Servant Leadership Exemplified

When considering contemporary religious organizations, perhaps no other well know individual exemplified the concepts of servant leadership more so than Mother Teresa of the Missionaries of Charity.  As a respected leader in the organization for more than 40 years, Mother Teresa led thousands of fellow ministry staff while also giving guidance to innumerable numbers of faithful around the world, (Clucas, 1988). Widely recognized for her humility, charity, courage, and compassion for the poor and powerless, Mother Teresa’s influence continues to inspire commitment to serving the less fortunate today.

Mother Teresa’s calling to a religious vocation developed at a young age.  While she was growing up in Macedonia, she began reading the stories of missionaries who traveled to other countries to care for the needy.  At the age of 12, she decided to devote her life to the service of others, the first of many decisions which highlight Mother Teresa’s lifelong tendency to care for other people more than she cared for herself, (a key, recurring theme within servant leadership). Her altruism and leading-by-doing approach to humanitarian causes worked to generate momentum towards the shared vision of her followers.

As discussed by Smith, Montagno, & Kusmenko (2004), a servant leadership approach can be particularly effective within organizations with a charitable focus.  When examining the relationship between context and the efficacy of different leadership approaches, the authors explain that, “…not-for profit, volunteer, and religious organizations often operate in a more static environment and attract employees who seek opportunities for personal growth, nurturing, and healing.”  In working to expand the ministry to reach more than 100 countries, Mother Teresa’s followers achieved personal growth as they saw their shared vision realized through their efforts on an individual level.  I believe that her cause and her followers benefitted enormously from Mother Teresa’s servant leadership approach and her continual reassurance that challenges, no matter how insurmountable, could not hold back the ministry’s work.  As of 2007, Mother Teresa’s followers in the Missionaries of Charity numbered more than 5000, operating more than 600 missions, schools, clinics, and shelters, all around the world, (Vatican News, 2007).

It seems useful to also consider Mother Teresa’s leadership style as aligning with what Choi would describe as being charismatic.  Choi (2006) explains that, “Charismatic leaders empower their followers by enhancing their perceptions of self-efficacy and their confidence in their ability to overcome obstacles …by functioning as a role model.”  While serving as a role model to her fellow missionaries, the examples of self-sacrifice demonstrated by Mother Teresa were numerous and well documented.  Whether giving away her own sandals to a homeless woman, or fasting for several days to raise awareness of the living conditions in Indian slums, her focus remained on her work, not her own advancement, (Clucas, 1988).  Furthermore, most have described her as being incredibly genuine and able to move people to act with only a few words, another attribute which Choi associates with charisma.  He states that, “…most charismatic leaders…often rely on various rhetorical techniques such as metaphors, analogy, and stories to inculcate ideas into the followers’ minds, so that their message would have a profound impact...” One example that comes to mind of Mother Teresa’s ability to move the public to action with the simplest of words, is her assertion that “peace beings with a smile,” – a simple, yet powerful idea with universal relevance.

It’s clear that Mother Teresa recognized that many looked up to her as a source of inspiration during her life time.  With this admiration came unwanted attention, which she preferred to direct outward into her work.  Instead of accepting credit for the accomplishments of her mission, it seems that her primary objective as a leader was to serve those in need, regardless of her position. Sendjaya & Sarros (2002) describe the servant leader as, “…not the person who promotes himself or herself, but the promoter of others.”  In her role with the Missionaries of Charity, Mother Teresa was able to effectively function as both servant and leader, a skill which likely resulted from her infectious optimism and ability to connect with people from all walks of life.

Additional Works Cited:

Burns, J. (1997, March 9). Followers Struggle to Fill Mother Teresa’s Sandals. The New York Times
    Retrieved Online: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/09/world/followers-struggle-to-fill-mother- teresa-s-sandals.html?ref=teresa_mother

Clucas, J., World Leaders Past and Present. (1988, May). Soulful Tributes Retrieved Online:
    http://www.soulfultributes.org/spiritual_figures/mother_teresa/biography

Mother Teresa of Calcutta. (2002, December). The Vatican News Retrieved Online:
    http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_20031019_madre-teresa_en.html

Questions to consider:

1)      Do you see Mother Teresa’s approach to leadership as being situational?  Why or why not?
2)      How can leaders in for-profit organizations apply self-sacrificing concepts demonstrated by charitable
         and religious organization leaders?
3)      Is it always possible to be both a servant and a leader? 

A New HBO Leader to Debate

I would like to thank HBO for finally filling the ‘Sopranos’ void with its new show created by Sopranos alum Terence Winter and award-winning director Martin Scorsese: ‘Boardwalk Empire’. This show gives us a new “leader” to replace Tony Soprano as the subject of deep arguments and debates for hours on end. The show revolves around Enoch “Nucky” Thompson, who is the multifaceted treasurer of Atlantic City during the 1920’s. Nucky is basically in charge of every business that turns a profit in America’s Playground and will always get paid, no matter what.

Nucky displays many leadership styles (for better and worse) we have studied in this class, but for the sake of the blog, I will only focus on a few. Nucky’s leadership is confronted with a major change in society with the dawn of Prohibition. After our federal government put the ban on the sale of alcohol, bootlegging became an instant money-making profession. As treasurer of Atlantic City (which lies directly on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean), Nucky felt the need to take the opportunity to make some extra money for himself and his city and get involved with bootleggers and gangsters. This brings to mind Selznick’s idea of meeting the needs of a social situation (22). He says that in order to understand the nature of the work done by a leader, you have to know something about the social situation they are called upon to handle. In Nucky’s case, the social situation is that crime and illegal activity were going to start dominating a big portion of the economy, and in order to fulfill his duties as treasurer, he felt that he needed to get his hands dirty in this new venture. Nucky’s new identity, although not known by most of his constituents, is a representation of the impact Prohibition had on many of our country’s various leaders during these times. Organized crime rose drastically in America, and the moral values of leadership became insignificant.

The money Nucky began making from bootlegging clearly was illegal and therefore morally corrupt as determined by law. Cadbury discusses business as a part of the social system in his article and how one cannot isolate the economic elements of major decisions from their social consequences (70). Unfortunately, this is exactly what Nucky does. Blinded by financial gain, Nucky fails to address what major social consequences could arise for him and his city if caught bootlegging. Federal agents begin taking a large interest in Nucky and his business affairs, but Nucky refuses to stop. I guess we will have to continue watching the show to see if Nucky’s illegal affairs end up getting the best of him.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the show is Nucky’s noticeable commitment to his constituents of Atlantic City. As a viewer, we can clearly see that Nucky is not as honorable as he seems, but his followers don’t get to see his morally corrupt side. As Heifitz says, “a leader earns influence by adjusting to the expectations of followers” (17). Nucky makes sure that he is continuously satisfying his followers through gifts or promises and alludes to this year being an “election year” all of the time. Getting votes to remain treasurer is always in the front of his mind, so he is always doing things to better the lives of his people, earning influence day by day. But as Geneen says in his essay, “ultimately, a good leader should do the decent thing…he should know what the decent thing is, everyone else does” (12). It is hard to say that Nucky is not decent, because you can tell he cares about his followers greatly, but you cannot ignore the fact that he is getting involved with very indecent practices. It would be interesting to see Nucky’s followers get a glimpse of the real leader he is becoming, and whether or not they would remain loyal to him. There is clearly a prominent divide in Nucky’s morality at this point in the show and only time will tell if it all comes up and backfires on him. I suggest you tune in to HBO and watch ‘Boardwalk Empire’ as Steve Buscemi beautifully portrays a leader with many skills and deficits that mirror the theories we are learning about in class.

Servant Leadership and Stewardship as Demonstrated by Liu Xiaobo

When reading this weeks articles about servant leadership, one thing that stood out, was Greenleaf’s claim that “the servant-leader is servant first…the person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions” (Greenleaf). With this in mind, I began to think about a modern leader who embodied this concept of serving first and leading second. Knowing that the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize will be announced on Friday 8 October, I researched some of the favorites to win the award. Chinese activist Liu Xiaobo is someone who stood out to me as servant leader. Liu is a human rights activist, who since 1989 has been repeatedly arrested by the Chinese government for peaceful political activities. I think it is important to ask the question as to whether or not Xiaobo’s actions fall in line with the themes of servant leadership and stewardship. In order to completely answer this question however, I feel that it is necessary to provide a brief synopsis on Xiaobo’s actions.

On Christmas day in 2009, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison for what was ruled “inciting subversion of state power” (Radio Free Asia). Liu was deemed to be the author of a “pro-democracy manifesto” titled Chapter 08 that called for greater freedoms for Chinese people and proposed sweeping changes to the Chinese political structure. Liu’s manuscript, which was signed by 303 mainland intellectuals called for a move toward more democratic practices in the authoritarian country.

According to Cara Anna, “he is the best shot the country’s dissident movement has had in winning the prestigious award since it began pushing for democratic change after China’s authoritarian leaders launches economic, but not political reforms three decades ago” (Anna). It is worth noting however, that the Chinese government believes that if Xiaobo were to win the award, it would be a slap in the office to their government.

With this in mind, we can now examine, how Xiaobo actions line up with Peter Block’s definition of stewardship and also with Greenleaf’s definition of the servant leader. According to Block, “stewardship means taking a clear stance in support of partnership and empowerment” (Block, p. 71). It is worth note, that even though Xiaobo co-authored Chapter 08, he didn’t not himself as the author. I believe these actions fall in line with Block’s definition of stewardship because they place ownership in the hands of the other 300 intellectuals associated with the document. Furthermore, it is worth note that Block’s article asks the reader to “Think of yourself as a social architect in the redesign on a governance system…Stewardship has us become skillful in articulation its principles and then insisting that people construct the house in which they live” (Block, p. 64).

I believe that Chapter 08 implements Block’s ideals of stewardship by pointing to the problems of the Chinese political structure, and leaving it in the hands of the people to go about forcing political reforms. Xiaobo bullets certain areas that are worth reforming, yet he doesn’t go into specific details on how these reforms should go about. Therefore, the document leaves it up to the hands of the people to then decide what issues would be most pressing in a newly revised government. As a result, I believe Xiaobo’s actions fall perfectly in line with Block’s definition of stewardship.

Also worth examining is how Xiaobo’s actions fit with Greenleaf’s definition of a servant leader. Xiaobo knew from years of being an activist that the publication of Chapter 08 would put him at risk of being imprisoned, yet he believed that his message must be delivered in service to the people. Hence, once can view Xiaobo as a servant leader because he placed the needs of the group (the Chinese people) ahead of his own security. Greenleaf suggests that servant leaders are not initially motivated to be leaders. I believe that Xiaobo wasn’t trying to achieve a position of leadership in the movement to change the political structure of China. Instead, I think that Xiaobo inserted himself into a leadership role through repeatedly acting out against the government on behalf of the people. According to Smith, Montagno and Kuzmeko, “servant leadership promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of each individual…” (p. 82). Thus, I believe that that Xiaobo demonstrates servant leadership by putting the good of the Chinese people ahead of his own and trying to empower the people with the tools necessary to stand up to the government.

In conclusion, if Liu Xiaobo doesn’t receive the Nobel Peace Prize it isn’t for lack of being stewardship or acting as a servant leader. Xiaobo’s selfness in leading a movement to democratize China without needing to be seen as the leader of the movement demonstrates his skills to act as a servant leader.

Works Cited:

Anna, Cara. "Contender for Nobel prize is in Chinese prison." Yahoo News. Associated Press, 02 Oct 2010. Web. 4 Oct 2010. .

Block, Peter. “Defining the Stewardship Contract,” in Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self. 1993.

Greenleaf, Robert K. “Servant Leadership,” adapted from “The Servant As Leader”(1977) in R. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power, Paulist Press, 1991.

"Support for Dissident Nomination." Radio Free Asia. RFA. 4 Oct 2010. .

Smith, Brien N.; Montagno, Ray V.; Kuzmenko, Tatiana N. Transformational and Servant Leadership: Content and Contextual Comparisons. JLOS 10:4, 2004, 80-90.

International Justice Mission and Servant Leadership

Gary Haugen graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, got a J.D. at University of Chicago, and was a successful Senior Trial Attorney with the Police Misconduct Task Force of the U.S. Department of Justice. Yet now, Haugen is the CEO of the International Justice Mission (IJM), a nonprofit, securing “justice for victims of slavery, sexual exploitation and other forms of violent oppression” (www.ijm.org). How did Haugen transition from a successful lawyer to starting a nonprofit? The answer, I believe, is because of his servant leadership style. His complete dedication to the mission of providing the highest-quality legal representation for the oppressed has provided legal assistance to fifteen thousand victims as of 2008 and has a budget of $22 million (The New Yorker).

Haugen first discovered a need for justice when he travelled to investigate genocide in Rwanda. When he returned, he needed to act, following the Biblical command to “seek justice, protect the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.” Greenleaf (1977) writes that “the great leader is seen as servant first.” Haugen did not start IJM to be a leader but because he wanted to serve those who are helpless. He characterizes an “affirmative builder of a better society” and took the hard path to stop living comfortably and instead start serving victims.

Haugen’s servant-heart is seen in him giving “power to” instead of having “power over” (Sendjaya and Sarros 2002). Instead of merely punishing criminals, he gives power back to their victims. Greenleaf asks if those served grow as a result. IJM not only provides legal representation for victims, but they provide victim aftercare. Victims are treated by doctors and social workers, who help them reenter into society and begin a job. I recently attended a benefit dinner for IJM and heard Haugen speak. He told the story of a girl in India who was rescued along with her family from working as slaves in a salt mine. She now wants to study to become a doctor because she desires to help others. Her family has since opened their own salt mine, which employs people for fair hours and wages and provides them with protective gear from the harsh salt. Service is seen as a continuous cycle, and servant leaders’ “chief motive is to serve others to be what they are capable of becoming” (Sendjaya and Sarros). This family in India is just one story of many showing IJM’s impact.

Lastly, Haugen’s leadership style resembles the model outlined by Smith, Montagno and Kyzmenko (2004). His desire to serve influences his initiatives of sharing leadership (90% of IJM’s international staff are nationals of the countries where they work) and displaying authenticity (Haugen is not afraid to cry when moved emotionally by heart-breaking stories) (The New Yorker). The organizational culture also resembles one centered on servant leadership. The organization is fundamentally Christian, and every day begins with thirty minutes of “prayful preparation.” Spirituality is inherent in servant leadership, and Haugen’s model is Jesus Christ, just as the Sendjaya and Sarros article expounded upon. Haugen is not afraid to enter the darkest of places and love those whom society has rejected, including prostitutes and modern-day slaves.

The following video shows IJM in action:

Questions:

1. 1. Smith et. al’s model showed that servant leadership works best in a static environment. IJM operates in anything but a stable situation. Do you think that this makes IJM less successful than it could be?

2. 2. Sendjaya and Sarros talk about self-concept and how “the servant leader’s primary intent to serve may emanate from their self-concepts as an altruist, moral person.” Haugen was interested in justice all of his life and made the conscious decision to become a servant leader. Do you think you can change to become a servant leader or that you are born with this self-concept?

References:

www.ijm.org

Power, S. The New Yorker. “The enforcer.” (January 19, 2009). http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/19/090119fa_fact_power

Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant Leadership.

Sendjaya, S. & Sarros, J. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations.

Smith, B., Montagno, R., & Kuzmenko, R. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons.

Never Too Old for Disney...

In preparing for today’s class, one leader and his legacy immediately came to mind while reading the excerpt on “Responsible Leadership” from Selznick’s Leadership in Administration. Walt Disney, the famed creator of Mickey Mouse and a multitude of other characters, built an entertainment empire based on the simple mission statement, “to make people happy.” With this vision in mind, The Walt Disney Company continues to produce high-quality family entertainment in a myriad of different markets. This vision statement provides a solid foundation for goal-setting, which Selznick states, in order to be “institutionally meaningful, is framed in the language of character or identity, that is, it tells us what we should ‘do’ in order to become what we want to ‘be.’” Disney’s does just that – although their consumer reach is extremely diversified, all corporate efforts and initiatives have their roots in providing entertainment, or making people happy.

Furthermore, Disney models what Selznick describes as creative leadership. More than being a creative genius and the head of an organization, Selznick claims this practice has two aspects that synthesize the two roles: “the institutional embodiment of purpose” and the exercise of creativity “by strategic and tactical planning.” Disney’s commitment to the former can be seen in the development of Disney University, an intensive onboarding program for what one might consider the low-ranking employees: the costumed characters that wander around at amusement parks. However, Disney leaders choose to invest in their training to ensure that the organization’s mission and culture permeates the on-the-job attitude and behavior of all their employees. As Selznick noted in an earlier chapter of this book, “Truly accepted values must infuse the organization at many levels,” and this assertion is evident and applied within the Disney culture.

The second aspect, the strategic and tactical execution of creativity, is clearly a part of Disney’s legacy as well. Walt Disney’s cartoon studio blossomed into a multi-billion corporation through a gradual expansion process. Walt was eager to try new things, moving from short cartoons to films to merchandise to theme parks to digital animation and beyond. Each of these initiatives that originated internally within the company reflected the “changing relation between the organization and its environment;” as consumer demands of the entertainment industry evolved, Disney has adapted and delivered in creative and innovative ways.

Ultimately, Walt Disney successfully took on one of the prime functions of leadership, according to Selznick: “ the task of building special values and a distinctive competence into the organization.” Disney’s core values and vision of making people happy has cultivated not only a strong and profitable organization, but a followership that extends beyond the Disney family of employees to the millions who enjoy Disney’s creations time and time again.

Citations:

"Company History." The Walt Disney Company and Affiliated Companies. Web. 29 Sept. 2010. .

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

Selznick, Philip. “Responsible Leadership,” pp. 142-154, from Leadership in Administration, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1975.

The Leadership of the Ring

Two of the primary leaders in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings series, Aragorn and Sauron, embody vastly different leadership styles. Sauron's calculating, selfish leadership did nothing to help his followers and served only to advance his own personal desires at any cost. Aragorn, on the other hand, displayed a much more effective style of leadership that aimed to improve the lives of all of his followers through the achievement of an ultimate vision.

Sauron exemplifies what Goleman would consider coercive leadership. He demanded that his followers submit to his every whim, even if it meant sacrificing their own lives. He set no higher goal beyond meeting his demands and provided his followers with no way to achieve self-actualization, let alone become leaders in their own right. Sauron is the perfect example of Choi's selfish, ineffective "personalized" leader.

In fact, Sauron's leadership skills were so lacking that he had been defeated multiple times prior to the formation of the Fellowship of the Ring and often had to resort to tricks, coercion, and even torture to fulfill his egotistical desires. Furthermore, Sauron did not have the requisite follower and institutional support to survive a major external crisis (when the Ring was destroyed). Because his power was not, as MacGregor emphasizes, the result of an effective leader-follower relationship, he was certain to fail.

Aragorn, on the other hand, is arguably both a charismatic and visionary leader. By having a clear, focused vision to destroy the ring, he manages to unite all of his followers, from elves to wizards to hobbits, in achieving that vision. Along the way, he works to ensure that his followers are kept safe and ultimately, empowered to fight for the vision on their own.

As opposed to Sauron's personalized leadership style, Aragorn is also what Choi would consider a highly successful socialized leader. He works with his top-level management (The Fellowship) all the way down to his infantry to ensure that the ultimate goal of destroying the ring is met.

Along the way, he motivates his followers to become leaders themselves. All of those surrounding Aragorn (Gimli, Legolas, Frodo, etc) overcome their petty differences after Aragorn sets an example and clearly defines both the group's goal and its basic method of achieving that goal. His leadership skills and actions within the situation successfully overcame centuries of fighting and conflict between various Middle-Earth groups and instead focused their energy on the more productive mission of destroying the Ring.

Despite a myriad of both external and internal conflicts, Aragorn managed to achieve his ultimate goal and transition into a new position as King of Gondor. Though his followers overwhelmingly wanted to crown him king even before the Ring was destroyed, he put the mission of the group first and refused to be crowned until he was sure that the group would not fall to infighting when it should be focused on defeating Sauron and achieving its initial goal.

Both of these leaders achieved results, which is, according to Goleman, the primary job of leadership. However, the methods in which they achieved these results, not to mention the actual results themselves, were widely varied in their styles, relationship with their followers, and effectiveness.

The surprising truth of motivation

Yesterday, WPLN news, Nashville’s local public radio station, ran a piece that directly applies to our work. The news story, entitled Study finds no test score boost from teacher incentives, reports that monetary incentives for teachers did little to boost student test scores.

This study conducted by Vanderbilt University and commissioned by the US Department of Education, tracked middle school math teachers here in Nashville for three years. According to the report, half of the teachers were offered substantial bonuses if students’ scores improved. And the study did find improvement. However, there were similar improvements by classrooms ineligible for the bonuses. These results lead the study director to say “incentives didn’t seem to make a difference.” (Cardona, 2010)

So the million dollar question is not only finding what motivates improved students’ test scores, but also finding what motivates teachers to work towards improved test scores. More broadly, leaders and managers, and US Department of Educations, must look at what motivates people as they seek to generate results such as improved test scores, higher productivity, or deeper levels of engagement.

McGregor explores the principles of motivation in his 1960 study about Theory X and Theory Y. He purports that lower level need satisfactions, once met, cease to remain grounds for motivation. For example, McGregor says that once the ‘physiological needs’ are satisfied they no longer are considered a motivator of behavior. (McGregor, 1960) Furthermore, McGregor explains that things like “overtime pay, shift differentials, vacations, health and medical benefits, annuities, and the proceeds from stock purchase plans or profit-sharing plans” do not meet a higher level emotional need and therefore does not lead to motivation. Instead, he calls for management to move towards Theory Y, or a perspective that the “potentialities of the average human being are far above those which we typically realize in industry today.” (1960) Theory Y pushes leadership and organizations to appeal to the higher levels of human consciousness and needs to create motivation and productivity.

The example of the Nashville public school study supports the proposition by Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy (1993) that “extrinsic rewards like praise, compensation, promotion, privileges, and time off may not have the same effects of behavior as intrinsic rewards such as feelings of accomplishment, personal growth, and development.” (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1993)

Choi (2006) also speaks to motivation based on higher levels of self-actualization through envisioning and empowering workers to engage in the fulfillment of the vision. (Choi, 2006) Additionally, Goleman (2000) offers that the authoritative leader, or one who offers a vision and “motivates people by making clear to them how their work fits into a larger vision for the organization,” has the most positively correlated affect on organizational climate which is linked to motivation and productivity. (Goleman, 2000)

And modern ‘pop-theorists’ like Daniel Pink couldn’t agree more. Pink offers that motivation isn’t about money at all. But rather it’s about fitting into the bigger picture and feeling like an individual’s work is of value. He’s created a brilliant video that visually illustrates the variations in the aforementioned theories. It’s worth the 7 minutes it takes to watch.

Although theorists are possibly getting closer to the elusive catalyst that motivates teachers, they still have a ways to go to translate that into improved test scores. Perhaps Vanderbilt University will be leading the study again.

Works Cited

Cardona, N. (2010, September 21). Study finds no test score boost from teacher incentives. Retrieved September 22, 2010, from http://wpln.org/?p=20548

Choi, J. (2006). A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and empowerment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies , 24-43.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review , 78-90.

Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., & Curphy, G. (1993). Power, influence, and influence tactics. In R. Irwin, Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience (pp. 339-351).

McGregor, D. (1960). Theory X: The traditional view of direction and control. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Obama and his "mojo"

This morning CNN posted an article entitled, “How did Obama lose his mojo?” (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/22/obama.mojo/index.html?hpt=C1) As the president approaches the midway mark of his first term in office, many Americans are analyzing his effectiveness in leading our nation and whether he has lived up to the high expectations that the nation held when he was elected. While so many Democrats supported Obama in the beginning, many of these politicians are beginning to stray because of the lack of significant accomplishments on the agenda. While there is no doubt that the administration has made progress and achieved some goals, there are many people who feel too much was promised and not enough was gained in a quick amount of time.

Immediately, I began to think of our class discussions on charismatic leadership and the characteristics that define the leaders that are so influential in our world. Dubbed a “campaign superstar,” President Obama promised the nation a “transformational presidency” and represented a changing country. He won the support of so many and began to be the more popular candidate due to his charismatic personality; however, does our president’s dropping approval ratings prove that charisma is not all that a nation needs in its leader? Is charisma only effective if you believe in the goals and values of the individual you are following and if that person can fulfill your expectations? Can charisma be as harmful as it is beneficial, and can a leader truly lose this admired characteristic?

Rakesh Khurana writes in his article “The Curse of the Superstar CEO,” “the charismatic CEO…was expected to offer a vision of a radically different future and to attract and motivate followers for a journey to the new promised land.” Obama certainly followed this characteristic, inspiring the nation to elect him as their leader; however, because not all expectations have been met, individuals are disappointed in the administration’s leadership. Oftentimes, as Khurana writes, when performance slows or fails, followers look to a new “savior”, even if the difficulties are attributed elsewhere. Why do we often place all of the responsibility on a leader and attach the successes and failures solely to them? There are so many other participants and factors that contribute to an accomplishment yet oftentimes they are overlooked. As followers, do we not have a responsibility to also work to fulfill the goals and vision that we associate with our leader? If we do not create an environment of success and opportunities for change and growth, we cannot expect it to happen.

At what point are we, as followers, responsible for the situations we find ourselves in? President Obama is certainly not the only man creating policy and working to implement change, so why does it appear he is the scapegoat for our failures? The CNN article quotes a voter that believed “the president is simply stuck in a toxic political environment.” How do we determine if this is actually the case or if the president’s charisma overshadowed his capabilities to inspire reform?

Regardless of your feelings for a leader, how do you think we should evaluate leadership style and effectiveness? What role does charisma play in the current Obama administration? How does a charismatic leader influence the involvement of his or her followers?

Leadership on The West Wing

I am obsessed with the show The West Wing. I don’t just watch it every once in a while…I own the whole series and play it in the background of my life. For those who don’t know, The West Wing is a fictitious show about the President of the United States. In thinking about our various definitions of leadership, it comes as no surprise that I would be able to write about this show in reference to leadership. However, while watching one episode a couple of weeks ago, I came across a quote that stood out in my mind.

In this episode, the President and the Speaker of the House could not come to an agreement about the budget. The speaker had promised them (the White House) one thing, but when it came time to make the deal, he “pulled a bait and switch.” In that moment, the President decided that there would be no deal and he refused to sign the budget by the deadline. The Federal Government was shut down as a result, but the President was confident in his convictions. While he took a step back, other members of the party and the president’s senior advisors were doing everything in their power to make a deal with the speaker and finalize the budget. At this moment in time, the President’s polls were at its lowest and the country did not have faith in its leader. The Vice President, in trying to fix the situation, met with the Chief of Staff. On his way out the door, the Vice President said, “You know what they call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk.”

This quote emphasizes the relationship between a leader and his or her followers that are highlighted in our readings. Geneen defines leadership as “the ability to inspire other people to work together as a team, following your lead, in order to attain a common objective…no one can do it all alone. Others must want to follow the leader.” (4) The President, without anyone following him, is not a leader. Their objective is not a common one, and the President is standing alone on a ledge. Though the President has legitimate power because of his position, Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy state that “holding a position and being a leader are not synonymous.” (144) His position as President alone did not qualify him as being a leader at that point, only as being the head of the country.

When Rost describes the relationship between leaders and followers, he insists that leaders must interact with other people, or followers. “If all the people with whom leaders interacted were other leaders, leadership as a meaningful construct would not make sense.” (190) Leaders, by definition, have to be leading someone. The Vice Presidents thoughts were on par with Rost: if a leader is not leading anyone, then he is not a leader.

Some questions to think about:

Do you agree that a person needs followers to be considered a leader? Can a person of legitimate power, such as the president, ever be a leader without followers? Does the number of followers that a President has affect his role or position as a leader?

John Paul II: A “Rebel with a Cause”

Most people see the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church as a figure head whose duty is to further the Church's interests and “social responsibilities” around the world. But many people of many walks of faith see Pope John Paul II, or Karol Josef Wojtyla, differently. Sharif Khan describes him as, “Heroes are rebels with a cause. Rebels because they challenge the traditional ways of thinking and refuse to follow the herd. They have a cause, a vision, that's larger than life”.

I believe that he draws his power from various pools. First off he has vast expert power because by the time he was named Pope he already was a professor in ethics and had completed two doctorate degrees in theology. Sharif Khan summarizes Wojtyla’s leadership into the following categories: humility, heart, forgiveness, and responsibility. These ideas definitely fall into Choi’s criteria for a charismatic leader, as his vision and empathy were is greatest leadership attributes. He tapped into his followers’ need for affiliation as well as need for achievement. Above all his relationship with his followers is key. He broke many traditions and symbols in the Catholic Church in order to promote his ideals; in doing so he changed the papal role from one of supreme authority to one of servant-hood.

While reading Goleman’s article on getting results, the affiliative style embodies Pope John Paul II. Goleman says that affiliative leaders “manage by building strong emotional bonds and…fierce loyalty. The style also has a markedly positive effect on communication…to build team harmony, increase morale, or repair broken trust.” Wojtyla opened up rather controversial, inter-religious communication like no Pope had done before. Wojtyla was the first pope to visit the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland in 1979, in 2000 he visited Jerusalem's Yad Vashem and prayed for reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and he was the first Pope ever to enter a mosque.

Not only did he involve himself in religious matters, but also in political matters. He took on responsibilities because he did not see people by religion, rather by their need for help. He helped inspire Solidarity in Poland, forgave his attempted assassin, even met with Arafat and Castro. He used his role as Pope to serve the people on their terms. Open communication and the relationship he had with his followers is what granted him the power to become a global figurehead. In Heifetz’s term a leader has to take a stand, be socially useful and engage our values. Under these and the aforementioned examples I consider Wojtyla an effective leader.

But do you think Pope John Paul II’s leadership style could work in someone else’s position? Could a political leader or CEO practice humility, heart, forgiveness, and responsibility? Indeed all of these could be applied to a given situation, but matter of the question is the effectiveness.

Sarah Palin has charisma? You Betcha.

After being selected as John McCain’s running mate in 2008, Sarah Palin has since resigned as Governor of Alaska to become the perceived leader of the Tea Party. She is a conservative author, speaker and television pundit. She describes herself as a “maverick” and a “mama grizzly.”

Charismatic Leadership

Sarah Palin is the clear leader of the Tea Party political movement, whether she admits it or not. The power and influence she has over the Tea Party members is a result of her charismatic personality. In many cases, Sarah Palin has used her influence to move the national debate in a direction that is favorable to the Tea Party. According to Choi, charismatic leaders articulate values and ideological goals attractive to their followers (2006). She then motivates Tea Party members to vote in upcoming elections by endorsing, fundraising and campaigning for candidates that are more conservative. She gives Tea Party members hope that they have the power to shape the country, and encourages them to do so. Choi says that a charismatic leader empowers his or her followers by helping them feel powerful and capable (2006).

Personalized Leadership Style

While Sarah Palin does possess charisma in her ability to lead the Tea Party, it is important to specify which type of charisma: personalized or socialized. The fact that Palin uses her un-official position as leader of the Tea Party to make money and promote her own image suggests that she has a personalized leadership style. Personalized charismatic leadership is described as “exploitative, non-egalitarian, and self-aggrandizing” (Choi, 2006). For example, she charged her own Tea Party followers $100,000 to speak at the Tea Party Convention (FoxNews.com, 2010). She attempted to charge a Republican Convention in Iowa $100,000 to appear, but the group was unable to raise the money (Martin, 2009). And finally, the worst example of her exploitation came on September 11, 2010 when she charged Alaskans between $75 and $225 to attend her 9/11 Anniversary Ceremony (Vecsey, 2010). The question Palin supporters must ask: if she is so committed to the cause, then why doesn’t she occasionally speak for free? Choi accurately sums up this kind of personalized leadership style by calling it “the dark side of charismatic leadership” (2006).

Referent Power and Inspirational Tactics

The majority of Americans do not feel Palin is qualified to be President (Langer, 2010). The general feeling is that she does not have the knowledge required to hold the nation’s highest office. However, “one way to counteract the lack of expertise is to build strong interpersonal ties with subordinates” (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1993). The fact that members of the Tea Party are so enamored by her is evidence of how well she has overcome the lack of knowledge to build strong emotional connections. Palin has a great deal of referent power, which is “the potential influence one has due to the strength of the relationship between the leader and the followers” (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1993). Palin makes use of this referent power and influences her followers with inspirational tactics that “arouse enthusiasm or emotion” (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1993). This is shown by her use of hyperbole that is designed to spark strong emotion and controversy. For example, Palin recently said that President Obama doesn’t have the “cojones” to protect the country (MacNichol, 2010). She even suggested that Obama is a socialist (Conroy, 2008). All of this creates excitement among her supporters and elevates her stature.

Why is this important?

Political movements are full of leaders who genuinely believe in the cause and make personal sacrifices. But there are also leaders who use the cause as a vehicle for personal ambitions. It is important for followers to understand the difference and identify the true leaders.

Works Cited

Choi, J. (2006). A Motivational Theory of Charasmatic Leadership: Envisioning, Empathy, and Empowerment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies , 13 (1), 24-43.

Conroy, S. (2008 йил 19-10). Palin: Obama's Plan Is "Experiment With Socialism". Retrieved 2010 йил 18-9 from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502443_162-4531388-502443.html

FoxNews.com. (2010 йил 3-2). Palin Defends Tea Party Convention, Says Speaking Fee Will Go to the 'Cause'. Retrieved 2010 йил 19-9 from FOX News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/03/palin-defends-tea-party-convention-says-speaking-fee-cause/

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (1993). Power, Influence, and Influence Tactics. In Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Langer, G. (2010 йил 11-2). Poll: Tea Party Shows Prospects; Less So for Sarah Palin. Retrieved 2010 йил 18-9 from ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/poll-tea-party-shows-favorable-opinion-sarah-palin-skepticism/story?id=9800379

MacNichol, G. (2010 йил 1-8). Sarah Palin Would Like President Obama To Grow A Pair Of ‘Cojones’. Retrieved 2010 йил 18-9 from Mediaite: http://www.mediaite.com/online/sarah-palin-would-like-president-obama-to-grow-a-pair-of-cojones/

Martin, J. (2009 йил 29-10). Iowa Republicans wince at Sarah Palin's $100K speaking fee. Retrieved 2010 йил 19-9 from Politico.com: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28873.html

Vecsey, L. (2010 йил 8-9). Sarah Palin announces 9/11 event with Glenn Beck in Alaska. Retrieved 2010 йил 19-9 from PennLive.com: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/09/sarah_palin_announces_ticket_s.html

The Imperfect Leader - Charlie Brown

Do any of you remember the days when the newspaper would arrive in the mornings and the first section that you would grab was the Comics? At least this was the case for me. Reading short sentences that were supported by cartoon drawing always caught my attention. Skimming through the likes of Marmaduke, Family Circus, Beetle Bailey, and Garfield allowed me to escape from reality and jump into my youthful imagination. In addition, there was one comic in particular that I always saved for last... and that was Peanuts. I fell in love with Charles Schultz’s wide variety of characters and it seemed that there was always a “theme” I could attach myself to on a daily basis. Along with that, the leader of the Peanut Gang, Charlie Brown, always fascinated me because of the lackluster attributes that he showcased.

As we have learned over that first month of class, there are many different theories and theorist who try to put leadership in a certain context. The one that I want to focus on with Charlie Brown is the concept that leaders emerge due to their physical and mental attributes. Before we get started analyzing Charlie through these parameters, I believe that we should first get to know his characteristics. This will open the door for the leadership concepts that Kirkpatrick, De Pree, and Heifitz present.

Many of you may know that Charlie Brown is almost the complete opposite of a physically or mentally appealing leader. The young boy is timid, socially awkward, unathletic, disgruntled, nervous, to just name a few. In short, this fellow is quite the lovable loser… he fails at everything, yet he always gives 110%. From losing every game he pitches to falling for Lucy’s football-kick trick, he simply can not win. Comparing these attributes to those that Kirkpatrick describes, one should believe that Charlie Brown will never be considered a leader. In the article, Leadership: Do Traits Matter, Kirkpatrick (1991) states that “leaders are achievement-oriented, ambitious, energetic, proactive, and tenacious” (pg. 136). None of these describe our lovable loser at all.

Yet for some reason, the Peanut gang always seemed to look to him whenever guidance was needed. Why is this? The rationale behind this, in my opinion, is hidden behind the cloud of negative attributes I just described. After weaving through those negatives, one should notice that Charlie Brown is quite an astounding leader. The perseverance that he shows through adversity is second to none. When the whole Peanut gang sees a lost cause, Charlie sees hope. For example, in the hit Charlie Brown Christmas movie, he moved the thoughts of the Gang toward the real reason for Christmas rather than letting them go on with their commercialized conceptions. As Heifitz (1998) stated in Values of Leadership, leadership is about mobilizing individuals to tackle tough problems. This is exactly what Charlie did and will always do… he will go towards the “good” every time. Hence, Charlie Brown follows Heifitz’s theory and tries to “absorb the stress for his followers” (pg. 17).

All in all, I believe it is important to observe an oddball like Charlie Brown in this context due to the fact that he does not fit the normal mold of a leader. It shows that one does not have to necessarily have outstanding attributes, but more of a guiding model through ones actions. The integrity, which De Pree (1992) calls the “linchpin of leadership”, will override the negative attributes and create the possibility for leadership. Charlie Brown never asked or probably never wanted to be the leader of the Peanut gang, but it is certain that the willingness to succeed was always there no matter how many times he failed. Thus, I leave you with a statement by Charlie Brown that epitomizes this post perfectly, “There must be millions of people in the world that never get love letters… I could be their leader”.

Just to spark some comments, what do you think of Charlie Brown? Could he lead in today’s world?

Queen Elizabeth I

Queen Elizabeth I provides a classic example of very public leadership. Ruling England for almost 50 years in the 1500s, she embodied many leadership principles discussed in modern theory that are applicable today.

Elizabeth, young and inexperienced, began by surrounding herself with advisors. Most notable of these was William Cecil, who served as Elizabeth's most trusted confidante. Due to their close relationship, Cecil was able to speak more freely to Elizabeth than she would allow anyone else, and indeed she expected him to do so. In this sense Elizabeth was following the directions of Machiavelli, as he says a wise ruler acts by "choosing the wise men in his state, and giving to them only the liberty of speaking the truth to him...he ought to question them upon everything, and listen to their opinions, and afterwards form his own conclusions." (While we are hardly able to count Machiavelli as one of today's "modern" theorists as mentioned above, he can be considered "modern" in the context of Elizabeth. In fact, since The Prince was published in 1532 and Elizabeth began her reign in 1558, and since we know Elizabeth was a scholar, it is perfectly likely that she read his book.)

One point on which Elizabeth did not follow Cecil's counsel was her refusal to marry. Elizabeth was in love with Robert Dudley, an English noble, but she feared that an alliance with any man - be he an Englishman or a foreign monarch - would diminish her authority and tear her country further apart. She showed an understanding of a leader being a servant, that leadership is "a forfeiture of rights," concepts discussed by DePree (1992). An ordinary woman would have been allowed - in fact, encouraged - to succumb to the desires of the man she loved and marry him, but Elizabeth would not allow it for herself. She sacrificed her love of a man for her duty to her country. Leaders today may not usually be faced with this particular dilemma, but the theory of sacrifice remains the same.

Elizabeth began her reign in a country fraught with internal problems. Fortunately for her, her reign was relatively peaceful militarily, allowing her the luxury of focusing on these at-home issues such as the religious divide and nearly-worthless currency. (Note: By "relatively peaceful" I do not mean to diminish the importance of the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, but I'm choosing not to discuss it here.) These problems could not have been addressed successfully by the autocratic methods used by prior rulers - what Elizabeth's contemporaries may have seen as "weakness" in leadership was simply a different style from what they had seen before, and it was a style better suited to the issues at hand than a dictatorial one. I see this as an example of what Stogdill meant when he stated that "the qualities, characteristics, and skills required in a leader are determined to a large extent by the demands of the situation in which he is to function as a leader" (1948). Elizabeth was a leader, and her father Henry was a leader, but they were entirely different leaders due to the state the country was in at the time of their reigns. That Elizabeth was aware of this undoubtedly contributed to her success.

Questions for you:
Would we see Elizabeth in such a historically significant and influential light if she had been a man? Is our view of her subject to the "male chauvanism" described by Bass and Avolio (1994)?

Was Elizabeth "born" or was she "made"? She was born a princess with impressive genetics on both sides (Tudor and Boleyn), but she was disinherited after her mother was executed and she held Protestant beliefs during a decidedly dangerous time for non-Catholics. Which was more influential to her leadership personality?