Tag: LDRS500

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

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.