as it always reflects one’s heart.

Matt

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

Wolfe, W. B. (1951). Happiness & The Enjoyment of Living. In L. E. Watson, Light from Many Lamps (pp. 11-15). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Posted on

Blog Post One

Being fully-equipped to meet the needs and demands of today’s leadership environment means that we respond with intentionality; which in part, includes learning how to tune into the underlying mechanisms that make us tick. Fortunately, there are personality instruments and questionnaires that help us to discover our base leadership type; and when engaged with an open mind, how these assessments can advance new knowledge towards a greater understanding of the frameworks which underpin effective or weak leadership performance. As one who has participated in many of these assessments, they are not intended to box you into a category without a key to escape, but merely act as a method to identify with our natural tendencies in order to teach us how to recognize emotional triggers, inherent motivations and familiarity with our strengths and weaknesses.

This learning activity confirmed many self-conceptions as revealed in other models, but surprised me in terms of the external perceptions of others. The Leadership Trait Questionnaire (LTQ) revealed that I can be less friendly or empathetic than I believed. Some commentary revealed that when caught up in task, those other characteristics overpower some of the subtler, (and important) soft skills. Leaders use either directive or supportive behaviours when influencing others; therefore, in the current context of these analyses, I would describe my leadership style from a standpoint of influencing others as “high directive-high supportive” (Northouse, 2016, p. 94) because I like to weave the importance and value of achieving goals within a conversation that also encourages and solicits input from followers. Again, I could be wrong in terms of my prowess to self-regulate, but more importantly, a possible false sense of self-awareness. In discussion with some staff members, it was revealed to me that I appear to often align closer to a low-directive-high supportive leadership style; therefore, I have more work to do as it relates to my understanding a self-style.

Ultimately, my desire is to develop a core leadership style that is centered foremost in humility, honesty and integrity so that it becomes foundational, enabling other styles and approaches to safely mimic or graph off of culminating in a consistent, central component of character.

Matt

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

Posted on

Light from Many Lamps – Part One

Without fail, the series of collected works in part one and two of Watson’s (1951) Light from Many Lamps succeeds with blinding illumination mirroring divine truth upon one’s heart as a means to bombard the ego and replace it with steps towards growing one’s faith and experiencing the true reward from acts of outward service. I chose Wolfe’s work titled, to find happiness we must seek for it in a focus outside ourselves because it spoke of how through more regular self-assessment, I can effectively support others in their goals over my own, and second, the value of improved self-awareness.

In reflection upon my career as a means of becoming a more happier and a more dynamically fluid leader, the leadership lesson revolves around developing a more transformational approach towards my team via “transcending my own self-interests for the sake of others” (Northouse, 2016, p. 175). Oftentimes, I will lose objectivity when I forget to consider the goals and needs of those I lead because I am occupied with placing focus upon the organization’s goals, or my own. In response to his commentary that “man’s unhappiness is his own fault”, Watson (1951) points out that it is because people’s unhappiness is a result of looking too long inward versus outward (p. 12). The positive impact of this passage rests on the fact that if I shift more query upon others in terms of their own goals versus my own, that I will directly benefit in more ways than one.

As a follow up to the first point, the author again reminds us to place focus upon others over ourselves as a means to amplify our own sense of peace and happiness. Since both self-awareness and humility act as a catalyst for one another, this interdependent relationship works to avoid the “immediate danger of being bored to death with the repetition of your own view and interests” (Wolfe, 1951, p. 13). Ultimately, the key to Wolfe’s passage is to be continually aware, reflecting upon what false assurances may still manifest when exerting energy away from yourself gleaming greater personal joy in getting your hands dirty in the process of serving others.

Matt

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

Wolfe, W. B. (1951). Happiness & The Enjoyment of Living. In L. E. Watson, Light from Many Lamps (pp. 11-15). New York: Simon & Schuster.