“The Transformational Leadership” vs. “The Transactional

: The case of President Obama's Pursuit of Leadership on the Mosque Issue in New York.:
On Friday, August 13, President Obama delivered a strong defense of a proposed Muslim community center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan. Speaking at dinner celebrating Ramadan, known as an iftar, at the White House, President Obama said the following:

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are.” (“Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center,” 2010)

Regardless of President Obama’s intention, the debate concerning his support of the right to build a Muslim Community Center in New York became a heated controversy and spread throughout the country and over the world. However, I do not want to deal with this issue from the viewpoint of politics, such as the President’s strategy for the next election, or economics, such as the economic influence of building the mosque near ground zero. Instead, I want to approach this issue only from the perspective of “the leadership”: “the transformational leadership” and “the transactional leadership”, and share creative and various thoughts about it.


First, I believe President Obama’s remark about the religious right of Muslims came from his value that Men are all equal before the law and people should be treated without discrimination. This leadership style based, on moral justification, was named “the transformational leadership” by leadership theorist Burns.

“Leaders can also shape and alter and elevate the motives and values and goals of followers through the vital teaching role of leadership. This is transforming leadership. The premise of this leadership is that, whatever the separate interests persons might hold, they are presently or potentially united in the pursuit of “higher” goals, the realization of which is tested by the achievement of significant change that represents the collective or pooled interests of leaders and followers. Transformational leadership is more concerned with end-values, such as liberty, justice, equality. Transforming leaders “raise” their followers up through levels of morality, through insufficient attention to means can corrupt the ends.” (Burns, McGregor. J., 1978)

If we assume that leadership must not only meet the needs of followers but also must elevate them, we render a different judgment (Heifitz, 1998). If the stereotype regarding all Islamic people as terrorists and the Mosque as the terrorist’s advance base is not a reasonable notion, the leadership that elevates people to have a sense of common good for the United States, instead of adhering to a claptrap policy, is necessary in order to lead people to the right direction.


Second, through President Obama’s other remarks about the issue, we can discover another aspect of his leadership. The day after making his initial remarks, he hedged even further, “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there.” Although this remark may be translated just as a politician’s political sail-trimming (Weisberg, J., 2010), I also regarded this is an aspect of his leadership. Historically, it is hard to find a so-called “successful leader” who achieved great work sticking to only one particular leadership style. This kind of leadership style, which considers various needs from followers or society, was named “the transactional leadersip” by leadership theorist, Selznick.

“Leadership is a kind of work done to meet the needs of a social situation. Possibly there are some individuals more likely to be leaders than others, possessed of distinguishing personal traits or capacities. Whether or not this is so, we shall here be concerned with leadership as a specialized form of activity, a kind of work or function. Identifying what leaders do certainly bears on (and is perhaps indispensable to) the discovery of requisite personal attributes; but the questions are of a different kind and may be treated separately.” (Selznick, P., 1975.)

On the other hand, public polling shows the various needs of the social situation well. On Sep. 2, seventy-two percent of poll respondents said building the facility so close to the World Trade Center site was inappropriate, while 22 percent said it was appropriate. Nevertheless, the same poll indicated most Americans - 67 percent - said they thought the developers do have a right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, while 29 percent say they do not. (“Poll: Most Say “Gound Zero Mosque” Is Inappropriate,” 2010) As you see, it is very difficult to even define what the social needs are in order to pursue the transactional leadership with real issues.


About this case, do you think that President Obama should have asserted his own principles more strongly in the perspective of the transformational leadership, or that President Obama should have considered more deeply people’s feelings and the social situation after Sept. 11, 2001, in the perspective of the transactional leadership? Or, do you have a totally different perspective about his leadership in this issue? I do not want to talk about political solution of this issue, but I just hope we can think about the application of many scholar’s various leadership theories into the current situation and deeply understand what the essence of the leadership, which theorists have been researching for a long time, is.



Reference:

Burns, James McGregor, “Toward A General Theory,” pp. 425-443. Leadership. NY: Harper & Row. 1978.

Heifitz, R., “Values in Leadership,” pp.13-27. Leadership Without Easy Answers. Boston: Belknap Press/ Harvard University Press. 1998.

Selznick, P. “Some Premises about Leadership,” pp.22-28. Leadership in Administration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1975.)

Stolberg, S. G. (2010, August 14). Obama Strongly Backs Islam Center. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/us/politics/14obama.html?ref =politics

Sundby, A. (2010, August 25). Poll: Most Say “Gound Zero Mosque” Is Inappropriate. CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20014737-503544.html

Weisberg, J., (2010, September 13). Obama’s Moral Cowardice: The president needs to find his principles. Newsweek, 19.

Baikita

My husband and I went to dinner this evening with a friend. His name is Baikita. He is from Chad, Africa. Baikita is a Humphrey Fellow at Vanderbilt studying Education Policy. He wants to make a positive change to the education system in Chad. Baikita exemplifies leadership in many ways.

“The first thing that strikes one as characteristic of contemporary leadership is the necessity for the leader to work with and through extremely complex organizations and institutions” (Gardner, 1990). Baitkita is working with a very complex organization! Chad’s education system is held back in the sense that it has been destroyed time and time again. Not to go without mentioning, Chad is one of the poorest nations in Central Africa. Chad has tried to rebuild their education system, but French rule determines funding, resources and curriculum (Chad, 2010). This makes improving schools very difficult because Chadian people do not have influence on how their education system is managed. Baikita plans to meet with high-level government authorities in hopes of influencing their opinions on education and persuading them to make changes in the curriculum.

Second, Baikita is a servant. De Pree says, “Above all, leadership is a position of servanthood” (De Pree, 1992). Baikita wants nothing more in life than to serve the people in his home country. He is living in Nashville until June learning about the American education system. Baikita plans to implement aspects of the American school system in Chad. He is sacrificing time away from his wife and children because this is the route he believes will help him institute change most effectively.

Third, Baikita is creating change, an aspect of leadership Gardner cites (Gardner, 1990). Baikita is working to create change for the good of his country. He is selfless and doing it for the greater good. One change Baikita is working towards is equal opportunity for girls and boys to attend school. The belief among many Chadian’s is that boys attend school; females work in the home. This has been a cultural belief for many years. Baikita disagrees with this and is teaching others the benefits of young girls becoming educated.

Lastly, Baikita is assembling people to help him reach his goal. When he returns to Chad, he will meet with several individuals convincing them to realize the changes that need to be made in Chad’s school systems. “Leadership is the reciprocal process of mobilizing, by persons with certain motives and values, various economic, political, and other resources, in a context of competition and conflict, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers” (Burns, 1978).

Baikita is in every aspect a leader. He has not only given me an extremely positive example of leadership, but he is showing me what kind of leader I hope to become – one who tackles extreme obstacles head on, a servant to others, one who creates positive change, and an individual who can rally those around them for a noble cause. Baikita is a selfless individual who is courageous, yet vulnerable at times. With leaders like Baikita, positive change will be created and have a lasting effect.

“Chad – Educational System Overview.” (2010) Chad - Educational System—overview

Groupthink: The American Way?

After reading the article by Irving L. Janis on the groupthink phenomena I began to think about the decisions made in this country both big and small. Groupthink has, without question, been a large part of the decision making of our country for a long time. Look back to the birth of the United States for example. A group of rebellious statesmen came together to create and sign a declaration of independence that represented thirteen colonies and thousands of people. In this case the end result was positive, but it created one of the bloodiest and most difficult times in American history.

The reality is groupthink is one of the ways by which many of our most important decisions are made. No matter what political party our president may fall under; they surround themselves with like-minded advisors and cabinet members. These advisors can be of little to no help in certain situations. In the article written by Janis he describes Kennedy's decision makers during the Bay of Pigs fiasco as, "the greatest array of intellectual talent in the history of American Government" (Janis, 1971). This amass of talent did not stop them from becoming victims of groupthink and making poor choices. The concern of the group to conform to leadership created a fatal flaw in group decision making.

The most recent examples of groupthink that our leadership has presented is the decision of the Bush administration to extend their war campaign into Iraq. This in order to, in Bush's words, "disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people" (From Bush's radio address before the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom). Many were opposed to this, but the republican advisors that Bush had placed under him saw no reason why this was not an appropriate step in their agenda. Their group saw this as a necessary advancement and the group conformed to the social expectations of the party. Even the Obama administration may be falling victim to groupthink within this conflict. In the most recent declarations out of White House the administration is claiming an end to the Iraq War. In this situation the administration might be declaring an end too soon. Iraq is still in a great deal of political turmoil, but Obama has promises to keep. He also has a party and an advisory that is committed to ending what Bush began no matter what.

I believe that our American Government has been set up beautifully for groupthink mentality. Our government is split sharply in to two main parties with very different viewpoints. Our social norms push for conformity, and contradiction is put in such a negative light that we avoid it with all costs. In many cases our opinions that go against the group are held back, because we fear confrontation. We fear the potential to be viewed as an outsider. This type of decision making has shown that it can have very poor consequences for our country. Many of the mistakes our leadership has made from the Bay of Pigs to Iraq can be attributed to the groupthink phenomena. Groupthink is an important issue that our countries leadership is facing. Our system of leadership and decision making may very well be flawed.

My questions are these:

-Is groupthink a flaw of our leadership that can be fixed? Should it?

-What will it take for our leadership to overcome groupthink mentality and our push for group conformity?

-Is Obama's administration falling victim to groupthink in their recent declarations?

-What other examples can you think of where our leadership has fallen victim to a groupthink mentality?

Thanks for reading! I hope you enjoyed considering the points I brought up, and I look forward to discussing them further.

Servant Leadership at Starbucks

The most impressing statement in articles I have read was De Pree’s (1992) “Above all, leadership is a position of servanthood.” This one word ‘servanthood’ explains what a leader is; a servant. Because leaders are not people who just order or dictate employers, punish or award performance. Otherwise the term ‘manager’ would be more appropriate when defining that kind of people. Leadership heavily involves building relationships, understanding beneficiaries’ (personnel, board, customers etc.) needs, feelings, emotions and values. Because, in order to serve people, just understanding these features is not enough. A leader should possess empathy that is the ability to share another person's feelings and emotions as if they were his/her own. As Pagonis (2001) implies “No one is a leader who can’t put himself or herself in the other person’s shoes” empathy is an essential feature for leadership. Zaleznik (1997) also clarifies it saying that “Empathy is not simply a matter of paying attention to other people”.

This is not a new idea. The Holy Bible tells us that Christ showed a good example of servant leadership saying that “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet” (John 13:14), and also remember that George Washington signed his letters; "Your most humble and obedient servant."

There are some business stories which show us that leaders who care their employees’ benefits exist. The story of Starbucks is one of the good examples of servant leadership. Howard Behar, the former president of Starbucks Coffee Company North America and Starbucks Coffee International, tells the leadership style at Starbucks in his book: It's Not About The Coffee: Leadership Principles from a Life at Starbucks (2007). Lichtenwalner (2009) briefly summarizes this example:

Howard Behar and Dave Olsen spoke of many challenges they faced during the rapid expansion of Starbucks. However, in spite of many challenges, they never lost sight of their values. For example, although there was often pressure to reduce their prices, the company needed these prices to maintain commitments to their partners. The prices for Starbuck’s products ensured their ability to provide the same health insurance to anyone working 20 hours or more a week that they provided to the CEO. As Mr. Behar said, “people forget what’s in that cup of coffee”, cheaper cups of coffee elsewhere may not contain those same benefits for the person serving the coffee. But this is nothing compared to the challenge they faced while dealing with a tragedy in 1997.

Behar shared the story of when three Starbucks employees were murdered in DC during a botched robbery. The event clearly still touched him deeply. He explained how Howard Schultz, CEO, did not call Public Relations or legal counsel. Instead, Schultz dropped everything, flew to the store and spent the entire week visiting with the families and employees in the area. As Dave Olsen, Senior Vice President of Culture and Leadership Development said, leadership is “largely about having courage to do the right thing”. Or, as Behar said, “Leading with compassion never stops…there’s no time off”.

Measurable Success from Servant Leadership in Troubled Times:

While other food services companies experience turnover in the 200% to 400% range annually, Starbucks sees only about 65% at the high end (lower for certain positions). The company touts many achievements including Best Companies to Work For, Best Corporate Citizens, Most Admired Companies and Most Ethical Companies awards. All this from an organization with over $10 Billion in sales annually.

Furthermore, Howard Schultz, chairman and chief global strategist of Starbucks Coffee, briefly summarizes his servant leadership perspective (Stafford, 2004):

“We have to lead with our hearts. In business, as in life, we each should have an internal compass that guides our decisions, an instinctive understanding of what matters most in this world. For me, it’s not profits, or sales, or number of stores, but the passion, commitment, and enthusiasm of a dedicated group of people.”

Finally, I have found this positive example important, for it shows the relation between leadership and servanthood. Serving well creates a chain reaction. A leader serves the employees, then they increase their commitment and quality of the job, so they can serve customers well, customers enjoy the service and value the company, so both the reputation and profits of the company soar.

I hope you enjoyed this first post of the semester. Thanks for reading.

Further reading

Books:

Robert K. Greenleaf, Larry C. Spears. (1977). Servant Leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press. Can be previewed online at http://books.google.com/books?id=gOexpCA5JqIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Servant+Leadership+at+Toro:+Making+the+Grass+Greener+on+Your+Side+by+Ken+Melrose&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Melrose, Ken. (1995). Making The Grass Greener On Your Side: a CEO's journey to leading by serving. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc. Can be previewed online at http://books.google.com/books?id=lJ3udKNRNiwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Servant+Leadership+at+Toro:+Making+the+Grass+Greener+on+Your+Side+by+Ken+Melrose&source=bl&ots=uQV1xsHPM2&sig=fd5oXRPEeSabjQle5R1axkBw7eU&hl=en&ei=kxeFTP6KPIXGlQetuu2eDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Servant%20Leadership%20at%20Toro%3A%20Making%20the%20Grass%20Greener%20on%20Your%20Side%20by%20Ken%20Melrose&f=false

Websites:

The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Website at: http://www.greenleaf.org/

The Modern Servant Leader. Website at: http://www.serveforleading.com/

References

De Pree, Max. (1992). “The Attributes of Leadership: A Checklist,” pp. 218-226. Leadership Jazz. NY: Dell.

Pagonis, William G. (2001). “Leadership in a Combat Zone,” HBR.

Zaleznik, Abraham. (May-Jun 1977). “Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?” HBR 55:3, 67-79.

Behar, Howard. (2007). It's Not About the Coffee: Leadership Principles from a Life at Starbucks. Portfolio Hardcover Publishing. ISBN: 1591841925 website at: http://www.howardbehar.com/home.shtml

Lichtenwalner, Benjamin. (2009). 5 Examples of Leadership Success in Troubled Times. Retrieved from: http://advice.cio.com/benjamin_lichtenwalner/5_examples_of_leadership_success_in_troubled_times?page=0,2

Stafford, Mike. (2004). Starbucks Servant-Leaders Pour Their Hearts Into It. The Servant Leader Newsletter. Retrieved from: www.greenleaf.org/Sumr04NL.pdf

Once a Leader, Always a Leader?

Going to my 10-year high school reunion this weekend, reminded that about the roles in leadership in adolescence. For some high school was the best years of their lives, while for others high school was something they would love to forget. What is interesting to consider is who were the leaders in high school, and are those still leaders today? If we were born leaders, then wouldn’t we always be leaders?

The Senior Class Officers of the Class of 1999 planned the event. They were elected leaders of the class that year, but were they still leaders today? Who were now the leaders in this class? One of the officers is an orthodontist, another an owner of a Curves gym in Egypt, another a lawyer, one never finished his college degree and was taking side jobs to pay the bills, another didn’t even come out to the event. So were these people still leaders in their community?

While all of them continued to have that charisma that Choi (2006) mentions as a quality of leadership, they did not all have the other qualities of the charismatic leader. They were not showing empathy or empowering others, they seemed to have a vision for their life, but not one to share with others.

The next question I thought to myself was, were they ever really leaders? They held positions of leadership, but that does not qualify them as effective leaders. Did they actually have followers? Did they ever inspire or influence anyone? Were they in a position of power, but not a leader? If this was the case, then they maybe it wasn’t about being a leader, but being charismatic and popular. Now that high school is over and the popularity contest presents itself in limited opportunities, leaders may be able to be identified more clearly for their traits like Choi (2006) and Hackman and Johnson (1991) mention like the ability to envision, empathize, influence, and communicate.

According to Burns (1968), a transformational leader is someone who brings followers up from within. The person who now owns a Curves gym in Egypt was also voted Most Congenial senior year. She was empathetic towards others and did inspire people from her actions and her sentiments. She showed leadership qualities in high school, and seems to continue to be leading others today.

This leads me to believe that she had those leadership traits all along and continues to be a leader growing stronger with experience and expertise, where some of the others only had charisma. Khurana (2002) mentions how we can be blinded by charisma. I believe the combination of charisma with other traits can be a strong leader, but charisma in and of itself can only produce something in the short-term. Eventually there has to be more. According to Sashkin (1989), “the true visionary leader can vision over a time span of 10-20 years” (p. 405). She’s well on her way ten years later.

P.S. I was an SGA Officer. J

"Authentic Leadership?"

Bill George, professor of management practice at Harvard Business School, former chair and CEO of Medtronic, and board member of ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, and Novartis, wrote an article about leadership for U.S. News in November 2008, just as the financial crisis had struck. His article is titled “Failed Leadership Caused the Financial Crisis,” and in it he claims the fall off Lehman, AIG, etc. “were not caused by complex financial instruments. They result from failures in leadership.” Whereas Mr. George points to avarice and irresponsibility on the part of the financial industry’s leadership as the main cause of the economic meltdown, I think it is more prudent to say that while leadership played a role, investment strategy was most highly at fault and, moreover, it was most likely a combination of the two and not leadership alone.

So far the focus of our class has been to take in and understand the full canon of leadership theory, but – aside from Great Man theory and Distributed Leadership theory – we have rarely made value judgments on the ideas. Mr. George, however, believes the heads of the major institutions failed to exhibit proper leadership because their companies failed. What he seems to mean, however, is that the strategies implemented by these leaders were not in the best interests of the companies or their shareholders.

After a semester of studying leadership, I have come to believe that failed leadership would look more like a breakdown in communication or a poorly executed vision – not necessarily the holding of a “bad” agenda. Nearly all of the leadership theories, but especially Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership and Kelly/Roth’s Followership articles emphasize the importance of leadership as a communicative endeavor and therefore less dependent upon the leader’s vision or agenda and more related to how he or she expresses it over the long run.
Mr. George shares a list of five points describing what he calls “authentic leadership:”

1. They should be authentic leaders, focused on serving their clients and all the institution's constituents, rather than charismatic leaders seeking money, fame, and power for themselves.
2. They should place the interests of their institutions and society as a whole above their own interests.
3. They should have the integrity to tell the whole truth, admit their mistakes, and acknowledge their shortcomings. Authentic leadership is not about being perfect. It is having the courage to admit when you're wrong and to get on with solving problems, rather than covering them up.
4. They need to adapt quickly to new realities, changing themselves as well as their institutions, rather than going into denial when things don't go as intended.
5. They need the resilience to bounce back after devastating losses. Resilience enables leaders to restore trust by empowering people to create new solutions that build great institutions for the future.

I believe his theory of “authentic leadership” is overly condemning of Wall Street’s leadership. Clearly there were major strategic flaws – it was unwise to invest so heavily in mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps created a web of vulnerability that investors continued to buy into. These were critical strategic problems. I cannot agree with Mr. George, however, that these leader’s strategic decisions represent a failure in leadership.

In ways, this discussion relates to the issue of defining leadership. Had Mr. George written that the economic crisis resulted in failed leadership (and not discussed strategic shortcomings), it would be conceivable to view his definition of leadership as one that is inclusive of strategy. Since he deliberately outlined a prescription for “authentic leadership,” though, and included discussion of strategy in his article, it is clear that he intends to criticize the moral stature and motivation of leaders – and furthermore suggests that their investment strategies were indicative of their moral failures. Mr. George’s giant leap – that bad investments evidence bad leadership does nothing but inappropriately oversimplify the situation.

Do you think leadership alone is at fault?

George, Bill. "Failed Leadership Caused the Financial Crisis - US News and World Report." US News & World Report - Breaking News, World News, Business News, and America's Best Colleges - USNews.com. Web. 30 Nov. 2009. .

The Sobering Reality Is, Leadership Today is Not that Funny

To celebrate the upcoming holiday, I chose to take some time to catch up on one of my favorite shows, 30 Rock. Ready for a night of laughter, I picked a random episode to watch online. That’s when it happened. Leadership theory, in all its glory, reminded me that its presence is everywhere. In a previous episode the fictional head of the NBC network, Jack Donaghy (Alec Baldwin), asked Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) to add a new cast member to her show, TGS. He wanted someone who could attract “real American” viewers because NBC needed a boost in revenue. Liz, resentful of Jack for his elitist perspective, conspires with a co-worker to rig the audition. Feeling torn about this decision, the following dialogue ensued:

Liz: “Come on guys, these are people up here with feelings and mothers who worry about them.”

Jack: “Lemon, stop right there. You are on top of the pyramid…you can’t let emotions distract you from making decisions about the slaves who built the pyramid”.

Liz: “Geez, sorry I’m not a robot.”

Jack: “We all are. But we are getting there. In ten years, this entire network will be all but the size of a microchip. Until then, you’re in charge. Think like a robot—be logical and dispassionate.”

And with those words, my night of non-academic fun time went down the drain. My mind couldn’t help but drift from the humor this show normally brings to the startling reality it was commenting on. Is that how followers in the business world see their leaders? As non-empathetic individuals who brush aside the needs of their followers for ratings and a fattened profit margin? Yet 30 Rock, in its comedic fashion, asserts that this is exactly how business, at least show business, continues to be conducted.

Where, in Jack’s leadership style, is Choi’s (2006) idea of charismatic leaders utilizing empathy to understand the needs of followers so to help them meet their objectives? What about Goleman’s (2000) assertion that “empathy allows the affiliative leader to respond in a way that is highly congruent with that person’s emotions, thus building rapport”? And characterizing followers as “slaves”? Whew, what a way to show complete disinterest in fostering a positive leader-follower relationship many theorists describe as inherently important in leading others(Burns, Selznick, Stogdill, Geneen, Goleman, Choi, Rost, Kelly, Goodpastor, Sendjaya, Greenleaf, Smith et al.)?

The absence of such leadership characteristics as positive regard for followers, utilization of empathy, and acknowledgement of an ethical responsibility to society is exactly what the show criticizes. Indeed, the approach Jack takes to leadership is one that Milton Friedman (1970) would be proud of. Rather than caring about the needs of society, the only responsibility corporate executives have is “to make as much money as possible”. If this is a metric for assessing Jack’s leadership style, then I guess one could say he exceeds expectations. But at what cost to his followers, to society?

To conclude, the underlying implication for this comedic criticism of leadership is really not that funny. If millions of viewers worldwide are laughing at the assertion that today’s business leaders are mere “robots” looking only to expand their bottom line then perhaps there is a real dilemma in how business is conducted. Is this really how society views our leaders, as a punch line to a sick joke on society? Or is the punch line that viewers assume this is how corporate leaders act (and thus tune in to watch)? Regardless, corporate executives are happy. After all, if one’s responsibility is to the profit margin why really worry about what sells at all?

Leadership Style Re-Invigorates "Original Six" Franchise

Growing up in Chicago, I have always been a pretty big hockey fan. The Chicago Blackhawks are the toast of the town and that can be attributed to John F. McDonough. John McDonough is the President of the Chicago Blackhawks. He became President in 2007. McDonough took over as President of a franchise that was so out touch with the public and had cut ties with people/companies long affiliated with the team. Since his reign as President began, the Blackhawks franchise has had a new life breathed into it. They have become the successful "Original Six" team that they were in the past.

As the turnaround of the organization has been contemplated, so has McDonough's leadership style. He has appeared to have the right traits (DePree), situation (Goleman), and context (Selznick) in which to succeed. In an article in the Chicago Tribune, tenants of McDonough's philosophy of leadership have been listed. These tenants include, “Relationships and personality are essential keys to success; Embrace failure. It's the residue of creativity and innovation; and Leaders are never afraid to take blame or acknowledge the success of others". http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-19-haugh-side-nov19,0,1505009.story

McDonough's leadership style relates to numerous theories we've discussed in class.

McDonough came to the Blackhawks from the Chicago Cubs, where he helped to make the Cubs an even more fan friendly franchise. When he came over to the Blackhawks organization, he had to convince the other front office members (the followers) that his new vision would be the best solution to solving the problems the organization was facing (Heifitz, 1994). Gardner mentions power when he says that leaders have the power to set the agenda, which then enables them to mobilize their followers (Gardner, 1990), which related to one of McDonough’s tenants of leadership. This part of his idea of leadership says “Relationships and personality are essential keys to success” which also ties in with the new vision idea. McDonough had to mobilize his followers, by establishing relationships with them in order for them to follow his new vision to attain success in the organization.

Like Selznick, Burns and Heifitz have discussed, McDonough was able to motivate the other members of the organization to buy into his new way of thinking and successfully start to turn the organization around. As McDonough began to implement his new plans for the Chicago Blackhawks, people began to buy into this plan and became dedicated to the new vision as well (Sashkin, 1989).

It has been two years since McDonough has been President of the Chicago Blackhawks. His new vision of where the take the franchise in the future has already been deeply ingrained into the franchise culture. His idea of leadership has helped to successfully re-invigorate what appeared to be an out of touch and secluded hockey franchise.

Unethical Leadership

On 7^th January 2009, Satyam’s founder and Chairman B. Ramalinga Raju admitted that he had systematically falsified accounts as the company expanded from a handful of employees into a back-office giant with a large work force and operations in 66 countries.

Satyam Computer Services was a leading software consultancy, system integration and outsourcing firm in India with clients across 65 countries. It was later taken over by Tech Mahindra Ltd. in April 2009. As Cadbury says in his article, “The character of a company is a matter of importance to those in it, to those who do business with it, and to those who are considering joining it”. A part of this was clearly evident when late last year the World Bank barred Satyam from doing business with it for eight years over "improper benefits" paid to staff. Later, as news of the scam broke out, Satyam lost many other clients to its competitors.

In the four-and-a-half page letter that Mr. Raju wrote to make his confession, he described a small discrepancy that grew beyond his control. He wrote “What started as a marginal gap between actual operating profit and the one reflected in the books of accounts continued to grow over the years. It had attained unmanageable proportions as the size of company operations grew”. His reasoning was that he was trying to save Satyam and similar to what Gellerman describes - a belief that the activity was within reasonable ethical and legal limits….. that it was in the best interest of the corporation.

Satyam’s debacle once again proved what WorldCom and Enron have proven in the past--- leaders can lead their organizations towards glory or disaster. Many theorists like Sims and Brinkmann; and Barnard believe this happens as the leader’s personal values shape the organizational ethics. Some leaders fail to operate from what McCoy calls “a thoughtful set of personal values that provide the foundation for a corporate culture”.

This role of the leader’s values in creating organizational culture is very important in the business world today which is very complex and is constantly throwing challenges at organizations. Peter Senge talks about how organizations need to develop the ability to learn continuously to survive. This continuous learning, according to him, requires transformation of the organizational culture and it’s the role of the leader to facilitate this transformation. Such a leader would help his employees recognize their unquestioned assumptions about the market; customers; the way things work etc., and help them entertain the possibility that they could be wrong. Such a leader would create a climate where failures and mistakes would be openly discussed ….because that is how human beings and organizations learn, by opening up and contemplating on their mistakes and improving them with the help of others.

Therefore, I think, that a leader, who is not open to disclosing and discussing with his employees, the problems the organization is facing, will lead an organization to disaster because he would be preventing his employees and the organization from becoming ‘learners’ and a ‘learning organization’ respectively. As he would be lacking values such as transparency and reflection, he would fail to shape a culture that fosters individual and organizational learning. I would call such a leader unethical even though he may not end up committing a fraud. What are your thoughts?

Implications of Generation Y on Leadership

In the recent years many people have written articles and even books on the new generation of employees entering the workplace, Generation Y. This new generation of employees has very different values and expectations than previous generations we have seen. The young business professionals of this generation are characterized as being very technology savvy, wanting information and results immediately, are money driven, have a sense of entitlement and are very diverse. They value rapid career growth, learning, work/life balance and corporate social responsibility. They are entering a workplace that is multi-generational, sharing their workspaces and competing for jobs with veterans, boomers and X generations that have traditionally valued and expected very different things in the workplace. The difference between generations got me thinking and proposed many questions. Are companies changing their leadership models to adapt to this new generation of employees, or do company’s models always stay the same? Do the same theories that we have been discussing in our class hold true today for leaders dealing with followers in Generation Y? How do leaders remain effective in this new rapidly changing and diverse workplace?

After reading through some articles (sited below) and a few websites (shrm.org & businessweek.com) a few common recommendations came up for leaders of Generation Y employees. Some of the recommendations included, being flexible and adaptable in ones leadership style and being aware of what factors motivate each generation, using these to be able to motivate followers to produce desired results. They also recommend that leadership should promote a heavy concentration on building communication skills and be able to demonstrate authenticity in their leadership.

These recommendations for a model of leadership in this new generation of employees started to look very similar to the models we having been discussing throughout the semester. Reflecting on these recommendations, they touch on understanding leadership from a communication standpoint (Burns, Hackman & Johnson, Bernard, Gardner). They touch on theorist points of leadership as being able to motivate followers to achieve goals and being able to focus on individual development (McGregor, Stogdill, Gardner, Burns, Zaleznik). They also reflect on authenticity in theories that we have discussed such as in servant leadership (Greenleaf) and transformational leadership (Burns). Lastly, they are touching on the flexibility in leadership by leadership depending on the situation and/or context (Heifitz, Cronin, Goleman).

Therefore, do you think that ones model of leadership should or needs to change when dealing with different generations of people? How are companies training Generation Y to be the next generation of leaders? Will this look different then what they have done for previous leaders due to the Generation Y’s values and expectations? And lastly, what are the implications for Generation Z and future generations to come? What can leaders take away from Generation Y to help prepare themselves for future generations?

References

Smith, S. (2005/2006). Employers and the New Generation of Employees. Community College Journal, 76(3), 9-13.

Wagner, D. (2007). Managing an Age-Diverse Workplace. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(4), 8-10.

Weinstein, M. (2009). Next-Generation Leaders. Training, 46(4), 17-19.

The Lady Leader

As we are concluding our discussions on defining and exploring leadership, I have found myself wondering what the role gender plays into the definition of leadership at the corporate level. I am particularly curious what the class makes of this, especially considering our class is primarily women (although boys, Al included, I will say have been extremely vocal with regards to all topics). For the most part, all of our readings (even those far dating all of us) are politically correct to not gender-ize leadership. For the most part, it appears that leadership is a combination of traits (DePree), situation (Goleman), and context (Selznick). But I can’t help but wonder if all the characteristics, situations, and contexts which contribute to a successful and effective leader, must be scaled differently depending upon gender. And if it does, does this directly imply that leadership is perhaps more anchored in trait theory (if we can even call gender a trait at all…) than initially thought?

We have spoken on leaders being empathetic, envisioning, and empowering (Choi). But I think that this is limited when speaking upon specific leaders. Often women who are seen as overly empathetic are perceived as overly sensitive and lacking aggression. In contrast, those women who display strict goals and some of the more aggressive tactics, ones that their male counterparts identically mirror, are seen as cutthroat, merciless and witches. My experience with women executives leaders has been limited. But for the most part, I have seen they are perceived as ruthless . Men are in contrast seen as driven and successful. Why is this? And what does it imply for future female leaders? What is the solution for working towards improving the perception of female leaders? I think that the glass ceiling that was in the past more present has cracked, but at the upper executive level, I think is far from being shattered.

As we are working towards characterizing a leader, I think that sometimes our definitions are catered towards the definition of the “male” leader (though I acknowledge not entirely). I don’t think that women can exercise usage of powers (Hughes) as freely as men are able to in the same degree. Coercive power is far more difficult for women to utilize than perhaps it is for men (regardless of its effectiveness). Also along with power, I believe that referent power needs to play a much higher role than legitimate power, simply because often subordinate males still prove to be more resistant to responding to such types of power. In much the same, charisma plays a much larger role in a women’s role as a leader than it may in a male’s role as a leader.

My main question that I am trying to answer is while we are working to qualify leadership, are we taking everything into consideration? Does gender even play a role at all in perception of leadership and thus the effectiveness of leadership? Does being a successful women take away from their status as feminine (such as Carly Fiorina, or even Hilary Clinton)? What types of leadership execution needs to (or unconsciously does) vary or yield depending upon gender?

PERSONAL NOTE: I am not a feminist male-hating individual and instead greatly appreciate the successes of our male counterpart in the progress of the workworld.

The World's Most Powerful People

The World’s Most Powerful People

As I was searching for a topic for this last blog post, I found myself on Forbes.com, “Homepage for the World’s Business Leaders.” Surely with a title like that, they must know a thing or two about leadership. Sure enough, right on their homepage was a link to their list of the “World’s Most Powerful People,” and I set out to find what their criteria were, and if this could turn out to be a list of the most well-known leaders of the world. After all, the link takes you to section of the site called “Leadership.”

The list is comprised of “67 heads of state, criminals, financiers, and philanthropists who really run the world.” So far, these sound like leaders to me. I read on to find their four dimensions that define power:

1. Influence over lots of other people
2. Control over large financial resources compared with peers
3. Powerful in multiple spheres – projecting influence in multiple ways
4. Actively use their power

Countless numbers of our readings have included influence and power in analyses of leadership. Heifitz writes about leaders influencing people to accept the leader’s vision without coercion. He means that it is the leader’s job to convince the followers that the vision he or she has set is the best solution to solving the problems the organization is facing (Heifitz, 1994). Similar to Heifitz, Gardner mentions power when he says that leaders have the power to set the agenda, which then enables them to mobilize their followers (Gardner, 1990). Stogdill would agree with #4 that leaders must be active, since leadership is a working relationship wherein the leader is an active participant. He says that “leadership implies activity, movement, getting work done.” This would mean that a leader must be using his or her power or influence at all times with the goal of accomplishing a task (Stogdill, 1948). Hughes explicitly outlines different types of power and defines influence a leader has over followers. He defines power as the capacity to produce effects on others or the potential to influence. A leader will use influence tactics to change a follower’s beliefs or behaviors. He then explains the five different types of power: expert power, referent power, legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power (Hughes, 1993). Surely if we went down the entire Forbes list, we would find many examples of each of these types of power. These readings, among many others I’m sure I have omitted, are important in distinguishing a “powerful person” from a leader. Many theorists (Hughes, Gardner, Stogdill) would argue that a leader has power, whether it is just to set the goals for the organization, or if it is the power of a leader’s knowledge the gives him or her authority over the followers.

I would personally argue that while Forbes’ “power dimensions” are not a definition of leadership in themselves, they have hit on two major points we have discussed in our own search for the definition. I would, however, leave #3 out because I don’t think that relative control of financial resources is a necessary attribute of a leader. I am glad that Forbes chose to title their list “World’s Most Powerful People” and not “The World’s Most Influential Leaders” because I think their intent was really to highlight the power these people possess, and not their leadership traits, skills, or style. Though power and influence is important to leadership, those two factors alone do not make up a leader. This list is still important because it shows how the influence or power held by only 67 people can have an impact on nearly every one of the other 6,700,000,000 people on this planet.

If you look at the complete list at http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/11/worlds-most-powerful-leadership-power-09-people_land.html you will see familiar names. At the top of the list is our country’s leader, President Barack Obama. In addition to many other heads of state, also on the list are Oprah Winfrey, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, Pope Benedict XVI, and Rex Tillerson (ExxonMobil). It’s quite an impressive list, and we could spend another full semester deciding whether or not these people are leaders.

I think it is safe to say that not all leaders have to be powerful in the way Forbes describes, since leaders can have a smaller impact on the world, but do you think all really powerful people are leaders?

Becca Stevens: Leadership & The Magdalene Women

In 2008, police in Nashville charged more than 1300 women with prostitution. Some of the lucky ones have found a way out of destitution and addiction through a Nashville-based program called The Magdalene Project.

Envisioned and founded in 1997 by Becca Stevens, Episcopal priest and Vanderbilt Chaplain, The Magdalene Project mobilizes people and resources to provide hope, help, and homes for prostitutes (Heifitz, 1988). Grounded in love, Stevens positively models Greenleaf’s “servant leadership” (1977) as she makes sure the greatest of needs of her followers are addressed first— to get them off the street and to safety. Steven’s demonstrates Selznick’s (1975) practical idea that leadership is a “kind of work done to meet the needs of a social situation.”

Becca’s goal is to help this sub-culture of women and to change greater cultural beliefs that females can be bought and sold. With Magdalene, women get into a safe, compassionate and disciplined community. Becca’s attempt to change the culture from one of degradation to one of valuing women exhibits the cultural change aspect of leadership described by Schein (1985). By turning values into reality, Stevens exemplifies visionary leadership (Sashkin 1989; Choi, 2006). We see transformational leadership as she helps elevate followers with “rising up through levels of morality” to a better life (Bass and Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978).

Becca’s servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) continued when she saw that women needed more than just a safe place to live. Starting Thistle Farms in 2001 as a non-profit off-shoot, the women now work and learn responsibility and commitment. The business involves their hand-crafting and home-selling of holistic bath and body products—providing women with much-needed and appreciated job skills and a huge dose of self-esteem. This way, Stevens provides women a platform for moral values and creative work, as Barnard (1938) and Selznick (1975) described in their leadership writings. Product sales funnel back into the program and help keep it going. We see McGregor’s Theory Y notion (1960) here that people will be self-directed about achieving organizational objectives as long as they are committed. Magdalene women are committed to their healing and growth by doing a good job while on the job.

Becca’s actions are grounded in her inner calling that “love is the most powerful force for change in the world” (www.thistlefarms.org). With over nine additional leadership theorists/authors cited, it is Becca’s servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) that stands out for me. Her actions have led more than 200 women to a better life--women who formerly had little to no hope. Estimates by the United Way (personal communication, 2009) estimate that between 70-80% of women graduate and never return to a life street walking.

If these figures were not available, is there any question of Becca’s leadership actions around a difficult social issue? Do you see other leadership theories working in the life of Reverend Becca Stevens? If so, do you think any of them overshadow her display of servant leadership?

We found the leaders!

It seems that humans have been trying for quite some time to determine who is a leader, or at least what is indicative of a leader. Everything from personality and achievement tests, as well as behavioral interviews and in-depth observation has been tried. Still the root of leader, presuming one exists, remains elusive. However, let’s imagine that we have found the indicator of leadership ability- and it’s a tangible thing. For the purpose of this blog entry, all left handed people have leadership ability (my mom is a leftie-she would be so proud!). Now that we have found these people, we can develop them, right?

During class I had been wondering what would happen if we answered the question about how to identify those with leadership ability so that it would then be possible to cultivate such ability. So now that we’ve hypothetically identified people with leadership talent, now comes the question of it can be developed into something that the person can utilize in a productive way. We now know that all of the lefties are potential leaders and that the ability is present. How do we go about developing their ability? Do we treat it like innate musical ability, providing lessons and space for creativity, unfettered by other activities? Or is like athletic ability, where we encourage and require practice of the discipline and competition among others? Or is it more like the capacity for language and literacy, where learning the basics is the beginning to an almost limitless set of words and cultures? Can it be taught like a college major that is skills driven, such as accountancy, where upon showing your leftie-ness, you engage in theory based courses and practical internships?

From our readings for this week, Robert Fulmer in “The Evolving Paradigm of Leadership Development” discusses that leadership development is an on-going process, suggesting that the above ways of cultivating ability would not work for leadership. Also he delves into the concepts of creating leaders who can create a future and nurture other leaders, a concept that we have also discussed in class. Perhaps then these leftie leaders should engage in peer teaching and learning, because of the flexible nature of leadership. Using Fulmer’s ideas, one could say that we would need to devote a lifetime to the leadership development of our lefties, much like we do now, despite not actually knowing if anyone has innate leadership ability. Maybe it doesn’t truly matter if we know that someone has leadership ability…

To conclude I ask, is the true question how to identify those with leadership skills, or what to do with them once we find them?

Collective Intelligence or Colossal Distraction?

In another class I have with Dr. Robbins, we discussed collective intelligence and crowd sourcing. In short:

Collective Intelligence: pooling existing social knowledge through networking, enabled by communications technology, where users generate their own content. Think Wikipedia.

Crowd Sourcing: employers or organizations assign tasks traditionally performed by an employee or contractor to a “crowd.” The public may be invited to develop a new technology (remember when LG offered a reward for the best design for its new phone?); innocentive.com is a thriving open marketplace for solutions to problems of all kinds and at all prices.

We concluded that these phenomena are not only permanent, but are making permanent changes in the infrastructure of organizations. MIT even hosts its Center for Collective Intelligence to conduct research on how communications technologies are changing they way people work together. How do the leadership theories we have studied fare in today’s organization where CI and CS are on the uptake? For one thing, it provides a healthy check on groupthink. (Irving 1971). It’s hard to avoid an outsider’s perspective when idea development is open to the public.

But how does the exponential change in access to information that almost any “follower” has today look in the frameworks of, say, McGregor’s work?

McGregor would whole-heartedly support CI/CS. He says development within an organization should involve many rather than a few and that it should focus on unique capacities rather than common objectives (1966). While players in a CS network are working toward a common objective, CS hinges on the unique capabilities of crowd members. CI/CS opportunities count on Theory Y (1960) being in action – those who participate are doing so for self-fulfillment (even if that fulfillment comes in the form of money or glory). People are, as McGregor states, self-directing their own achievement of objectives that they are committed to.

But what abut CI/CS opportunities outside of one’s organization: Do these create a leadership dilemma? If leaders are motivating followers in their organizations toward a common goal or mission (Burns 1978; Heifitz 1994; Selznick 1957; Sashkin 1989) then do countless and easily accessible opportunities for collaboration and innovation pose dangerous competition for follower attention?

I think these trends that are altering the workplace, the university, and society present a whole new set of challenges for leaders in harnessing a focus in their followers while also fostering cognitive development. This opportunity would, I think, come back to the organization as a value in the form of an effective, critically thinking, active follower (Kelly 1988), but one who spends time and energy on goals unrelated to the organization.

For Burns (1978), as another example, it seems the leader should be open to his/her followers’ pursuit of such opportunities as an enabler of self-actualization. But where does that leave the follower’s devotion to the organization’s goals?

This dilemma has no doubt been around for as long as the theories in the form of any kind of distraction. But CI/CS presents a developmentally valuable, monetarily rewarding, structured framework for distraction. How might other theorists respond to this challenge?

So What Does Google Think??

So we are getting to the end of the wire... and as we are all trying to come up with our own models of leadership and opinions of whether or not it can be taught, I thought why not look into what Google thinks about this. We ask Google everything else, right?

I was fortunate enough to come across an interview conducted on August 18, 2009 with Evan Wittenberg, head of Global Leadership Development at Google. He makes some very interesting and intriguing comments about Google's opinion of leadership and asks many of the same questions we have asked throughout this course. Overall, Wittenberg describes Google's opinion of leadership with the following: "It's not authority based leadership. It's credibility, it's innovation, it's influence. It's the kinds of things anybody at any level could use to be more effective and help Google." Their view of leadership aligns with the values of their organization (Burns, Selznick, Heifitz). He goes on to say this is possible because everyone is dedicated and passionate about the vision. (Sashkin, 1989). This idea reminds me of Choi's model of leadership (Choi, 2006). It comes down to envisioning, empowerment, and empathy. Google focuses on all three and they put that responsibility in the hands of every employee. Their focus on the importance of teamwork and trust in each other models elements of servant leadership. All employees are servant leaders by serving first. (Greenleaf, 1991). They are serving each other and ultimately all serving Google's mission first above all else.

So with this model of leadership, what do they provide for development? Well interestingly enough, nothing is mandatory. They do not make anyone go to any of the programs they offer. They want their employees to be motivated to attend on their own so they really believe in the value of the program. McGregor would agree with their opinion to not pick out a select few of employees (McGregor, 1966). So what do they teach? Wittenberg claims they create "lab environments" where employees can come and build on their own personal leadership capabilities by teaching each other and sharing cases and problems from their day-to-day work. At the end of the day, Wittenberg says that the self-awareness piece is one of the most critical to personal leadership growth. It is even the foundational core to their view of leadership development. He says, "You cannot lead anyone until you know yourself..." What does everyone think about Google's decision to not make it mandatory?

I think what is important to notice is everything seems to be aligned at Google; the leadership, the culture, the vision, the values, and the work.

I will leave you with this quote from Wittenberg that says a lot of what they believe in regards to leadership. " Every Googler, every one of our 20,000 people, can act as a leader." In organizations, do you believe this is really true? Can everyone be a leader? Well, Google sure does seem to think so, and I do believe I agree.

Here is the link to the interview: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2009/08/18/VI2009081801485.html