Rally to Restore Sanity

This past weekend, hundreds of thousands of people attended Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity in Washington, D.C. Though Jon Stewart kept the reason behind this rally purposefully vague, it was well known that it was a response to Glenn Beck’s earlier rally. Jon Stewart targeted a certain group of people for this rally, and as is described on its website, the rally was designed for “people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard…Are you one of those people? Excellent. Then we’d like you to join us in Washington, DC on October 30 — a date of no significance whatsoever — at the Daily Show’s ‘Rally to Restore Sanity.’'

This could be described as a visionary event, but what exactly was the vision? Those who attended the rally might think of Jon Stewart as a visionary leader, but what vision was he trying to convey. According to Sashkin, there are three main aspects to visionary leadership. The first two include constructing a vision for an organization and its culture, and developing programs and practices that put this vision into practice. “The third aspect centers on the leader’s own practices, the specific actions in which leaders engage on a one-to-one basis in order to create and support their visions.” (403) Jon Stewart clearly had a vision for his rally, but how well did he communicate it. He engaged with his viewers and followers to support his vision, but it is not clear that this event conveyed visionary leadership. At the end of his rally, Stewart closed with some poignant thoughts. He said, “The country's 24-hour, political pundit, perpetual, panic conflict-inator did not cause our problems. But its existence makes solving them that much harder. If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.” He connected with his audience by concluding, “Sanity has always been in the eye of the beholder. And to see you here today, and the kind of people that you are, has restored mine”

If Jon Stewart did not display visionary leadership, was he just using referent power? Referent power occurs when a leader does not have expertise and he therefore builds strong ties with subordinates. “Referent power refers to the potential influence once has due to the strength of the relationship between the leader and the followers.” (Hughes, Ginnett, Curphy, 341) This rally clearly attracted followers, and they felt a strong connection to Stewart and his words. His referent power could also be a consequence of his charisma. At his rally, Stewart portrayed Choi’s three core components of charismatic leadership: envisioning, empathy, and empowering. (25) Stewart’s connection to his audience allows him to be a leader to them through these features.

It is important to understand the roles of commentators like Jon Stewart because of the impact they have on society. If people look to them for news, guidance, or even just laughs, it puts them in a position of power. Whatever one personally thinks of Jon Stewart and his show, it is important to understand what drew more than 200,000 people to see what he had to say.

So what do you think? Do you think Jon Stewart has power, and if yes, does that translate to leadership? Is Jon Stewart visionary, or just really charismatic? Do you trust him more than politicians? Do you think his work matters?

Websites used:

http://www.rallytorestoresanity.com/

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1651165/20101030/story.jhtml

Misfits and Castoffs Lead Giants to World Series Title

Brian Sabean and Bruce Boochy

This past Monday, the San Francisco Giants won their first World Series since 1954. The 2010 Giants were able to accomplish something that Barry Bonds and Willy McCovey failed to do during their illustrious Hall of Fame careers; win a World Series Title. Even though their roster lacked the superstar talent displayed by playoff teams such as the Yankees and Phillies, the Giants were able to overcome their perceived lack of talent and become baseball’s metaphorical Cinderella. Not to pass judgment on the careers of several of the Giants players during their miraculous post season run, but for the most part, the roster was comprised of spare parts. In fact, manager Bruce Boochy even referred to his roster as a group of “misfits and castoffs”. This statement by Boochy became a rallying cry for the team during their postseason run. Perhaps, this illustrates Boochy’s talents as a communicator since he was able to motivate his team thru quotes such as this. We learned from Hackman and Johnson that “leadership is human communication which modifies the attitudes and behaviors of others in order to meet group goals and needs” (p. 428). Thus, Boochy can be seen as a skilled communicator and leader by establishing a rallying cry for his team and knowing what to say at the right time.

Starting center fielder Andres Torres spent the majority of his career floating around in the minor leagues. World Series MVP, Edgar Renteria, who played the entire World Series with a torn bicep tendon, and only played in one game in the last two weeks of the regular season, has bounced between five teams since 2004. Starting left fielder, Pat Burrell was added to the team in June after he was released from the Tampa Bay Rays. Aubrey Huff was a free agent addition this past winter. Infielder, Mike Fontenot was acquired from the Cubs in an August trade. Javier Lopez and Ramon Ramirez, who were both contributors in the Giants bullpen, were acquired at the trade deadline. Cody Ross was a waiver-wire addition in August after being placed on waivers by the Marlins. He went on to star in the post-season with several majestic home runs in their division series win over the Braves and championship series win over the Phillies. Rookie left-hander, Madison Baumgardner, who pitched eight scoreless innings in Game 4 of the World Series, only recently turned 21 years old and starting catcher Buster Posey was playing shortstop at Florida State in 2007.

Taking into consideration this hodgepodge of characters, I think it is important to exam how this group was able to overcome all obstacles and capture the World Series. What leadership lessons can be learned from the 2010 Giants? My answer is several.

First, and foremost, the team leadership structure has been in place for years. Starting with General Manager, Brian Sabean, who just finished his 14th season at the helm of the club. I feel that the stability he brings to the club is immeasurable. Everyone in the organization knows and understands the high standards in which he sets, and this allows for things to move very smoothly. Thus, I believe, that Sabean’s experience served as a calming force within the organization. Players and coaches alike respected Sabean not only for his experience, but he had proven his worth as a talent evaluator in having drafted and developed the Giants four playoff starting pitchers: Tim Linceum, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, and Madison Baumgardner. Hence, because of his reputation as a talent evaluator, members of the organization trusted Sabean every time he brought in a new player into the fold. Furthermore, his roster moves over the course of the season demonstrated the ability of team leadership to “respond quickly…rapidly develop new products…tapping the tacit and often highly subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches of individual employees and making those insights available for testing and use by the company as a whole” (Nonaka, 2000). Sabean and other members of the team’s leadership displayed their willingness to roll the dice and take chances on players that others didn’t want.

Time and time again, the Giants leadership acted as the princess who would kiss the frog and transform it into the prince. Simply put, no one else wanted several of these players, yet the Giants had the insight that this group could win games. Sabean’s visionary leadership shows in his idea to build a team around an offense of veteran players with playoff experience, and a group of young pitchers drafted and developed by the team. Team sources who I have spoken to in the past year, have mentioned to me that this was Sabean’s plan for returning to the Giants to the World Series that he came up with a few years ago. Thus, he exemplifies Sashkin’s visionary leadership by expressing a vision, explaining a vision, and extending a vision.

The Giants assembled a diverse group of employees that worked together in striving for a common goal. “Their personalities work well together. They respect the game, they respect each other. It’s like the United Nations in there, a clash of cultures. But they know what to do when the game starts” (Sabean, 2010). In summary, when examining the 2010 Giants, we see how the communication and visionary skills of team leadership, good chemistry and teamwork, a unified desire to reach goals, and a diverse yet talented group of employees were the winning recipe that help lead a group of misfits to the World Series.

Abraham, P. (2010). Gm Sabean Proves to be an Adroit Architect. Boston Globe, Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2010/10/24/gm_sabean_proves_to_be_an_adroit_architect/

One perspective about servant leadership: ‘Small s & ‘Large S’

I. : Who do you think (a) servant leader is/ are, among the people below?

A) “Leo”: The central figure, who accompanies the party as a servant, of Hermann Hesse’s story, “Journey to the East.” He was in fact the titular head of the Order, a great and noble leader (Greenleaf, 1977).
B) “Herb Kellerher”: The successful CEO of Southwest Airlines who contributed to building an organizational culture based on servant leadership principles which provide the foundation of altruism, defined as the constructive, gratifying service to others (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002).
C) “Gen. Patton”: American general (1885-1945) who never suffered a major defeat in World War II, gaining respect from his soldiers and great popularity with civilians. In 1943, however, he slapped two physically unwounded enlisted men suffering “battle fatigue” at hospital, calling them cowards for seeking medical treatment (Lanning, 1996).
D) “Jesus Christ”: The founder of Christianity. In his lesson, he said “whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant” (NIV Bible, Mark 10:43).



II. Which one did you select? “D)”? “B) and D)”? or “A), B) and D)”?

As it has been, the right answer exists… in your own mind. ( :D sorry.) However, I believe all of them are servant leaders in the perspective: “small s leader & large S leader”. My curiosity was that “if a certain person is a servant, then who (what) could be a master (object) of his/her effort based on servant leadership theory?” In this context, I considered it in the aspect of “the levels of the value which servant leadership pursues.” To illustrate visually, let me explain my idea with Diagram 1 as below.

Diagram 1


I would like to suggest three concepts: the range of the influence, the level of the value, and the exceptional reversal phenomenon. From the viewpoint of the range of the influence, we can horizontally expand the concept of the size of category in which servant leadership could be displayed from “A) Team” to “D) World.” At the same time, from the viewpoint of the level of value, we also vertically expand the value which servant leadership pursues from “the achievement of mission/ assignment” to “the realization of universal value.” Based on these assumptions, we can think about the possibility that exceptional situation could be happened as “the range of the influence” and “the level of value” are changed in its sub-categories/ lower levels.

Especially, the third concept, “the exceptional reversal phenomenon of servant leadership,” is the part where I place a great weight on. The anecdote of Gen. Patton, slapped two soldiers at the hospital, shows a good example of the exceptional reversal phenomenon. Obviously, his behavior slapping the soldiers should be interpreted the opposite action from the standpoint of servant leadership: primary intention (serve other first) and self-concept (servant and steward) (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). When we, however, pay attention to the internal motive of his behavior, we also feel his passion and enthusiasm and which make us to understand that it was not because to humiliate or insult the soldiers, but because to encourage and awaken them. Even though some people might criticize it was just the result of an uncontrolled fiery temper, he would not have slapped the soldier if he had been not an army general of United States in the World War II. As for him, it was certain that the nation was more important than the “battle fatigue” feeble soldiers (in his eyes). That is, he was a servant of the nation, the United States, who had a belief that army should be strong enough in order to protect its people and gain a victory in the war. Under special situation, military commander would choose the option to save the nation and the people even if there might be inevitable sacrifice of his soldiers. I believe it is the reason why giving one’s life for higher value is regarded as a lofty behavior.


III. Conclusion

Of course, I think this idea may bring about controversy. Because I know every military general is not a servant leader and it is also hard to say the end justifies the means. However, if a certain behavior/ leadership, which might partially/ temporarily restrained human right, were inevitable under special environment or historical background, we should not devaluate it only as an indiscreet judgment/ decision. Instead, we should understand sometimes it might be performed based on broader range of influence and higher level of value in servant leadership. Actually, in the Holly Bible, the Jesus Christ sacrifice himself not for the goal of an organization, but for the all human’s saving from sin, which was the higher and more comprehensive universal value.



Reference

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.

Lanning, M. L. (1996). The Military 100: a ranking of the most influential military leaders of all time. Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing Group.

Sendjaya, Sen and Sarros, James C. “Servant Leadership: Its Origin, Development, and Application in Organizations.” JLOS 9:2, 2002, 57-64.

A Pioneer of Organizational Creativity

As one of the most innovative organizations in the world, the Coca-Cola Company “strives to refresh the world, inspire moments of optimism and happiness, create value and make a difference”. Through creative leadership, product innovation, inventive business processes, and encouraging consumer participation, Coca-Cola has become an agent of change for communities, by utilizing their resources to make an impact on the global environment.

According to Richard Florida, a company’s most vital asset is its creative capital, or a team of creative employees capable of discovering new technologies and ways to solve problems, increase efficiency, and power economic growth (125). Coca-Cola prides itself on creating an environment for its employees that fosters exploration, creativity, professional growth, and interpersonal relationships. Florida highlights the fact that organizations should stray away from which traits make individuals creative and instead “[unlock] the social and management contexts in which creativity is most effectively nurtured, harnessed, and mobilized” (126). Similarly, Heifitz focuses on leadership as an activity, and encourages the “unhinging of leadership” from personality traits in order to be able to assess the many ways in which individuals exercise leadership behavior.

Employees are constantly provided opportunities to grow with the organization and are rewarded for doing so. Coca-Cola offers a unique experience to employees known as the Coca-Cola University (CCU). CCU is a virtual global community where employees engage in learning and capability training in order to establish a foundation and align employee efforts with broader organizational goals. This is just one example of how Coca-Cola aids in product innovation and business processes. The company has acknowledged the importance of their employees and will provide the necessary resources and tools to harness creativity.

The most creative and profitable aspect of Coca-Cola is their brand. Coke is one of the few brands that inspires and promotes happiness, a company that has proven to be an American symbol and a representative of American innovation around the world. The company has over 500 brands and can be found in more than 200 countries. In order to keep an international presence, the company has had to adapt to local cultures and business processes to ensure that their product is accepted by consumers. This creative adaptation has benefited not only the organization but the communities it serves as well. The company is in a unique position to contribute to the economic vitality of even the most remote communities around the world(http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/economic_impact.html).

Finally, it is the involvement of the consumers and customers in the creative process that has led to organizational success. According to Florida & Goodnight, organizations should “engage customers as creative partners so that the [organization] can deliver superior products” (126). Coca-cola does just this by helping their customers maintain and grow their businesses.

It is transformative and creative brands that bring about change and prosperity to communities. Brands like this are shaped by innovative processes and creating a unique environment for employees to work to their potential.

“After all, it’s the combined talents, skills, knowledge, experience and passion of our people that make us who we are”

More information about The Coca-Cola Company:

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/economic_impact.html

http://www.worldofcoca-cola.com/

http://ivythesis.typepad.com/term_paper_topics/2009/02/product-innovation-of-coca-cola.html

The Pepsi Refresh Project

Are corporations oblgated to give back to society? Are those that choose to give back and profit from a charitable campaign in the wrong?

Instead of spending $20 million for their annual Super Bowl ad campaign, PepsiCo decided to spend funds on a social marketing campaign called the Pepsi Refresh Project. Now, the Pepsi Refresh Project is making headlines around the globe. Pepsi is giving away millions of dollars each month (totaling $20 million at the end of the year) to fund refreshing ideas that change the world. The ideas with the most votes at the end of each month will receive grants ranging from 5k, 25k, 50k and 250k. There are several categories that include: health, arts and culture, food and shelter, the planet, neighborhoods, and education (http://www.refresheverything.com).

Pepsi has received ample amounts of positive press covering their new innovative campaign. Their profits are also on the rise. While this campaign is noteworthy, is it just a marketing ploy to gain profit? Or does Pepsi believe in corporate responsibility and giving back to society?

Selznick discusses responsible leadership. He says the leader and the organization’s values must merge. The main task of a leader is to avoid opportunism and utopianism. The price for opportunism is that you start to trade off your values for the short-term gains. It also starts to define the character of the organization. In Pepsi’s case, I do not think they are trading short-term gains for values. A $20 million dollar campaign is no small mission. I would like to think that Pepsi has outstanding values in their organization. The public certainly thinks so after the Refresh Campaign launched. Do you think Pepsi is opportunistic?

Barnard is another theorist that believes in executive responsibility. He believes in order to get everyone rallied around a certain goal, it requires a moral task and a creative process. Barnard continues by saying there are “moral aspects of cooperation…..cooperation is a creative process carried out by organization as a whole, with leadership as the ‘indispensable fulminator....moral creativeness is the ability to create or provide moral basis for problem solution to others; to generate enthusiasm and conviction, which make cohesiveness and cooperation possible.” I believe Pepsi had creative cooperation when carrying this campaign out. It was ground-breaking. For a social media campaign to be this successful, an organization has to rally.

Goodpaster also has similar beliefs as Barnard and Selznick.

Friedman has opposing views to Barnard, Selznick and Goodpaster. He says that companies should not be involved with social issues, and if an organization does want to be involved in “corporate responsibility” the only exception is profit. One must have a split between their company and values.

In an article written by Scott Moir, Moir states, “As long as a corporation is trying to make the world a better place one area code at a time, I think that's a pretty good start!” Moir goes on to name four benefits of corporate social responsibility from an Internet public relations and marketing perspective.

In my opinion, I think Pespi is doing a wonderful thing. Not only are they helping hundreds of organizations and people, they are giving individuals a voice and a platform. Pepsi is granting $20 million dollars over the next year. I think they deserve all the free publicity and positive moral they can get. There is no way of knowing Pepsi’s motives behind the campaign – profit or giving back. But giving this much -- does is even matter? What do you think?

Additional Sources:

1. http://www.refresheverything.com

2. Moir, Scott. 19 Feb 2010.“Pepsi Refresh Project- Corporate Social Responsibility a Priority in 2010?”

Don't Be Evil

We all think of Google as innovative and fun, but do we ever stop and think how it became that way? Founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page started the small company in 1998 and since then has consistently made Fortune magazine's list of best companies to work for. Though many points made here could also support a discussion on how Google fosters creativity and innovation, I will assume that creativity is a byproduct of the culture.
According to Schein, culture is “the assumption that underlie the values and determine not only behavior patterns, but also such visible artifacts as architecture, office layout, dress codes, and so on.” Google’s culture is based on sharing ideas and opinions in order to accomplish their mission of organizing the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful. Clearly they pride themselves on unorthodox practices, such as no dress codes or strict hours. Free food at the Googleplex café and whiteboards in the hallways further instill the idea of open communication. Googlers can also join interest groups and partake in the onsite massage parlor, salon and doctor’s office. They also created the office space to have very few solo offices, fitness equipment, and games. Probably the most famous perk it the 20% rule, in which 20% of an employee’s time must be spent on a project of personal interests.
Sergey and Larry have done a terrific job in defining and upholding the culture by recruiting the right people to fit their ideas. How often do you hear about a company with the position of Chief Culture Officer? Google does, and she works with employees around the world to figure out ways to maintain and enhance and develop Google’s culture and how to keep the core values they had in the very beginning--a flat organization. Every Friday is TGIF in which employees are allowed to ask the founders anything and everything.
Following Schein’s Problems of Internal Integration, we can clearly see Google’s culture in their Code of Conduct (http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html). Language is seen through the use of Googlers, Googleplex, Nooglers, etc. Boundaries: Everyone is in, unless you do something “evil” i.e. personal investments, outside employment and inventions, accepting gifts and other business courtesies. Intimacy: personal relationships at work should be avoided. Other examples can be found embedded in their expanded code.
The next phase in shaping culture would have to be when Larry and Sergey decide to pass the torch and step back from the organization. They will have to choose carefully who will replace them position wise as well as culturally to avoid the case we saw with Carly Fiorina.

Creative Leadership

There are hundreds of books written about him, his leadership style, and his legacy. For example, search him in amazon.com you will find almost 49,000 options. If you narrow your search to books only a whopping 17,500 books are available to read. Narrow it further to biography only and you find 160 different biographies about him including a Spanish version and a Tamil version.

Who is this person that has inspired such a prolific quantity of text? And what was the impetus for the current $36.1 billion dollar empire attributed to his legacy? (Igler, 2010) Pat Williams, senior vice president of the Orlando Magic, would say this infamous leader is Walt Disney and his “magic ingredient” is his Creativity.

J.B. Kaufman, film historian and coauthor of the film Walt in Wonderland said “You can’t think of Walt Disney without thinking of creativity. That was his leading quality. His mind was always seeking new and creative ways to do things. He wouldn’t let anything or anyone limit this scope of his vision, and he never lost his capacity to dream in a big way.” (Kaufman) Joe Grant, an artist who worked on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and the original and new Fantasia said that “[Walt] had an astounding creative awareness...He was thinking and creating on many different levels, at all times. It was exciting and stimulating to be around him, because ideas were constantly whirling around him…You began to inhabit his world of ideas.” (Grant)

But were Disney’s unique ideas enough to create an American icon in Mickey Mouse, found an empire that spans nearly every continent, and inspire a legacy of leadership? Amabile (1998) said that creativity alone is not enough. “To be creative, an idea must also be appropriate – useful and actionable.” (Amabile, 1998)

Pat Williams, author of How to be like Walt, said that it was just Disney’s unique ideas that made him so successful; it was his ability to dream and then do, to conceptualize and the actualize. “Walt is remembered to this day, not because he dreamed, but because he created and constructed what he had dreamed.” (Williams, 2004) Disney pushed himself and his team to constantly work hard, work creatively, and to push the limits of the possible.

Williams says the real power of Disney’s creativity came in the face of adversity. Disney’s original creation, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, as well as most of his staff, was stolen by a business associate. It is said that instead of responding destructively or rebelliously, Disney responded to the challenge creatively. It was on the train ride home from the fateful meeting in New York when Disney learned Oswald had been swindled and his staff team had deserted, that Mickey Mouse was born. “Mickey was not merely the right idea at the right time; he was the creative solution to a crisis in Walt’s life.” (Williams, 2004)

Disney and the company he created satisfies the necessary requirements of creativity established in Amabile’s article. (Amabile, 1998) Disney himself was inventive, intrinsically motivated, and became an expert in animation. He created an enterprise that encouraged those same attributes in his staff. He constantly set a new challenge to his team, gave them the freedom to accomplish it, shared resources to foster success, encouraged diversity of thought, and embraced the ‘failure value’.

Disney embodies several of the attributes that DePree (1992) identified as Leaders’ Leaders. Specifically, Disney remained “vulnerable to real surprise,” “worked with creative people without fear,” “remained wary of incremental change,” and “set an example for openness and imagination and acceptance.” (DePree, 1992)

Ultimately, Disney did not believe that creativity was for the elite only or simply an innate trait born in the womb. He believed that creativity is a skilled to be learned and nurtured. He challenged his team to push to new heights, create new ideas, and to do the impossible. Walt Disney said “If you can dream it, you can do it.” That is the power of his influence, the power of his leadership.

Works Cited

Amabile, T. (1998). How to Kill Creativity. Harvard Business Review , 78-87.

DePree, M. (1992). Leaders' Leaders. In M. DePree, Leadership Jazz (pp. 93-108).

Grant, J. (n.d.). Interview with Joe Grant. (P. Williams, Interviewer)

Igler, R. (2010, January 1). 2009 Year in Review - Letter to Shareholders. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from Corporate Disney: http://corporate.disney.go.com/investors/annual_reports/2009/introduction/letterToShareholders.html

Kaufman, J. (n.d.). Walt in Wonderland. (P. Williams, Interviewer)

Williams, P. (2004). How to be like Walt. Deerfield Beach, FLorida: Health Communications Inc.

Proctor and Gamble's Innovative Culture

Proctor and Gamble (P&G) has long been known for its innovative culture. P&G’s principles reflect Schein’s categories of problems that culture solves (see http://www.pg.com/en_US/company/purpose_people/pvp.shtml for the principles).

P&G’s mission is seeking to be the best with the goal to “create and deliver products, packaging and concepts that build winning brand equities.” They accomplish this through being strategically focused and operating “against clearly articulated and aligned objectives and strategies,” as well as only doing work that adds value. Furthermore, they state that “innovation is the cornerstone to our success,” which will be discussed subsequently. Their criteria for success is benchmarking their performance “rigorously versus the very best internally and externally.” They strive to learn from their failures as a remediation tactic. Common language includes honesty, integrity, personal mastery, diversity, and sustainability. People included in P&G are those who “want to contribute to their fullest potential,” “achieve high expectations, standards, and challenging goals,” and have “outstanding technical mastery and executional excellence.” The reward for these people is stock ownership and ownership behavior. The criteria for intimacy is “doing what is right for the business with integrity” because this creates mutual success for the company and the individual. “Confidence” and “trust” are also important because employees must “work together… across business units, functions, categories and geographies.” Lastly, P&G’s ideology is to “challenge convention and reinvent the way we do business to better win in the marketplace,” which is essentially innovation.

Innovation is critical to P&G’s success and culture, and they are the leading innovator in their industry. They invest over $350 million in consumer understanding to determine innovation opportunities. SymphonyIRI’s New Product Pacesetters Report “recognized P&G as the most innovative manufacturer in the consumer packaged goods industry for the last decade” (http://www.pg.com/en_US/company/core_strengths.shtml). How do they do this? They value “big, new consumer innovations,” and Amabile’s article discusses the innovation team that P&G created called Corporate New Ventures. Aside from this specialized unit, P&G as a whole operates according to Amabile’s three components of creativity. They value expertise, evident in hiring less than 1% of the half-million people applying for P&G jobs each year. Their recruiting process “measures intelligence, assesses character and leadership, and predicts success at P&G” (http://www.pg.com/en_US/company/purpose_people/leadership_development.shtml). P&G also fosters creative-thinking skills, as seen in their “innovation centers,” which simulate in-home and in-store environments, enabling employees to solve innovation challenges (2008 Annual Report). P&G not only emphasizes disruptive innovation and creating new ideas and products, but they want employees to continuously evaluate and improve products already on the market through sustained innovation.

P&G is also very focused on Amabile’s most important creativity component – motivating employees. They state, “We challenge P&G people from day one” through hands-on experience (http://www.pg.com/en_US/company/purpose_people/leadership_development.shtml). They match meaningful responsibilities for each employee, which is critical for intrinsic motivation. They stimulate employees’ minds (Florida & Goodnight) by providing technical, functional, and leadership skills training. This training often takes employees into stores or consumers’ houses to truly touch the issue. P&G also stimulates minds by assigning projects that require collaboration within and outside the company. This collaboration requires work-group design (Amabile), which P&G does by valuing differences, believing that “the interests of the company and the individual are inseparable,” and building “confidence and trust across business units, functions, categories and geographies.” Furthermore, P&G seeks to minimize hassles (Florida & Goodnight) by striving to “simplify, standardize and streamline” work. Finally, P&G provides employees with supervisory encouragement (Amabile). Senior executives are mentors and coaches for younger managers, helping them develop necessary leadership skills and planning their careers at P&G (http://www.pg.com/en_US/company/purpose_people/leadership_development.shtml).

Through all of these examples, it is evident that the two theories of leadership is innovation and leadership is culture come into play at P&G, and can be realized in this video by CEO Bob McDonald http://www.pg.com/en_US/innovation/index.shtml. After watching this video, how does P&G’s innovative culture help them achieve their purpose of providing “branded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world’s consumers, now and for generations to come”?

"Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could."

At a time when visionary leaders were shedding the shackles of no representation in government and constructing a brand-new country with laws demanding equality, Abigail Adams seized her opportunity. "Remember the Ladies," she famously wrote to her husband, "and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors...if particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice, or Representation."
Abigail Adams, like nearly all other women at her time, had no formal/positional authority and no legitimate power beyond that required to run a household. She was, however, exceptionally bright, and fortunate enough to have married a man who not only noticed her intelligence but also respected it. It is well-documented through John and Abigail Adams' prolific correspondence that he often asked her advice on matters of state and governance; through the strength of this relationship, Abigail possessed at least some degree of referent power and potential influence (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy).
Abigail also used the "rational persuasion" power tactic as she counseled her husband on, ironically enough, good leadership - "Whilst you are proclaiming peace and good-will to all men, emancipating all nations, you insist on retaining an absolute power over wives. But you must remember that arbitrary leadership is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken...we have it in our power...[to] throw both your natural and legal authority at our feet." Her argument is following naturally enough from current events - Americans were in the process of overthrowing a ruler who refused to act in their best interests, and Abigail is stating directly that exactly the same thing will happen with women if they are not given notice. Her statements themselves sound eerily like a precursor to Barnard - leadership is not effective when assumed merely by virtue of position, it is granted by those who are led, and they can take that authority away.
It is perhaps on a related principle of Barnard's that Abigail made her error in leadership - a leader should never ask a subordinate to do something that they cannot or will not do. John Adams was certainly physically capable of remembering the ladies, but even as a progressive man of his time he was unwilling to put his masculinity on the line and risk the "despotism of the petticoat." But did she create her own self-fulfilling prophecy? In an interesting parallel to McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y of humanity, Abigail would have planted herself firmly in the Theory X category when she called all men naturally tyrannical. If she had communicated to John that all men were, instead, naturally fair and just, would she have received a more fair and just response?
Abigail Adams is an example of a leader with no followers (at the time) and who "accomplished" essentially nothing. She did, however, have a vision - a leadership quality which Choi, Sashkin, and other theorists claim is fundamental - and this vision would inspire hundreds and thousands of women like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton to fulfill the prophecy of rebellion that Abigail Adams foretold. It took almost 150 years from the founding of our country for her vision to realize, but the government finally did - in 1920, with women's suffrage - remember the ladies.

(quotes taken from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/adams/filmmore/ps_ladies.html)

U.S. Leadership - Past, Present, and Future

With midterm elections on the brain, this week’s assignments triggered thoughts on our national government and how it functions in light of the theories presented in the readings. I found Schein’s discussion on the role of the founders particularly intriguing, as there are several ways to apply his findings (1983). There is the historical context as well as more current applications of his theory on founding leadership.

For instance, Schein (1983) outlines four distinct steps that demonstrate how founding has a lasting impact on the culture of the firm. In the case of the United States, George Washington is the figurehead that most clearly represents the first step, an “idea for a new enterprise:” an independent country of distinct but united states. Then, according to Schein, “a founding group is created on the initial consensus that the idea is a good one,” a group of colonial leaders appropriately known as The Founding Fathers. Next, this group acts “in concert to create the organization,” which this set of founders did by crafting and signing the Declaration of Independence, and later drafting and adopting the Constitution. Schein’s final step, bringing others on board to begin functioning and “developing its own history,” is portrayed in our country’s 234 rich and colorful years of existence. The cultural theme of separate and unique, yet united, parts permeates this history: the structure of government, the diversity among the roles and occupations of the Founding Fathers, as well as our demographic diversity here in “the Melting Pot.” This notable founding and the resulting culture is a familiar example for many of us of Schein’s discussion of initial leaders and their impact.

Another way to consider founding leadership in the U.S. is in terms of each president and his administration. Every time a new commander-in-chief is elected, a new administration is appointed and a new Congress is elected, essentially re-creating and re-founding the country under new leadership. In our current situation, most would agree that Obama exemplifies qualities of a charismatic and visionary leader, as we have discussed extensively in class. During his initial campaign, he was massively successful in mobilizing people and garnering commitment, and has since set up a founding group of his own within his Cabinet, as well as the Congress he works alongside. In the current political climate, midterm elections, which could drastically impact is core group of “founders,” will be a critical moment in the Obama’s success as an organizational leader.

Questions:

- Has Obama’s four years in office been consistent with the culture established by The Founding Fathers? Why or why not?

- Do you think Obama will ultimately be successful in establishing a resounding legacy? (Some particular “hot issues” to consider are health care reform and the economy.)

- What other points from Schein’s article could be applied United States’ government?

First Ladies: Public Servants or Positional Powerhouses?

First ladies, especially in the latter part of the 20th century, have gained a significant amount of power and influence in the eyes of the general public. Beyond simply serving as a political celebrity and White House hostess, women who have held this position have helped their husbands advocate causes, promoted the public image of our country, and served as a leader for various causes ranging from literacy to women's rights to environmental protection.

But the position and the actions of the women who are given the unofficial title of first lady presents a chicken and egg problem: are these women leaders simply because they have become first ladies, or were they leaders before reaching the White House and are now using their additional power to advance their established leadership agenda? Or to use the terminology of this class, are first ladies typically situational or servant leaders?

It could be argued that the leadership of most first ladies is purely situational, that the only reason they are afforded any sort of leadership or prestige is because of their husband's immensely powerful and public job. Though some of these women carry on their adopted causes after their time in the White House is over and remain public figures years after, many could still claim that their leadership after their time in the White House is merely lingering power from their years as first lady.

Is the power and leadership of these women in any way minimized because they gained the position of first lady through no (or at least little) personal achievement of their own? Many of these women were successful and powerful in their own right, but were more or less forced to give up their own careers when their husbands were elected president, and have displayed many of De Pree's leadership traits in previous professions.

Though the leadership that these women display is often ostensibly situational, this label doesn't fully acknowledge and appreciate the work they do. Though Michelle Obama was a lawyer with little public advocacy for military families before becoming first lady, is her work any less important that the work of Laura Bush, who has promoted literacy through her work as a librarian for years before her husband was elected president?

Smith's definition of servant leadership might be more apt to describe the work of first ladies. According to Smith, servant leaders have an underlying attitude of egalitarianism, step up when the situation calls for it, and have the primary goal of community-building around a specific issue. All three of these attributes describe the attitude and actions of most first ladies, who use their notoriety and public image to bring attention and help to specific issues.

While many of the actions of first ladies are in line with the typical definition of servant leadership, there is one major caveat: Greenleaf insists that servant leadership is the opposite of positional leadership. The two are, by his definition, mutually exclusive. So, which is it then? Are these women using their privileged position to enhance their established public service or are they serving the public merely because their position essentially demands it? Or is Greenleaf, at least in this case, not completely right in his definition? Also, while neither approach is particularly better, is it possible for first ladyship to be clearly defined as situational or an extension of lifelong service, or should it be examined on a case-by-case basis?

You can't make 500 Million Friends without making a few Enemies

With The Social Network hitting theatres this month, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been getting a lot of negative attention. The movie depicts Zuckerberg in an unfavorable light by revealing some unpleasant facts about him as a person. I could write this blog post about the many things he does poorly as a leader that is represented by all of this negative press, but instead, I am going to defend Zuckerberg’s leadership and show how he embodies many of the theories we have discussed in class in impressive ways.

The worst aspect of Zuckerberg that is portrayed in the movie is his betrayal of Facebook co-Founder and best friend, Eduardo Saverin. Zuckerberg strategically cuts Saverin out of the company and does so knowing that he would lose him as a friend in the process. DePree says people skills always precede professional skills and without understanding the cares, yearnings and struggles of people, one cannot intend to lead them (221). Zuckerberg clearly lacks appropriate interpersonal skills, but in my opinion, overcomes them with other important leadership qualities to lead Facebook in an effective and productive way.

Facebook is what it is today because of Mark Zuckerberg. His visionary leadership has made the company so important to the lives of all that use it. When creating Facebook, Zuckerberg had the idea that he wanted to create something that would change the way people live for the better by connecting them to each other. This construction of a vision is the first thing Sashkin says you must do in order to be a visionary leader. The second thing Sashkin says is putting the philosophy into practice. Zuckerberg has clearly done that by connecting over 500 million people all over the globe. The third aspect of Visionary Leadership according to Sashkin is personally creating and supporting your vision. Zuckerberg devotes his entire life to Facebook and has said in multiple interviews that the only thing he does outside of work is sleep.

Zuckerberg also represents a socialized charismatic leader. Choi defines this leader as someone who motivates his followers to maximize the gains of the organization without regard for his own personal needs (26). People may not believe this because Zuckerberg is currently the world’s youngest billionaire, but making money is not his primary concern. Zuckerberg is still involved with the day-to-day operations of Facebook and shows his followers how to unite their work to a larger sense of purpose (Choi, 27). His main goal is not to make money, but it is to have his employees provide a network for people all over the world to share and connect with each other. In an interview with Mike Harvey of The Sunday Times in London, Zuckerberg says that if his employees succeed in the company’s mission, the financial rewards will come. The mission always comes first.

Lastly, and I think most importantly to understand Mark Zuckerberg as a leader, is how he exemplifies Selznick’s idea of statesmanship. Zuckerberg has undeniably bonded his selfhood to the identity of his institution. The fate of Facebook is intertwined with Zuckerberg’s, and vice versa. For the rest of his life, Mark Zuckerberg will be remembered hand in hand with his company, and I think he would not want it any other way. And that to me is what makes him a great leader.

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.