NYLC and the Move to Hands On Leadership Learning

There are several ways to approach “teaching” leadership. One is what we experience in this class: studying leadership theory and practice from a bird’s eye view. By gathering others’ opinions on it, we are able to form our own. Another approach is practiced in many career fields: leadership development through training.

An example, as I mentioned in class, is the National Young Leaders Conference held yearly in Washington, D.C. According to their website, NYLC is “designed to instruct and enrich promising students in a hands-on, experiential atmosphere while preparing them for a lifetime of leadership.” This program is made possible by a staff of people who believe that developing young leaders is key to the future success of our world. My own personal experience in the program placed me in uncomfortable situations in which I could either hone my leadership skills quickly, or I could stand by the wayside. Lucky for me, some sort of leadership seed was already in my soul, and I love my experience learning more about myself and my abilities.

Leadership development is not a new concept, but it seems that in recent years it has been refurbished in order to accommodate a new generation of workaholic overachievers. Developing leaders has become crucial for a business to not just move forward, but for it to beat out its competition in every circumstance. According to Robert Fulmer, leadership development programs have gone from purely listening activities to almost entirely hands on, applied learning (1997). This makes me wonder: if someone is providing future leaders with activities and hypothetical situations in which to practice their skills, mustn’t they have those experiences themselves?

Part of the challenge of this new form of development is finding well qualified leaders who not only have the ability to share their knowledge, but to give up other commitments in order to educate. Fulmer also mentions the problem of having to pull people away from their jobs to participate in training. If the program is costing the company time and money, it must be proven successful, which brings us to the question: how do we know if leadership development program is a success? For the NYLC, for example, I can attest that I felt the program was a success. But besides that, what concrete metrics could be developed to measure the success of such a program? If we think of NYLC as a company, is it enough to say that they do not lose money and the have satisfied customers?

There are a few questions in this post, but to summarize, is it possible to ensure that experienced leaders are teaching successful development programs, and if so, how?

If you are interested in seeing how rigorous NYLC is, check out a sample schedule here.

The Leader as Conductor: What can conducting teach us about leadership?

Leading an Organization’s Score, Instrumentalists, & Performance to Success

The conductor of an orchestra is, by definition, a leader. With a quick move of their baton, conductors decide when and how the sound starts and stops. Yet, conducting is far more complex than merely starting and stopping sound. Perhaps best described by Dr. Fountain, my conducting professor at Blair, conducting is “an art of leadership.” As we learned in class, conducting involves all of the core components involved in successful business leadership: Vision, communication, trust, mobilization, etc. Similar to leading a business, the conductor must strategically use key musical components (i.e., rhythm, style, interpretation, etc.) to achieve short-term technical goals, a unified musical product, and long-term musical vision. Conductor and leadership consultant, Itay Talgam, recently spoke at TED about using this conductor/musician analogy to improve organizational leadership. Given that they face the ultimate leadership challenge - creating perfect harmony without saying a word- I agree with Talgam that conductors have something valuable to teach us about leadership.

Just as CEOs uphold company mission statements, conductors work to support the uniqueness and value of the musical score. Originally conceived by the composer, the score creates the musical foundation of the ensemble and the boundaries it must adhere to. Similar with company mission statements, the conductor treats the score as sacred, using it to guide his ensemble to successful performances. Although he may slightly adapt it to fit his interpretation/vision, the score essentially remains true to its original form and intent. The conductor’s then must balance the interplay between the collective orchestra and the individual instrumentalists to give way to a unified sound. Although the instruments vary in tone color & playing technique, the conductor blends their unique timbres together into a single musical sound while giving each instrument the opportunity to shine on its own. Similar to the leader mobilizing others through a shared mission, the successful conductor uses communication and vision to unite the instrumentalists through a collective purpose – to deliver exceptional musical performances.

In his presentation, Talgam explains that the great conductors were successful because they enabled players to tell their own musical “stories” simultaneously, as a community. As Talgam put it, the best conductors are “doing without doing it,” acting as Theory Y enablers rather than Theory X controllers. Trusting that their players know how to play their music correctly, the great conductor refrains from stomping out the beats, but rather assumes a coordinating, “co-adventurer” role (Kelley). This enabling process resonates with De Pree’s view of leadership as the process of “liberating and enabling” others’ talents, ideas, and skills. Conductor leadership is a relationship (Stogdill, 1948 & Rost, 1991); the conductor knows what he wants from each instrument, but doesn’t personally make the music – that is the responsibility of the individual players who are the masters of their instruments. Dr. Fountain taught us that the conductor must communicate ongoing interpretive vision and direction to his musicians. Words may be used to communicate this, but the real test is communicating vision through non-verbal conducting. He explained that the conductor must communicate vision and musical goals through his gait, facial expressions, posture, breathing, and gestures- everything must be aligned. This nonverbal communication illustrates Hackman & Johnson’s view of leadership as an interactive process through which leaders and follows develop a strategy to achieve shared goals. “Matching their behaviors with their goals,” successful conductors use goal-driven communication to benefit the collective orchestra and better reach their shared vision and goals (1991).

Leaders should gain inspiration from the conductor’s ability to lead nonverbally. Using this metaphor, leaders should remember not only to communicate vision but to embody their vision and goals. We are also reminded to lead without doing or micromanaging- as leaders, we provide vision and guidance while our followers make it happen. Like the successful conductor, the leader needs to engage followers in their overall vision and, at the same time, offer them the independence to use their creativity and expertise to achieve that vision.

How would leading an organization entirely comprised of "creative types," such as musicians, be different and/or more challenging than leading a broadly diverse group of people?

In what ways can we apply the conducting model to leadership?

What other theories and concepts does the conducting metaphor bring to mind?

http://www.ted.com/talks/itay_talgam_lead_like_the_great_conductors.html

http://www.talgam.com/appfiles/default.asp

Richard Branson and the Virgin Group

Richard Branson, CEO and founder of the mega-corporation, Virgin Group is very vocal about what he thinks works for his company. First, that good ideas come from everywhere, not just in the boardroom. Second, that his employees are central to his success, and finally that he has to use his authority as a leader.

It is in his seemingly carefree spirit that he has no formal business headquarters, does not hold regular board meetings and supposedly doesn’t know how to use a computer. This attitude does not mean that he isn’t incredibly involved or busy. It is somewhat of an allusion, but one that lends itself to a creative workplace that has allowed him to use his brand in a little bit of everything from music to air travel to environmental protection efforts and make it one of the most licensed in the world. The leadership attributes that Mumford points to as important characteristics are: “openness, tolerance of ambiguity, and curiosity” (22). By utilizing these in an open work environment Branson has been able to foster a creative work environment that really does accept ideas from all levels. In the article, “The Knowledge-Creating Company”, Nonaka points to the importance of freedom of knowledge for the very reason of fostering such an environment.

Like Choi’s idea of a Charismatic leader having empathetic qualities, Branson sees the importance of this in his leadership style. “Having a personality of caring about people is important,” says Branson. “You can’t be a good leader unless you generally like people. That is how you bring out the best in them.” Because of his openness and empathy it is apparent that he recognizes the importance of his employees. He goes on to say, “A company is people…employees want to know…am I being listened to or am I a cog in the wheel? People really need to feel wanted.” He gives his employees a stake in the ventures that they were a part of creating. In the same vein as Florida and Goodnight’s idea of creative capital and viewing employees as assets, Branson has built his brand by employing people he can involve in the process.

He is adventurous and curious, but also realizes he cannot agree to everything. Branson has noted how difficult it is to say no to his employees because he does not want to discourage their creativity. He explains that he had to learn how to say ‘no’ and make the tough decisions like McGregor explains in “The Boss Must Boss”. McGregor says he, “finally began to realize that a leader cannot avoid the exercise of authority”. Branson had shaped his mission of fostering creativity.

The great success of Branson’s leadership can stand as an example for many leaders even outside of entrepreneurship. His attitude of inclusion and equity grounds him as a leader who is highly approachable. This benefits both the employees and the organization.

The Mentoring Project

In Portland, Oregon there is an author and teacher named Donald Miller who founded The Belmont Foundation, “a not-for-profit foundation working to recruit ten-thousand mentors through one-thousand churches as an answer to the crisis of fatherlessness in America.” The Mentoring Project (TMP), The Belmont Foundation’s main project, seeks to accomplish this endeavor “by inspiring and equipping faith communities to mentor fatherless boys” by providing mentor training and resources, and consultation to the volunteers as well as financial assistance to the mothers of the mentored children.
After reading his biography and part of his memoir, Blue Like Jazz, it’s clear that Don founded TMP, and serves on President Obama’s task force of Fatherhood and Healthy Families, so that young boys in America can live healthier, more-fulfilling lives than he lived while growing up without a father. His personal experience is a key motivating factor for his service to the fatherless youth in America.

Regarding TMP alone, and leaving out his writings, book tours, lectures, etc., I see Don as having some aspects of a few key leadership theories, but does not fit perfectly into any one of these alone: servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1991), visionary leadership (Sashkin, 1989), transformational leadership (Burns, 1978), and leadership as relationship (Burns, 1978, McGregor, 1966, Stogdill 1948).

Nowhere in Don’s biography or websites is he referred to as a leader, but instead, as one who serves a greater need in our nation. Is Don a servant leader because he is the founder of TMP or is he the founder of TMP because he is a servant leader? (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002). Or do neither one of these premises hold true for Don? It is my opinion that Don is a servant leader, and then founder of TMP, because he is visionary and wants to make a positive change in the lives of fatherless boys and more broadly, in America. He became the founder after he first made the decision to serve in this ‘crisis’. With that, can Don change the world through his servant leadership? In the lives of the boys who are mentored, yes, the foundation changes their world. Mentors help the fatherless boys by fulfilling their lower level needs and moving them toward self-actualization, which Smith defines as the success of servant leadership (2004). In conjunction with this, mentors also serve as role models to the boys; supporting optimism and utilizing two-way personalized communication, which Smith defines as elements of transformational leadership (2004).

The mission and goals of TMP, to inspire and equip…to answer to the crises, etc., is also visionary in that the founder not only communicates the vision though numerous outlets, but acts on it himself, and makes the vision possible in several ways and places, such as through the giving of time by mentoring, financially supporting the program, or volunteering consultation skill and time to improving the mentorship process (Sashkin, 1989).
I’m not sure that Don would go as far as calling himself a leader because he founded TMP, and if he did call himself a leader, it would probably be in sarcasm because he is a bit of a comedian, which, on a side note, is one small element of why I also think of him as a charismatic leader. Despite his awareness of being a leader or not, Don aligns with Greenleaf’s philosophy of servant-leadership because The Belmont Foundation emerged through his searching, listening, and expecting that a better life for these fatherless boys was possible, and this expectation for a ‘better life’ is now in the making (1991). When he started this foundation, Don was not seeking to help himself, but instead, was devoted toward the needs of fatherless boys. At the same time, Don’s motivation and passion to serve others in this capacity emerged largely because of his personal experience of being a fatherless boy. Does this direct personal interest make his endeavor through TMP any less servant-minded? I don’t think so. The leader’s values help form the leader’s vision.

Don’s vision is bigger than just helping the fatherless through reliable quality time and mentorship. He is attempting to raise our value of mentorship through this project by explaining it as a step toward positively transforming the communities of our nation. Burns would likely refer to Don as a transformational leader because TMP has already mobilized hundreds of people toward the vision and changed the lives of several fatherless boys and single mothers, thus passing the test of leadership (1978).

Lastly, regarding leadership as relationship, Don seeks to develop the relationship between the TMP mentors, the children and mothers, the communities in which they live, and the churches of America that Don challenges to meet the needs of the foundation’s causes. Essentially, as Burns, McGregor, and Stogdill would agree, the leadership relationship is complex and is not about the individual, but about the situation at large.

In considering all the ways that Don fits partially into a few leadership frameworks, is it possible that he is not a leader, but simply a determined role model on a mission?

References and photo:
http://www.belmontfoundation.org/

Stealing the Declaration of Independence

This blog references the character Ben Gates from the movie “National Treasure”. If you haven’t seen the movie (and trust me, you should!), you might want to read a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Treasure_(film)

Does the end always justify the means? And why does it matter anyways?

Some people might say that Ben Gates is most definitely a leader…and some people might say he is most definitely not. He has charisma, a vision (finding treasure), the ability to communicate his vision, influence and inspiration, followers (Riley), ill defined problems, changing situations, and even opposition (Choi, Gardener, Hackman, DePree, McGregor). He comes up with creative solutions to problems that put him outside what we would consider the norm (Mumford). After all, he is a treasure hunter. He reaches into his “golf bag” and uses many different leadership styles throughout the movie (Goleman, 2000). And, of course, these styles depend on the situation. He is authoritative at some points (Barnard, 1938), but shows his participatory leadership style also (Geneen, 1998). He is not a servant or transformational leader, but I would argue a transactional one (McGregor, 1966). His vision was simply to find his treasure, but this became more complex as the movie went on. At the exact moment when Ben Gates knew that Ian was going to try to steal the Declaration of Independence and take Ben’s treasure, Ben’s vision became one to fill a higher social purpose (Burns, 1978). He was going to save the day/country/and treasure. And when no one believed that the document was in danger he took matters into his own hands. More simply put; he decided to steal it first.

Pay attention to the word “steal.” Could Ben have saved the day and his treasure without stealing the Declaration of Independence? We may never know and he certainly made it seem like it was the only option, but what about in the real world? Where do we as individuals and leaders cross the line when trying to get to our “treasure”? If we say that leadership is value laden, can we pick and choose which values apply to us (Heifitz, 1998 & Selznick, 1975)?

Let’s take a look at a doctor that decides to give his patients that can’t afford treatment free medication. We might all agree that he’s exhibiting a genuine heartfelt gesture, but as a leader is it ethical (Selznick & Barnard)? Personally, yes, but what about for the hospital he works for? Is he stealing their money and medication (Friedman, 1970)? If you say that he is acting ethically, then does it make a difference how many patients he treats for free? If 1 is okay, then what about 50, or even 500? At what point do we stop being considered a moral hero and leader and start being considered a criminal? And whose job is it to make sure this line doesn’t get crossed?

Further, if we say that leadership is a relationship (Stogdill, 1948 & Rost, 1991) and if this doctor is teaching other medical students; is he being a good teacher and role model? I wonder what an effective follower would look like in this situation. Would they be going right along with him and handing out free medication? Or would they be using their problem solving skills to find other ways to solve the problem of people not being able to afford healthcare (Kelly 1988)? Could it be possible that by pushing the limits this doctor is actually effectively leading and teaching his students (Tead, 1935)?

So let’s go back to “National Treasure”. I’ll leave you with one last quote from Ben.

Ben Gates: “A toast? Yeah. To high treason. That's what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration. Had we lost the war, they would have been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and-Oh! Oh, my personal favorite-and had their entrails cut out and ''burned''!
So... Here's to the men who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right...”

That brings us full circle. You tell me; so does the end always justify the means?

Common Leadership Development Challenges

I recently ran across a study conducted by McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison that overviewed 16 developmental experiences that are thought to have the greatest impact on a leader’s development. Given our recent small ‘l’ leadership papers on leader development, I thought this would be interesting. Here is a summary of the developmental challenges in the authors’ Lessons of Experience (1988).

Assignments:


1. Early work experiences: early non-managerial jobs



2. First supervision: first time managing people



3. Starting from scratch: building something from nothing



4. Fix it/turnaround: fixing/stabilizing a failing operation



5. Project/task force: discrete projects and temporary assignments done alone or as a part of a team



6. Scope: increase in numbers of people, dollars, and functions to manage



7. Line to staff switch: moving from line operations to corporate staff roles



Other People:


8. Role models: other people with exceptional (good or bad) qualities



9. Values played out: “snapshots” of chain-of-command behavior that demonstrate individual or corporate values



Hardships:


10. Business failure or mistakes: ideas that failed or deals that fell apart



11. Demotions/missed promotions/lousy jobs: not getting a coveted job or getting exiled



12. Employee performance problem: confronting an employee with a serious performance problem



13. Breaking a rut: taking on a new career in response to discontent with the current job



14. Personal traumas: crises and traumas such as divorce, illness, and death



Other events:


15. Coursework: formal courses



16. Purely personal: experiences outside of work (McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison, 1988)

Creative Giving- The Bill Gates of Switzerland

This story started from a person, Roberto Laureano da Rocha. He lives in impoverish neighborhood in Brazil. Most residents in his neighborhood make a living as waste pickers, and so does he. However, five years ago he has worked with the Avina foundation. Avina Foundation was launched fifteen years ago by Stephen Schmidheiny, a social philanthropist. Every year Schmidheiny puts 30 million dollars to help entrepreneurs in both Central and South Aerica in an effort to reduce the poor population. Also, what he cares about is corporate environmental responsibility. The approach The Avina Foundation utilizes is to encourage the poor to become entrepreneurs rather than to provide them welfare, including aiding latin America’s waste pickers in Brazil to raise their earning and training the poor to run business in rural areas.
Leaders influence people and decide when, where and how to exercise influence in an effort to bring about the attainment of social goals (House&Howell, 1992; Mumford, 1986; Winter, 1991). In this case, Schmidheiny is a leader in dealing with a social problem. He saw that people in Latin America suffered from poverty and environmental pollution was exacerbated. His visions are poverty alleviation and environmental conservation. He mobilized the poor to move toward their collective goal, namely decreasing the ratio of poor people (Burns, 1978) and further reached another vision-environmental protection.
In order to approach his desire, the way he used was to teach people and train how to enhance their income through being an entrepreneur, instead of handing the poor money directly. He realized that without teaching, giving away is too passive. People still do not know how to earn more money to improve their life, so what he emphasized is to the growth of his followers-the poor people. This is a typical example of servant leadership (Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko, 2004). Schmidheiny’s motivation came from development of the poor and his first priority is to serve society first and lead second.
In addition to helping people away from poverty, another important concept he brought to society is to raise the awareness of environment in Latin America. As a philanthropist, Schmidheiny definitely proposed the creative and effective policies to improve financial condition of the poor and dedicate to the reduction of pollution, so he is an exemplar of leaders in leading social changes.

Freedom Writing

In 1999 a group of students at Wilson High School began writing journal entries at the insistence of their teacher, Erin Gruwell. These students later became known as The Freedom Writers and were immortalized in both the book and movie versions of The Freedom Writers Diary. Gruwell, a first year teacher from Newport Beach, California, had no previous experience dealing with the experiences many of her students in the Long Beach school would face on a daily basis. Many had to travel two to three hours on disorganized Los Angeles public transportation just to reach the school each day while Gruwell had led a life of privilege and ease.

When a cartoon was passed around the classroom mocking one of the students Gruwell exclaimed, “This is the kind of propaganda that the Nazis used during the Holocaust!” prompting one brave student to ask, “What is the holocaust?” Shocked, she questioned how many in the class knew what it was—no one raised their hand. She pressed further, “How many of you have been shot at?” Almost every hand in the room went up. She saw, then, that she must alter her strategy for working with these students, her methods were very obviously adapted to fit more clearly with the experiences and social backgrounds her students, her followers, were bringing to the classroom (Heifitz, Selznick).

They read several memoirs typical for high school students including Zlata’s Diary and the Diary of Anne Frank. They were fairly accessible for the students and Gruwell saw in them a way she could get through to her students. Writing regular diary entries about their lives and classroom forced the students to begin to know themselves and gave them a major role in deciding which direction their coursework went in. These are principle traits of servant leadership in which the leader, the teacher, worked toward raising their followers sense of self and devoting themselves to ensuring their emotional needs are met (Smith).

It is also an undeniable example of creative leadership. She was facing a challenge herself and turned it back onto her students, challenging them to take the skills and experiences they had and use them in an educational context (Amabile). She brought out all of the differences and similarities in her students by helping them get to know each other by sharing their entries, creating an environment where they were free to learn from one another and expand on each others previous experiences in a type of creative work-group (Amabile).

Gruwell had to determine some way to understand her students—she needed to empathize with them and using the diaries to learn about them was a great way to do so while still being entertaining. It also inspired and excited the students, as it was something they could truly understand and excel at (Choi). With the diaries the students grew to feel a sense of collective purpose and support for one another (Burns).

This type of creative leadership was undeniably effective and beneficial in Gruwell and numerous other teachers’ classrooms as it helped students to achieve things and take a pride in themselves they likely would have never experienced on their own. But, does such leadership cause us to ignore the smaller details? Sure, many of the students went on to do amazing things, including receive degrees from Columbia, Princeton and Harvard, but others did not do so well with this method of teaching. There were other valuable skills that were surely overlooked in the focus on writing.

The extent to which students exerted themselves in the English course undoubtedly led to less of a focus being paid on subjects such as the maths and sciences. This could be seen at an organizational level as well as a leader may go out of his way to assign creative and challenging tasks but forget to ensure that necessary paperwork gets filed or new supplies are ordered. Is there a time and place for creative leadership? Do those working in a creative environment just have to be more disciplined than the rest of us? Pouring their energies into revolutionary projects while still remembering to place an order for more post-it notes or work within a strict budget?

You Follow the Leader, Not the Power

While watching Gossip Girl on DVR last night, a particular scene reminded me of the concept of leadership and followers as well as the idea of leadership related to power and authority. Jenny Humphrey is a character that used to be an outcast in her school, but eventually turned things around through her perseverance and networking to end up as the “Queen Bee” of her preparatory school. Originally her character was sweet and innocent. She even came into the role of Queen Bee trying to change its position to be of the people and not over the people, but she quickly realized she either needed to lead and take power or someone else would.

In this episode in particular, Jenny was put in a position that was a power struggle. There is an area on a staircase that she and her “minions” claim as theirs and no one is supposed to sit above her on the steps. A former friend challenged her because he believed that she had changed into a person he could no longer follow. She originally asked him nicely to move down, but when he refused her minions poured the yogurt they purchased for Jenny on his head. When Jenny later apologized in a nonpublic setting and tried to explain how she had to appear powerful to continue respect she instead lost his respect.

This situation made me think of several theories including the idea of values and morals in leadership as well as followership and also theories in regards to authority and power. First, several theorists, believe that values are part of leadership. Heifitz (1994) mentions that “leadership has come to mean providing vision and influencing others to realize it through non-coercive means” (p. 15). Jenny and her followers did use coercive means to influence others behavior. While Jenny is at the “front of the flock of geese” as Heifitz describes as a way biology describes leadership, is she actually leading or influencing? Or is she actually the one being influenced by her “followers”?

According to Burns (1978), “the actual extent of the exercise of power is measured by the extent that intended results are realized” (p. 433). Jenny did eventually get the results of having the people move from the stairs, but was that her intention or her followers? While she has the title, which creates position power, the intentions and manner things are being handled show that she may not be the leader after all. She is not influencing others, but instead being influenced. She is not following her vision, but instead doing things to remain in power. She is following her followers, so her followers are actually more leaders than she is.

I believe this shows Jenny is not truly a leader in this situation. I found this episode to show that power and leadership do not necessarily go hand and hand, but influence and vision may be more indicators of strength in leadership.

Superhero Leadership! Part 2: The Stunning Conclusion!

Welcome back! Last time we explored the idea of whether or not Superman, a person of superhuman abilities who fights evil for the cause of “good” is a leader or not. But Superman is an alien, a being not of this Earth, and almost incomparable to us mere mortals. Batman, however is not. So let’s look at the Caped Crusader a little closer to see if he would constituent a leader, both as a stand-alone entity and when compared to Superman. We’ll then wrap this whole thing with my person opinions on the matter.

So, Batman is a dark brooding billionaire who has turned to doling out his own justice under the cover of night. Zaleznik would probably have a field day when looking at Batman. Zaleznik (1977) would say no one is more “twice-born” and had to struggle through life (at least emotionally), than Bruce Wayne who watched his parents be brutally murdered. This one action led Wayne to eventually take up his mission of exacting revenge on those who break the law. But even further, Zaleznick could check off many of his items from his definition of leadership: Thinks outside the box? Neurotic? (Pro)active? Well, I mean the guy IS dressed up like a bat who beats up bad guys, I think neurotic may even be light in this case. Rich emotional content? Wayne consistent grieves over his parents. Intense one-to-one relationships? Mm, that may be a stretch, but he certainly loves his butler, Alfred.

But what about empathy, one of Zaleznick’s, and many others’ requirement for leadership? I think Choi (2006) would say Superman is pretty empathetic, because Superman usually looks for people in danger, and protects them. But Batman is different here- Batman hunts bad guys. You’ll never see the Caped Crusader running into a burning building, or saving a cat from a tree (however humorous the latter would look), so it’s a different relationship to the world of good and evil. Superman protects, Batman punishes, and therefore I don’t think empathy is here.

Let’s expand on that punishment a little bit. As mentioned in the last article about power, Hughes’ coercive power (1993) is clearly here, given the fear Batman evokes, but Superman has both coercive AND reward power. Batman only uses one. Is that enough for a leader, especially if it’s coercive? This leads us a little bit into a values question. While certainly Batman believes he is a “do-gooder”, it would be easy for someone like Burns (1978) or Heifitz (1998) to perhaps have some pause at calling Batman a leader, due to a nebulous morality surrounding his methods. Batman typically beats his opponents to a pulp, without any regarding to due process. He is judge, jury and executioner all in one. Is this really a leader?

And why does Batman do these things? Is it really for the good of others, or is it for HIS need, a need to battle demons created when he was unable to prevent his parents’ death? Sendjaya (2002) would probably raise an eyebrow at this, claiming that if Batman is viewed as a leader at all, don’t confuse him as a servant-leader, since his actions are not clearly altruistic in nature. Superman, on the other hand, may fall into this category, given there is no real motivation for Superman’s actions other than a choice he is making to use his powers for good. Superman receives no benefit or reward for his deeds, and that sounds pretty altruistic to me.

Batman’s response to these criticisms may cause him to cite a little McGregor (1966), saying that his actions are the result of a situation. The situation in this case is that Batman lives in Gotham, a city filled to the brim with crime, and a corrupt police force unable to do anything about it. He’d claim this is also in-line with Selznick’s (1975) idea that leadership is done to “meet the needs of a social situation”. The people of Gotham have a need for someone to clean up the streets, and Batman is filling that need. Also, Batman also has said (whether he means or not is in question), that he would go away when he is “no longer needed”. Selnick would like this dispensable leadership idea, and he’d also enjoy the fact that Batman has no “given power”.

Finally, just as we asked the question with Superman, we must the same of Batman: who is following him? This comes from the questions of Geneen (1998) and Rost (1991). I’ll answer with my idea about Superman first- the people of Metropolis follow him. They do this by having a fairly universal positive public opinion of him. Superman is beloved and championed. This is similar to how people support those holding public office, or even on a sports team. People may not be able to DIRECTLY “follow”, in the clearest sense of the word but they do they best they can through the power of collective voice.

Batman however isn’t “followed” by the public. He’s not seen as a universal hero. To many, he’s a criminal, just as bad as the ones he punishes. He circumvents the judicial system, and by taking matters into his own hands, he’s a vigilante, not a savior. Cronin (1984) says that leadership is more about means than ends. Batman’s means, however well-intentioned, and despite whatever positive results MAY come from them, are flatly against the law.

So where does this leave us? I’ll keep it simple. I think that Superman is a leader, and Batman is not. Superman exhibits a clear, positive mission, is empathetic, and even has followers. He could even be called an inspirational leader, perhaps. Batman on the other hand, is a deviant. A person who takes matters into their own hands, illegally, however well-intentioned, is not (usually)* leadership. Batman has no followers, has no empathy, and is working to serve really only himself, even if his actions may benefit others. I still like him though ;).

I’ll be anxious to hear your thoughts!

* - I understand that certain times in history people perform actions that are “illegal” (i.e. Gandhi, the Revolutionary War) that DO constitute leadership. There’s just too much to go into with that for this post.

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?