Tag: Learning Activity 3

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

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.