Servant Leadership and the Real World

I believe in Servant Leadership's efficacy in the real world. After our discussion of servant leadership, I felt that the topic deserved some further investigation. There exists in Indiana the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, which was originally founded by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1964. I decided to blog about this Center because I think the Center's existence, and more importantly the significance of its supporters show that the philosophy of Servant Leadership has a real presence in many the world's top organizations.

To begin with, the Center's President, Kent M. Keith, lists the following as key practices of servant leaders. These points helped me to view servant leadership in a more practical light: Self-Awareness, Listening, Changing the Pyramid (that is, the traditional hierarchical "boss" structure), Developing Colleagues, Coaching - Not Controlling, Unleashing the Energy and Intelligence of Others, and Foresight.

The Center's Board of Directors includes business and education leaders from around the world. I was most struck by the first person mentioned: Howard Behar, former president of Starbucks North America and Starbucks International. Behar joined Starbucks in 1989 and became president of Starbucks International in 1995 before retiring as Starbucks North America in 2003. Behar champions Servant Leadership. In a forward to James Autry's The Servant Leader, Behar describes how the philosophy of Servant Leadership rejuvenated Starbucks, and in his own book, It's Not About the Coffee, Behar writes that "the person who is a servant of all is the most capable leader," before referring to Greenleaf's The Servant as Leader.

Behar brought the ideas of Servant Leadership to Starbucks because there was something missing in the corporate culture. Rather than working as a cohesive team, Starbucks was a collection of individuals. I think that the fact that Starbucks was led by such a significant proponent of Servant Leadership during the company's most successful period shows that there is something to be said for the practical aspect of Servant Leadership.

Leadership Through Advocacy: A Form of Servant Leadership?

Seeing as October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I thought it fitting to blog about Nancy G. Brinker, founder of Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Brinker started the organization in 1982 after her sister, Susan G. Komen, passed away from breast cancer. What began as Brinker’s vision and promise to her sister to help educate others about breast cancer has now evolved into the “world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists fighting to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all, and energize science to find the cures” (http://ww5.komen.org/default.aspx) (Sashkin, 1989)(Sendjaya, 2002).

As I was researching Brinker, I began to think about her in the context of a servant leader. I believe that Brinker’s emergence as a servant leader resonates with Selznick’s idea that servant leadership is a choice because her desire to serve the community through breast cancer awareness arose as a result of her sister’s death (Selznick, 1975). She was a servant first, founding the organization as a service to her sister, and a leader second as her cause began to grow in popularity (Greenleaf, 1991). Through innovation and creativity (Race for the Cure, Pink Ribbon Store, Partnerships, etc.), Brinker advocates for the cause by envisioning a cure for breast cancer, empowering others to join the movement towards educating people about breast cancer and finding a cure, and empathizing with those who have encountered the illness in some way or another (Sendjaya, 2002)(Choi, 2006). She exemplifies courage by sharing her sister’s story in hopes to inspire others and authenticity of leadership by approaching her cause from the socialized perspective (Sashkin, 1989)(Burns, 1978).

Brinker is a transformational leader who works to develop her followers and help them grow more autonomous in order to increase the likelihood that they will ultimately become servant leaders themselves (Greenleaf, 1991). Brinker’s charismatic style of leadership also enables her to motivate others to support the cause through donations and/or volunteering their time (Choi, 2006). Brinker’s initial vision has ultimately become a successful, consistent reality, and she is a quintessential fulfillment of Greenleaf’s statement, “I am a leader. Therefore I serve” (Sashkin, 1989)(Greenleaf, 1991).

However, as I began to look more closely at Brinker as a servant leader and how much Susan G. Komen for the Cure has grown as an organization, I started to wonder what exactly measures a servant leader’s success? Sure the organization has been active in educating women about breast cancer awareness and raising money for breast cancer research for some 25+ years, but there is still no cure for breast cancer. Is success measured in terms of the amount of money generated for research or by the number of activists who have joined the cause? Can you actually set criteria to measure the success of servant leadership? Or, is that, in fact, the rub—that servant leadership does not necessarily lead to a particular means end as long as the leader is working to develop his or her followers to likely become servants themselves?

Just Doing It

An organizational culture can be formed and shaped through the founder’s vision and actions taken. Phil Knight, founder of Nike and marketing guru, has transformed the sports industry through his innovative sports merchandise. His strategy of recruiting top athletes such as Michael Jordan to wear his brand has put him on top of his competitors, Adidas and Reebok. Continuing innovation in sports apparel and equipment technology has kept Nike at the forefront within the industry. Through this vision, Knight has created a distinct organizational culture.

Yet trying to understand Phil Knight’s success as a leader is not easily done. A reclusive figure who guards his reputation and privacy, Knight started his business by selling shoes, that he bought in Japan, from the trunk of his car. With the help of his former track coach at the University of Oregon, Bill Bowerman,  Knight made adjustments to the shoes by adding “waffle soles.”  This and other innovations helped them launch an empire in sports commerce.

      In his role as the CEO, Knight has often let his employees take the lead on getting things done, choosing not to wield total control.  How has Nike been successful in achieving a company with revenue of $16.8 billion through Knight’s leadership? Knight strategically tries to employ the best talent possible by recruiting former professional and college athletes to work for his company. These former athletes, like Knight, know what it takes to play and work like a champion. Knight chose men and women that shared his same work enthusiasm which is a trait of leadership proposed by Harold Geneen (Geneen 9). He knows their passion and commitment to sports will continue to propel Nike forward.  Also, the management structure that he adopted constantly moves people around in leadership roles. Leaders become followers and vice versa. Knight seems to engage his employees in the paradigm set forth by Joseph Rost that both leaders and followers are engaged in the process of leadership (Rost 192). By allowing his followers to adopt different leader and follower roles, he is cultivating an engaged followership.

 In his research on organizational cultures, Robert Schein learned that founders often start with a theory of how to succeed and incorporate their own cultural paradigm within their businesses (Schein14). Phil Knight has achieved this with Nike. He incorporated his own assumptions on how Nike should be run through delegation of leadership positions and strategic talent management. Nike’s mission is to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world which has helped them remain the top sports retailer.

In 2004, Phil Knight resigned his position as CEO of Nike but chose to remain on the board of directors. An outsider to the organization, William Perez, was chosen to be the next CEO. Perez only lasted thirteen months before he left the organization after clashing with Knight over the direction of the company. Knight said that Perez “was unable to wrap his arms around the place” and truly realize the culture of the organization. “It is more about Phil Knight's ego than Perez's performance. It is a question about identity. Some people won’t relinquish until they die." said Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, an associate dean at the Yale School of Management (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/business/24nike.html). This brings up the question of why an empire that strives on innovation is unwilling to adopt this same strategy with their leadership? While Knight has created a successful business, he has also fostered an insider culture that does not seem open to outside influence. This is similar to Schein’s research on company founders that seek to employ family and primarily promote them over outsiders. It seems Knight believes that those “on the inside” of Nike or the Nike family are best for the organization. Will Knight be able accept the new CEO, Mark Parker and his new principles or is Sonnenfeld right that some won’t give up until they die? Do cutting edge innovators over time become dinosaurs in their field?

Who's the captain of this ship? Well...It depends...

Upon coming to Vanderbilt, I was introduced to the wonderful world of crew. For those unfamiliar, crew is the sport of one coxswain and eight synchronized rowers racing a boat as fast as possible in order to win a regatta. The most important tool needed to become a winning team is effective leadership. Why? Because there is more than one leader on a crew team. There are in fact three layers of leaders. The first is the coach who leads the team by setting goals, providing strategy, and by offering constructive feedback so to improve overall performance. Next is the team captain who keeps morale high by exemplifying good sportsmanship and a team player attitude. Last, there is the coxswain—the position of importance for this blog.

The coxswain is the leader of each individual boat. On land, the coxswain must be as Robert E. Kelley (1988) would say, an ‘effective follower’. He or she must listen carefully to the advice of the coach, observe the behaviors set forth by the captain, and then internalize these messages so to be “enthusiastic, intelligent, and self-reliant” (Kelley 1988 p. 195). However, once the boat is in the water everything changes. The coach watches from the shore, the captain (as a rower) transitions into just another follower, and the coxswain becomes the one and only leader. He or she does the work required--screaming loud and coherent directions to the rowers--to meet the needs of the social situation (Selznick 1975).

Stogdill (1948) says that “leadership is a relation that exists between person in a social situation” (p. 65). Considering crew provides multiple leader/follower relationships, Rost (1991) must add, “the only possible way for people to cope with such multiple relationships is for them to be leaders in some relationships and followers in others” (p.191). The sport of crew helps us understand what Selznick, Stogdill and Ross mean when they say that the role of a leader is situational. For the coxswain’s role of leader or follower is wholly defined and determined by the situation.

The implications of this example of leadership is two-fold. First, the coxswain had to first be an effective follower of higher leveled leaders (coach and captain) before becoming an effective leader. Second, the coxswain’s leadership role was defined within the certain context of the water. This layered and situational example of leadership reminds me of how, in managerial hierarchies, the role of a manager is either leader or follower depending on the context. To upper management, a middle manager is just a follower. However, his subordinates see him as a leader. So, herein lies the crux: in the much more complicated world of management, must one be an effective follower before becoming an effective leader? Can you be an ineffective follower but an effective leader? Or, and here's my favorite, does it just depend on the situation?

Power and Its Limits: A Look at Rappers and World Politics

The World of Rap and International Relations
The National Public Radio broadcasted a show highlighting the parallels between rappers’ feuds and world politics. Lynch, professor and director of the Institute of Middle East Studies, presented an interesting comparison of the feud between rappers (The Game and Jay-Z) and the challenges the U.S. is currently facing.

About the Rappers
Here is a little background information for those of you who are not familiar with the world of rap. Jay-Z has attained a sort of mythical status. He was a successful CEO of Def Jams Recordings for several years, produced some of the best-selling hip-hop albums, and is with Beyonce. In the rap world, his combination of soft and hard power makes him a hegemon. The Game, on the other hand, is like a rising power. He’s talented but also erratic. He forms and breaks alliances and often cannot commit to values or ideals.

The Feud and Parallels to International Relations
Since Jay-Z is sort of this hegemon, he started criticizing up-and-coming rappers for using auto-tunes ("you rappers singing too much, get back to rap you t-paining too much".). Per Professor Lynch, Jay-Z was saying “these are the rules of the international system. If you want to be a civilized member of our international society, you have to not pursue nuclear weapons.” Lynch also compares The Game to Iraq or North Korea – a little unpredictable and not big enough to take down the big guy by himself, but he still can do some serious damage by exhausting Jay-Z’s energy and resources.

What theoretical point(s) or frame(s) does this example bring to mind?
This blog brings us back to the subject of power and more specifically, power and its limits. The more power one has, the more limits one has on how to use that power (Lynch). If you are the hegemon or the world leader, how should you use your power? Should Jay-Z use his power to its fullest extent and block The Game from booking tours, releasing his album, or attending the Grammy? Or should Jay-Z refrain from using his power and ignore The Game? 50 Cent points out the dilemma Jay-Z faces by stating “if I shoot you I’m famous, if you shoot me you’re brainless.”

Why is this important?
This is relevant beyond the scope of world politics and applies to any powerful person or entity. The question of how they should use their power also brings in McGregor’s debate for value based leadership. The limits on power implies that there is a collective memory, and the collective remembers the abuses of power. Whether the collective can successfully take away the power is another debate.

Antioch College's Lack of Leadership

We see failures big and small when we analyze leadership, but not many times do we see an organization failing to the point of closure. Last school year Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio closed its doors after 156 years. The college maintained a reputation of progressive liberal teaching and culture especially made famous during the 1960s. Since there have been many presidents and members of the Board of Trustees during the declining times of Antioch, this post will focus on leadership failure as a whole.

Antioch College began suffering in the early 1970s from lack of a cohesive vision, a lack of community and a true lack of leadership. After experiencing a period of growth, the college began to expand outside of its original focus of undergraduate education. The unofficial campus motto had been to “take education to the people”, but what no one was prepared for was the massive expansion resulting in four graduate campuses being opened in less than eight years. The name was legally changed to Antioch University, although the undergraduate campus was allowed to maintain college. The faculty and students on the undergraduate campus began to feel alienated from the mission of a strong liberal arts undergraduate-focused education. Enrollment steadily dropped and eventually fell under 200.

The theory that this most closely follows is Selznick’s outlined in “Leadership in Administration”. Antioch’s administration from the president to the Board of Trustee’s failed to set long term goals for the institution that were cohesive with the college’s image. I agree with Selznick when he said that when there is a failure at the institutional level it is “more often by default than by positive error or sin” (25). No one at Antioch wanted the institution to fail, but goals were not communicated. They hoped to expand the institution beyond the undergraduate sector and capitalize on the financial stability. Antioch fell victim to the pressure of opportunistic forces of grow, grow, grow. Selznick specifically uses university administration as an example of leadership misinterpreting success while “steadily growing larger” (27).

Selznick goes on to talk more about the values and goals of an organization as something that must “infuse the organization on many levels” (26). While the faculty was seeking structure and stability in the undergraduate education structure, the administration was expanding to graduate education that did not follow the mission of the school.

The closing of Antioch College is perhaps an extreme example because we often don’t see institutions closing. I would argue though that there are many other examples of organizations that are experiencing a lack of leadership. Do you think the positioning of a strong leader would have been able to change the course of Antioch College? On a side note, an independent organization has been moving to reopen the school with an entirely new administration. Do you think that the school will be able to reopen and find success?

Cleaning Up (Your Own) Leadership Mess

In another class we have discussed several times the decline of Starbucks and what they are doing now to try to turn it around. It has lead my mind to the question of the company’s leadership – because what I didn’t know before studying the company is that former CEO Howard Schultz, who saw the company through its massive and in the short term successful growth during the 1990’s and early 2000’s, returned to the helm in 2007 after a seven year absence during which he served as chairman and focused on global operations.

Upon Schultz’ return, he sent a memo to top management criticizing and taking personal blame for some of the profit-boosting decisions that lead to the dilution and commoditization of the branded “coffeehouse experience” that carried Starbucks to its heights. A few examples of these decisions include stream-lining store designs, sales of non-coffee products, hasty openings of neighboring stores, installing automated brewing machines to shave seconds from drink-making time, and other cost-cutting measures. Schultz has pledged to get back to the “experience” in order to turn the company around.

In order to do that, hundreds of stores are being closed and thousands of jobs being cut. Without getting into whether his methods will be able to make the company profitable again, what characteristics of leadership will Schultz most need to demonstrate in order to be an effective leader, to improve the reputation of the brand, and to gain/keep effective followership while closing stores and cutting jobs – a solution to a problem that developed on his watch?

Immediately Geneen comes to mind. He states that “One of the essential attributes of a good leader is enough self-confidence to be able to admit his own mistakes and know that they won’t ruin him.” (Geneen 1998) It appears that Schultz has this one covered by taking blame for much of the demise of the company. Geneen also says that firing is one of the true tests of leadership abilities: “the alert leader will recognize the clues and will move forcefully as soon as he learns the facts. And when he does, he will earn the respect of all the others who are hardworking imaginative and productive.” (Geneen 1998) How does a leader recover when he was, himself, the individual an effective leader should have fired?

Another thing to note: The memo to top management was leaked to the public. Was the “leak” a strategic move by Schultz to ingratiate him to the public? If it was purposeful, was it a good idea?

Superhero Leadership! Part 1!

Okay, so of course we don’t (sadly) live in a world full of caped heroes, but for the fun of it, let’s suppose we did. Would we consider them “leaders” by any sort of standard definition or theory? Now of course, superheroes come in all shapes and sizes so I’m going to take two take two iconic superheroes and evaluate them: Superman and Batman. This blog will focus solely on Superman, and in two weeks, in true comic form, you’ll get the stunning conclusion when we look at Batman and compare the two.

Let’s start with the Man of Steel. Well, even his motto: “Standing for truth, justice and the American way!” sounds an awful lot like the transformation leadership that Burns champions when he says it is “more concerned with end values, such as liberty, justice and equality” (1978). Burns also talks deeply about the moral standards of the leader, and many a-times Lux Luthor has cited Superman as his “incorruptible foe”.

Sticking with values, we could then move to Heifitz (1998), who makes a lot of his basis of whether or not a person is a leader based upon whether they are good or evil. Surely, saving people from burning buildings, foiling robberies and rescuing tree-stranded cats are the deeds of a moral person, yes? Well…then there’s a problem. Heifitz doesn’t really subscribe to trait theory, or great man theory. If there ever was a “great man” I’m pretty sure Superman would take the cake- and would Heifitz care that it’s Superman traits, his special abilities to fly and see through walls, which gives him the ability to perform those moral deeds? Does this disqualify him?

But what about those traits, those special gifts? Well, he’s certainly got all kinds power. Hughes (1993) would say he’s got both coercive power and referent power as a result. You could even argue that those powers automatically put Superman in a situation of leadership, due to his ability to act, and is therefore a leader because of it (Stogdill, 1948).

But if Superman is defined as a leader because of these powers, then who are his followers? Geneen (1998) would ask: Who is Superman managing? Rost (1991) would then pipe in: There’s no relationship between followers and Superman, therefore he’s not a leader! It begs the question of can there be true leadership if there aren’t defined followers (especially it’s a bit of a impossibility given the unnatural gap in ability), or even a true goal? To that end Selznick (1975) might claim Superman’s leadership is automatically default because there’s not a clear mission for Superman- he just continually keeps helping people when needed. Are those specific enough “goals”?

There are a lot of questions I’ve asked, and I’m curious for the answers you might have. Like I said, this is Part 1. Part 2 will focus on Batman since he’s a mortal character, and is less “revered” by the public, being often called a vigilante. Til next time!

What to do with an ineffective leader?

Disclaimer: Technical difficulties still need to be resolved. This post is by Allison Wilder

As an undergrad, I was a leader for the Vanderbilt Danceline and had to follow the main band director. We have discussed if someone can be both leader and follower, and in this experience I was exactly that. Kelley (1988) poses that “effective followers and effective leaders are often the same people playing different parts” (201).

This band director was an extremely ineffective leader. Geneen (1998) states “leadership is the ability to inspire other people to work together as a team following your lead…others must want to follow the leader” (4). Our team worked together, but not as a result of inspiration from the band director and not because we wanted to follow him. Pagonis (1992) explains leaders must possess two vital qualities: expertise and empathy. This leader had neither of these in regards to our team. The two forms of power he consistently used were legitimate and coercive. As explained by Hughes, Ginnet, and Curphy (1993), as a leader this band director should have “taken advantage of all power sources, had strong influence on followers and been open to being influenced by them, and shared power with followers” (347). He never did even one of the three. His ineffectiveness made my job as a Danceline leader much more difficult, and during many of our conversations in class I have asked myself, “What do you do if you don’t believe in your leader and truly see them as ineffective?” Can you still be an effective follower? What if the leader is holding you back? This scenario could generate some interesting discussion and maybe other people in the class can relate to my experience.

As Kelley stated, “But the reality is that most of us are more often followers than leaders”. (194). This is to say that even when we have the opportunity to lead and make a difference, we are still playing multiple roles because we will probably have a boss. So again, what does that mean for an “effective follower” under an ineffective leader? Kelley explains that effective followers differ from ineffective followers by being “self managed, committed, competent, focused, and courageous.” (196-200). The qualities for an effective follower look very similar to an effective leader. So can you be an effective follower by being an effective leader even if your boss is ineffective?

At first, it didn’t make sense to me that you could effectively follow someone if they were not effective to begin with. However, through the above information, I am arguing that you can because to an extent, your job as an “effective follower” can be to work or lead others to some degree independently of the higher leader. From my experience, that is exactly what I had to do.

I now pose this question. How can an “effective follower” work independently from the leader if they are truly in a relationship, a perspective that both McGregor (1966) and Rost (1991) support? I also agree with this perspective, but in this situation when the leader is absolutely ineffective, is it best for the “effective follower” to try to function outside the bounds of a relationship in order to inspire who they are leading? And if so, what that does mean for the perspective of leadership as a relationship?

One final question: So is ineffective leadership “bad” leadership or is leadership not even present? And if not, what then is “bad” leadership?

Leadership, Morality, and The WorldCom Scandal

How the CEO’s Screwed WorldCom!

A Dr. Seuss Inspired Poem About the Collapse of WorldCom

The employees at WORLDCOM were an ethical lot,
But the CEO, a man named Bernard Embers, was NOT!

The CEO had a bit of a problem, one season,
Now, please don’t ask why. No one quite knows the reason.

It could be that his head wasn’t screwed on quite right,
It could be, perhaps that his shoes were too tight.

But I think that the most likely reason of all,
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.

But, whatever the reason, his heart or his shoes,
He was getting himself into some terrible news.

Ebbers, you see, had a firm business pitch,
He bought tons of WORLDCOM stock, and it got him quite rich.

But from 1998 to the spring of 00,
The telecom industry took a pretty hard blow.

Things weren’t looking good… and if you can’t take a hint,
WORLDCOM even had to abandon its proposed merger with Sprint.

The stock took a nosedive, boy, was it declining!
Top execs complaining, commiserating, and crying…

What to do? What to do? With our once top-notch firm?
Their answer would lead to the end of their term.

Ebbers, he had other businesses, you see,
Timber, yachting, construction… to name just three.

And when WORLDCOM’s future wasn’t looking so bright,
He pleaded the WORLDCOM Board of Directors with all his might.

He wanted more money… more MONEY! He said!
Not to help WORLDCOM, but these other businesses, instead!

But before this blew up in Ebbers’ face… KA-BOOM!
There were some other dodgy things going on in the accounting room.

The CFO, Sullivan, along with Myers and Yates,
Had less than their share of ethical traits.

By inflating revenues and underreporting costs,
These three men contributed to all WORLDCOM lost.

They made the company appear more profitable than it was,
Confusing stockholders, employees, and creating quite a buzz.

Surely someone would notice this… surely they would!
But a man named Jack Grubman was up to no good.

As an analyst for WORLDCOM, and Ebbers’ good friend,
Grubman approved too much money to lend.

Though he lent too much out, and took too little in,
Grubman still recommended WORLDCOM stock to buyers… what a sin!

But for Ebbers, Grubman, Sullivan, Myers, and Yates,
The punishment for their criminal actions awaits…

Just when these guys thought they were too hot to handle,
An internal auditor… Cynthia Cooper… brought forth the whole scandal.

Some key players were sent to jail, others quickly retired,
Some just got the Donald Trump tag line, “You’re fired!”

But no matter the punishment, we can only hope,
It will prevent further scandals of such a wide scope.

The moral of WORLDCOM’s demise is quite clear,
Honest business practices will bring the most cheer.

For business and ethics go together like a bucket and pail,
If you don’t get that, they’ll throw you in jail!

Leadership, Morality, and
The WorldCom Scandal

While studying abroad, my friend and I wrote the poem “How the CEO’s Screwed WorldCom!” as part of a presentation for one of our classes. I have included it in this post in case you are not familiar with the incident. The poem provides a brief, somewhat humorous depiction of the collapse of WorldCom and serves as the foundation upon which I built the following analysis regarding morality and leadership.

The fall of an empire like WorldCom has always been particularly interesting to me because of the number of players involved in the scandal. How were top executives able to continue such corrupt practices for such a long time without public exposure? Surely other employees besides Cynthia Cooper knew of WorldCom executives’ corrupt actions? Why didn’t anyone speak up?

In raising these questions, I started to consider the concept of morality and its role in both leadership and corporations. According to Barnard, executives are responsible for the creative function of leadership, meaning they should apply both personal and organization codes to their leadership style in order to be effective. In theory, if all of a leader’s personal codes reflect moral values, he or she would be able to lead in such a way that enables the transfer of such codes onto the entire organization, creating what Goodpaster and Mathews refer to as a corporation with a conscience. If only that were the case for WorldCom…

In my analysis of morality and the WorldCom incident, none of the executives involved in the scandal led with any sense of morality. Instead, they used legitimate and coercive power to essentially bully knowledgeable employees into “blind” obedience through threat and other fear inducing tactics. It is not until Cynthia Cooper, WorldCom auditor and infamous whistleblower, takes it upon herself to investigate the suspicious practices and expose the scandal that morality even appears.

If, as Barnard, Goodpaster, and Mathews suggest, morals are an integral component of effective leadership, Cynthia Cooper seems to be the only leader who emerged from the WorldCom incident. WorldCom’s’ top executives’ exhibited no morality because their actions were not conducted for the overall good of the organization, and no other WorldCom employees who knew of the underhanded practices did the “right thing” and spoke out against the corruption.

In thinking about morality in regards to the WorldCom scandal, I wonder just how important the possession of moral values is for a leader and/or follower to be effective? Can you be an effective leader and/or follower without morals? Are consequential inducements such as the Sarbanes-Oxley act crucial for the assurance of moral leadership in organizations? Would morality even exist in corporations if such inducements were not in place today?

These are just a few questions that came to mind as I was creating this post, but other interesting things to consider in application to the WorldCom incident include morality and Barnard’s “zone of indifference” and the role of morality in groupthink.

Emoticons & Virtual Board Meetings: The Question of Online Leadership

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “Is Telecommuting Here To Stay?,” claims that virtual leadership and management is becoming a permanent fixture of the business world. In our previous readings, Hackman and Johnson claim that “we increase our leadership competence as we increase our communication skills” (429). Virtual business can be ideal for companies trying to reduce costs and employees in areas with limited work opportunities. However, it could also highly impair our leadership and teamwork skills. With this in mind, how do you lead people who are physically separated from you and with whom your interactions are reduced to written digital and virtual communication?

With roughly 5 million U.S. employees telecommuting on a regular basis, this question seems particularly relevant and important in our leadership studies as organizations and leaders increasingly depend on digital communication. Obvious examples include managers overseeing virtual projects or teams, and executives who regularly use e-mail to communicate with their staff. Indeed, several major companies, including Cisco, Apple, & IBM, have recently shifted their training program from a face-to-face format to a “virtual training program.” Moreover, many entrepreneurs and startups are trading the brick-and-mortar office for a virtual one. In tight economic times, new technologies are making digital and virtual communication a less expensive alternative to physical meetings.

Such new technologies include “virtual meeting” software programs that allow virtual employees to “enter” a building that resembles a typical convention center or meeting place. With the simple click of a button, employees can attend digital meetings and conferences, network, learn about new products and market trends, or negotiate a new business deal. These digital meetings and business interactions are very convenient and undoubtedly save companies money. But how should leaders best navigate these digital interactions?

In face-to-face communications, harsh words can be softened by nonverbal communication. For example, an embracing gesture or smile can reduce the blow behind strong words like “disappointing,” “inadequate,” or “insufficient.” But this nonverbal element doesn’t exist in digital interactions. The structure of words in digital communication also can encourage or discourage the receiver. For instance, a message composed of phrases rather than full sentences might be received as abrupt and threatening. A leader who sends a message in all caps and short phrases may be interpreted very differently than if they had sent that same message in full sentences using both uppercase and lowercase letters. The effective virtual leader, then, must acknowledge that they have choices in the words, structure, tone and style of their digital communications and plan accordingly.

If leadership is important for inspiring and mobilizing employees, it’s important that we consider how leadership might function in this digital context and what skills are necessary for effective online leadership. Due to a dependence on digital communication channels, such as e-mail, virtual leaders must expend extra effort on building strong team relationships. Because email tends to be task-oriented (rather than relationship-oriented), the social elements needed for relationship building may get lost through e-mail. Leaders of traditional face-to-face teams generally do not face this challenge because team members usually have a shared social context and familiarity that fosters communication. The virtual leader, on the other hand, must create a shared team context that allows team members to establish common ground and similarities with one another.

Because “leaders and followers are engaged in a common enterprise” (Burns, 426), virtual leaders must also expend extra effort in creating a structure that facilitates teamwork. Unlike the virtual leader, the traditional leader has numerous opportunities for encouraging teamwork, including casual face-to-face encouragement, conversation, and guidance. Interestingly, psychological research conducted by Hoegl & Proserpio reveals that as proximity among team members decreases, the caliber of teamwork decreases as well. The researchers explain that physical distance may reduce pressure on team members to contribute. In order to counter this effect, virtual leaders must consistently encourage team members to contribute and work together. Ultimately, the virtual leader must proactively build a structure that encourages teamwork and helps the team monitor itself.

All in all, leading a virtual team involves unique challenges and may require more effort than leading a traditional face-to-face team. Ultimately, I think leaders must be highly proactive and visible in both their face-to-face & virtual activities. Leaders able to grasp the unique challenges involved in both face-to-face and virtual leadership will ultimately be the leaders of today and tomorrow.

Questions:

What unique advantages and disadvantages do you think are involved in virtual leadership?

http://bx.businessweek.com/virtual-office/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Fdigits%2F2009%2F09%2F30%2Fis-telecommuting-here-to-stay

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jun2009/ca20090616_431456.htm

http://bx.businessweek.com/virtual-office/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coachingtip.com%2F2009%2F07%2Fglobal-economy-virtual-team-leadership.html

Robin Hood vs MS-13

While doing this weeks reading about morality in leadership I kept thinking about gang structure. To remain as organized and widespread as many gangs today are there must be some kind of strong structure and direction within them, whether you would refer to this as “leadership” or not. To make this less of a black and white, right and wrong issue I decided to take an example that would be easier for us to examine with some distance.

We all know the story of Robin Hood and his gang, steal from the rich and give to the poor. He and his “merry band” traversed Nottingham Forest redistributing the land’s wealth. Imagine Robin Hood and his gang as a modern day organization. In many respects, Robin Hood made an ideal leader; he constructed a gang where each member had the same goal, he never gave an order his followers would not be willing to follow (Barnard, 1938, pp. 167), and he was able to empathize with his followers’ situations (Choi, 2006). Despite all of this, he legally had no right to do what he did. He led his men to commit crimes.

In Nottingham, for most people, Robin Hood’s behavior was seen as a good thing. Barnard (pp. 260) credits society with having a major role to play in designating what behavior is acceptable and what is not. The citizens were profiting from the theft and, therefore, did their part to legitimize the activity. Cadbury (1986, pp. 72) says that the primary purpose of a company is to satisfy the needs of its customers. One could easily argue that in redistributing the monies Robin Hood was indeed meeting needs that were vital to the survival of his people.

Presumably, because there was some “light” to be found in Robin Hood’s direction no one questions his status as a “leader.” He is seen as a great organizer, triumphing over the hurdles placed in front of him at each turn.

So, now I would like to bring this back to gangs of today. Many gangs actually do perform some type of “public service” whether it is policing their own neighborhoods when the legal authorities fail or simply providing lost children with a form of “familial” support. Is it because modern gang leaders may direct their leaders to kill they cannot be accepted in the way Robin Hood is? Does the relative harmlessness of theft in comparison to murder make it okay? We cannot accept leadership that kills but leadership that steals from the wealthy is okay?

What is it that makes us remember Robin Hood as such a great leader? Do we accept that, in some instances, the greater good is more important than the law if it is ultimately “moral” in society’s understanding of the term? If a leader is running an organization that is somehow benefiting society but going about it in a way that is not quite legal can we overlook the infraction to continue reaping the rewards?

(Image from bbc.co.uk)

From Chappaquiddick to “Lion” Status: A Journey To Leadership

What was it about Democratic Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy that at his death caused an outpouring of support and devotion from all across the United States Senate? Did they forget the “Chappaquiddick Incident” where Mr. Kennedy left the scene of an accident and a woman drowned? Why did Senators, typically divided by partisan politics, stand in solidarity as his funeral car passed the Capital? What factors led to Mr. Kennedy’s eventual elevated standing as “Lion of the Senate” even though he had a controversial past? In short, Ted Kennedy had become a leader. This blog with its attempt at taking a non-political view will examine some of the leadership theories that may help explain this phenomenon.

Heifitz (1988) stated that a leader is about “mobilizing people to do something…to meet the needs of the community.”(p.22) For 47 working years in the Senate, Ted Kennedy engaged in positive action. Exercising congressional and therefore legitimate power (Hughes, Ginnet, & Curphy, 1993), he was responsible for 300 bills that are current, working laws. Working to meet the needs of many, Kennedy championed the poor and dispossessed to promote social justice issues like civil rights and education, to name a few. His leadership is discernable given his vision and actions aimed at passing universal health care (Choi, 2006) for all Americans. This debate rages on, and Kennedy died before seeing his dream become a reality.

The notion of “participatory leadership” (Geneen, 1998) applies in a positive way in looking at Kennedy’s record. In the September 9, 2009 issue of Newsweek, Evan Thomas says that “Ted…vindicated a more mundane truism: that half (or possibly as much as 90 percent) of success in life is just showing up (p.31). And show up in the Senate he did—for 47 years and with 300 laws to show for it. With active participation, his influence as a leader increased over time.

Kennedy was masterful at dealing with the complexity of the Senate. Dealing with extremely complex organizations is a task of leaders, according to Gardner (1990). Evans (2009) described Kennedy as able to devour huge briefing books and eye-glazing technical data. Given his legislative successes, he may have understood our complex system of law-making better than most.

Perhaps it was Ted Kennedy’s ability to admit his mistakes, a leadership characteristic posed by Geneen (1998) that drew even his former adversaries to him later in life. Kennedy sought redemption for Chappaquiddick by acknowledging his flaws and working to improve the lives of those less fortunate. I think he became a leader in large part by showing up, getting results, and asking for forgiveness. He morphed into his “Lion” status. Ted Kennedy had made a long journey to leadership.

Setting personal political views aside, is it possible to deny Mr. Kennedy’s leader status in the U.S. Senate? While these leadership theories may describe some of the more subtle forms of Kennedy’s leadership, what others do you see at play in his senatorial life?

Making the Band

In a marching band there are different dynamics that create a combination of unity and harmony. The role of a leader can be seen in several ways, but also have an interesting relationship with the idea of followership. Are you a leader if your followers are just following the rules of authority?

The word “leader” is a part of the title of Section Leader and can create a certain level of “legitimate power” based on the title. According to Hackman and Johnson (1991), “legitimate power is one’s formal or official power” and is not the same thing as leadership (p. 342). In addition, they note that it is “possible for followers to use their legitimate power to influence leaders” (p. 342). So while their title may give them some power and authority they can also be viewed as followers of the Drum Major and Band Director. Can you be a leader and a follower at the same time? Or are you just being an “effective follower”? According to Kelley (1988), “the key to being an effective follower is the ability to think for oneself and to work without close supervision” (p. 144). They are following the orders of the Drum Major and the Band Director, but also going above and beyond the rest of their section. This leads to the concept that while the Section Leaders are “following”, they also have followers. With this theory, they may not be followers to the Section Leaders at all, but just doing what they are told to do. In this circumstance, there may be a limited option to participate as an “effective follower” because of the need for uniformity and structure. With that being the case, Section Leaders may no be longer viewed as leaders, but instead as effective followers and coordinators.

They may hold traits that could be considered leadership qualities. According to Choi (2006), leaders are empathetic with charismatic leadership (p. 24). Section Leaders are supposed to motivate their sections and may show empathy to build trust and inspire their band members. It could be argued by Choi that these traits in addition to interpersonal skills related to these traits show that Section Leaders are leaders . These traits could bring the unity necessary to have a successful section, which in turn creates a successful overall band.

According to Ross (1991), sometimes a leader may need to be a follower and a follower has the role of a leader (p. 191). A section leader seems to validate this theory as well as show the equality of importance to both the role of leader and follower. The band’s optimal performance may have many factors, but the Section Leader’s role as both follower and leader seems to be equally valuable to the band’s success.

"Parent"ship--Are Good Parents Considered Good Leaders?

I was talking to my mother just the other day, as I was debating topics to touch upon for the blog. To jumpstart my thought process, she asked me who I considered to be the greatest “leader.” My response: “You.” The more I dwelled upon it, the more I began to postulate about the role leadership plays in parenthood…or “parent”ship perhaps.

If you consider yourself to have grown up in what you have deemed under the guidance of great “parent”ship, reflect for a moment on what it IS about your parental figures that made them so successful in turning you as young, intelligent, achievers out into this challenging world. Did they motivate, inspire, and seek to develop you as a person? Did they lead by example? Maybe it was just their understanding and compassion that you foundation admirable?

Browsing through many of the theorists observed during class time, parenting to me exhibits several prime examples of those characteristics we as young academics have deemed “leader” worthy. Heifitz claims that leadership is value-laden that is an activity focusing on mobilizing, influencing, adaptive work, with the end-goal as the target. Could this not too be said of parents, who want their children to be independent, successful individuals? Parenting is a “relationship” just as leadership is a relationship, both between leaders and followers (MacGregor).
And isn’t communication key between parent and child with regards to expectations (Hackman and Johnson). Even obedience to authority (Milgram) is demonstrated in a “parent”ship. Don’t we ask of our children to learn to obey and respect authorities? I also would argue that the majority of parents exercise “socialized leaderhip” (Sashken), working as a leader for great goods, goals, and needs rather than their own selfish needs. What about good or poor parenting? Could we then compare this to good and bad leadership? When I think of bad parenting, I think of either emotionally overbearing parenting, or apathetic, turn-the-other-cheek parenting. I might also say the same as ineffective leaders, whose subordinates feel that their managers (key word: “managers” as opposed to leaders) either do not care about their performance, or hover to the point of inability to perform.

The role of “power” in parenting, I also see as significant. We touched on in class the hierarchy of powers during our class discussion. I have to say, I think that for parenting, the influence of the power varies over the development of the child. From young on, our parents have both a legitimate power, but also a coercive and rewards power. Maybe as a child you were rewarded when you said “please” and “thank you,” through rewarding power. But if you ever pushed back, refusing to finish your green peas, there was threatening of no desert or receiving an early bedtime. Over time though, I would ague that the power shifts from reward and coercive power, to referent and expert power. Through high-school and college, we begin to maybe not see our parents are vessels of punishment and reward, but instead as individuals once in our shoes, whom we have now come to respect.

If we are to accept that “parent”ship is a type of leading responsibility, I then postulate if leadership can be taught in such a respect. We have wondered whether leadership can or cannot be taught. I then ask, can parenting be taught or is it too situationally and innately influenced, in much the same way that we question whether leadership can be taught? Similarly, are there certain traits that might make some parents better than others, or do all parents come across the opportunity to be shaped and developed by the environment of the child? Personally, I believe that “value” can be taught. But, good parenting, or “parentship” I think is much like we have discussed in class: I think it can be improved and expanded upon, but that there are many other factors that feed into successful leaders.

“Parent”ship takes the holistic meaning of a “full-time” job. There is no “vacation” time. There is no “quitting,” “relocating,” or “firing.” It’s a commitment. I believe that parents are indeed a type of great leader. While yes, they may be able to hire and fire, and true, may have an additional emotional component to the job, I believe good parents can indeed be seen as good leaders. HOWEVER, I would argue against one who says that good leaders exhibit characteristics that make good parents.

Brain Mapping and Leadership

Pierre Balthazard, a professor at the Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, claims to have indentified parts of the brain that enable someone to be a good leader. This claim furthers the debate about whether leaders are born or made. Balthazard uses EEGs (electroencephalography) to produce a ‘brain map’ of his subjects. By looking at the brain map, he claims he can predict a person’s capacity for certain traits linked to leadership.

Balthazard is currently working with the US Military to develop a model that will allow them to scan soldier’s brain for complexity. This will allow the military to determine the complexity of that soldier’s brain; the more complex a brain, the better situational awareness and adaptive thinking the person has. Balthazard refers to traits like brain complexity and transformational leadership as precursors to leadership itself. This would seem to indicate that Balthazard believes leaders are born, and the complexity of brains, as seen via brain maps, show who will be a good leader. Balthazard does not take into account differing situations.

While Balthazard is excited by the possibility of determining leadership from brain scans, he is more excited about the possibility of brain training and improving leadership skills. This would make it seem that Balthazard believes leadership can be made through adequate training of the brain. Balthazard believes that brains can be trained using positive and negative reinforcement. This would be possible because a subject would be wired to a software program to recognize the correct functioning of a specific part of the brain and if the brain is not performing correctly, there is negative feedback.

However, others are more skeptical of Balthazard’s research. Others believe that it is difficult to develop something such as leadership. Dr. Bob Kentridge, a researcher at Durham University in England, thinks that even if you find differences in brains of people who have different leadership abilities, it’s hard to say that the difference in brains in attributable only to leadership and not a variety of other factors. It also does not take into account differing forms of leadership in different situations.

The ideas of whether a leader can be born or made are found within this article. Balthazard developing the idea of brain mapping and relating level of brain complexity to leadership ability would lead one down the road to believe that leaders are born. But his idea of training the brain to become a better leader contradicts that thought and leads one to believe leaders are made. Is this taking trait theory one step farther by mapping the brain and attributing certain traits to the complexity of the brain and the level of effective leadership? Is the idea of a person being born a leader or made into a leader further complicated due to this research?

Leadership in a Time of Crisis

In a time of crisis, leadership can be a rare but an extraordinary thing to see . Briefly discussed last week, a prime example of this was the case of Cantor Fitzgerald, the US company that lost the most employees in 9/11. Cantor Fitzgerald lost 658 out of 960 US employees in the terrorist attacks that day. However, within two days after 9/11 Cantor Fitzgerald was open and operating, trying to put back together everything that had been destroyed.

How was this possible? Due to the leadership of Cantor Fitzgerald’s Chairman and CEO, Howard Lutnick. Lutnick, whose brother was among the 658 employees that perished, helped reestablish Cantor as a leader in their industry. He also helped provide for Cantor families by donating 25% of Cantor’s revenue for the five years after 9/11 to their families and paying for their healthcare for a decade. He also set up financial planning and investment services for these families to help get them back on their feet. Since 9/11 he has helped raise $180 million dollars for victims families as well as worthy charities.

Faced with this situation, Lutnick could have liquidated the company and considered everything lost. When things hit rock bottom what caused Lutnick to step up and lead his company out of this situation?

Was it his individual traits? During this time Lutnick showed empathy toward people’s situations and feelings. He cared and helped provide for families even after loved ones were gone. He showed courage in the face of chaos. However can this be accredited to his inborn traits, or due to the situation he was faced with? As Selznick says “leadership is a kind of work done to meet the needs of a social situation” (pg. 22) and McGregor recommends that it is “fruitful to consider leadership as a relationship between the leader and the situation” (pg. 182). Considering these points, would Lutnick have garnered so much acknowledgement as a model leader without such an event as 9/11 occurring? Also, considering leadership as a relationship not only with the situation but also among the followers, does Lutnick’s success as a leader during this tragic time reflect the fact that he had “effective followers” (Kelley, pg. 196)? The people that showed up to the office two days after this tragedy were truly committed employees who were courageous and weren’t afraid to take on the extra work and challenges in this hard situation. Burn’s states that “leaders and followers are engaged in a common enterprise; they are dependent on each other, their fortunes rise and fall together” (pg. 426). Lutnick and his followers were devoted toward a common goal, keeping the company afloat not just for their jobs, but to preserve the company in memory of the deceased. They were living these tragedies together. It would have been impossible for Lutnick to turn everything around by himself. His followers played an important role in his strength and success during this time.

In our world of terrorist attacks, failing economies and tragic natural disasters, it is important to understand the capabilities and roles of leaders in crisis situations. By doing this, we can ultimately understand as leaders or followers ourselves how to be more effective in producing change and favorable results.

Gleeful Followership

This is officially your opportunity to admit to the world how much you love ABC's new show "Glee." No? Just me? Well, you're missing out. And as I've watched the characters develop over the first few episodes, styles of followership have become evident. Each eccentric character of the high school glee club fits right into one of Robert Kelley's followership patterns: Tina, a yes person; Rachel, an effective follower; Finn, an effective follower; Kurt, an effective follower; Artie, a sheep; and Mercedes, a very active survivor. I could write a ton on each person's traits that make them a certain type of follower and/or leader, but instead I would like to focus on the choice of followership.

Still early in the season, Rachel has already decided the leadership (Mr. Schuester) wasn't good enough, got him to leave the group, tried to bring in someone else who failed, and then she happily resigned back into her followership role, allowing Mr. Schuester to take back over the club. She tried something, it failed, and then she made the choice to follow Mr. Schuester's lead, while still acting in many ways as a leader for the other students in the group.

Rachel is potentially a very effective follower, but as Kelley writes, "some potentially effective followers derive motivation from ambition. By proving themselves in the follower's role, they hope to win the confidence of peers and superiors and move up the corporate ladder. These people do not see followership as attractive in itself." This accurately describes Rachel's constant fluctuation between being an effective follower, and her tendency to quit when she can't be in charge. There are many times throughout the show that she chooses to follow effectively. Followership is a choice. Each student in the Glee Club has chosen to be a part of something larger than them, and to take the lead of others.

But if we assume that followership is a choice, which I believe it is, what are the circumstances that persuade us to choose what type of follower we will be? Must you try something, like Rachel did, and fail before you are willing to be a follower? Or is there a moment when you weigh the pros and cons of being a follower and you decide what type you'll be? And finally, is it possible for us to create a general definition for what these moments might look like, or is it unique for every individual in every circumstance?