At the outset of MSLD
511, Organizational Leadership, as our very first assignment, we were asked to
develop and write down our own, personal definition of leadership. How entirely
appropriate that as our very last assignment in this course, after studying several
leadership approaches and theories, we are now asked to determine if we would
make any changes to our definition of leadership. My original definition, from
that first assignment, follows:
“Leadership is a person,
or persons acting in coordination, who: oversees the activities of other
persons assigned to them, or hired by them; develops and communicates the
vision, goals, objectives, work assignments, policies, and constraints of the organization
or team; provides direction or instruction and necessary resources; evaluates
performance and provides feedback; inspires and coaches their people to achieve
the vision, goals, or objectives of the organization or team; evaluates and
manages the organizational interaction with the outside environment; and
otherwise enables individual, organizational, or team success in fulfilling the
stated vision, goals, or objectives; assumes responsibility for the
organization or team performance and its continued viability; sets and
communicates the standards and expectations for performance, fairly rewards
good performance, and takes corrective action when necessary.”
The first thing that
strikes me about my original definition is that it contains elements from
several of the leadership theories that we studied in this course. For example,
“communicates the vision, goals, objectives” is found, or implied, in several
of the theories that we read about, from the Behavioral Approach, to the
Situational Approach, Path-Goal Theory, Leader-Member Exchange Theory, and
especially in Transformational Leadership where “Inspire a Shared Vision” is
listed as one of the early and essential steps of leadership. (Northouse, pg.
174) Similarly, in his chapter on Servant Leadership, Northouse lists “Conceptualization
[as an] individual’s ability to be visionary for an organization, providing a
clear sense of its goals and direction”. (Northouse, pg. 228) Finally, in my
Leadership Interview, setting the vision came out as one of four key “must-do”
activities of a leader. The other three were: getting the chain of command
rightly established, align the organizational structure with the vision, and
hiring talented people and letting them “run”. I would daresay that the
development and communication of an appropriate and clear vision for the
organization, however that is done, is at least as important as all of a leader’s
other actions, behaviors, and talents, if not more so.
The second element of my
original definition that I would like to highlight are the words “inspires” and
“coaches”. These leadership actions or behaviors stood out prominently in our
study of Transformational Leadership, the Situational Approach, and Path-Goal
Theory where the role of a leader to encourage, support, motivate, and even to
inspire were brought out as essential leader activities and behaviors in
situations where followers either needed help with figuring out a task, or where
the communication of direction and vision to inspire already highly developed
and talented followers would help energize the organization to excel. The
leadership style of “coaching” was explicitly stated in the Situational
Approach, where the leader needs to be both highly directive and highly
supportive for followers with low to some competence and low commitment to the
organization and its objectives. This also relates to the words “provides
direction or instruction” in my original definition. In all approaches or
styles, development of the follower was either explicit or implied.
Providing resources and “otherwise
enable[ing] individual, organizational, or team success” figured prominently
into Path-Goal Theory as the leader was seen as one who removed obstacles
between followers and the successful achievement of the stated goals or
objectives of the organization or team. Specifically, in Path-Goal Theory the
leader “defines goals, clarifies [the] path, removes obstacles, and provides
support”. (Northouse, pg. 116) However, Path-Goal Theory, as do the others,
goes above and beyond my original definition, citing greater complexity
regarding the type, or level of development of the follower, the complexity of
the scenario in which the leader may find himself or herself, etc.
So while my original definition
did contain several key aspects of the various theories that we studied, it
also omitted key details and even entire theories (e.g., Adaptive Leadership
and, to a large extent, Servant Leadership). This leaves me with the rather
obvious question of “How do I improve on my initial definition?” Developing an
accurate and concise definition of leadership that includes all of the key
styles, approaches, theories, etc. remains a truly challenging task and I’m not
entirely certain that I can do so without introducing yet more inadvertent
exclusion or error than I did the first time. I think that Leadership Theories
can be defined, and I believe that each of those theories provides ideas,
techniques, and even prescriptions for the myriad of combinations of
environment, objectives, follower development, constraints, and scenarios which
a leader may face. But whole chapters and long articles were devoted to the
adequate definition and description of each theory; again, how to come up with
a concise and clear definition of leadership that one may find satisfying?
In reading about each of
the leadership approaches or theories, I recognize portions of each that I have
used in my career, without necessarily knowing the formal definition of same. I
find therefore that, much like struggling with a revised definition of
leadership, I cannot label myself as one particular brand or style of leader.
My initial definition I know was heavily influenced by my experience and my
tendencies toward leadership. I have long recognized the importance of, and
tended to favor things like vision, supportive and directive behaviors,
coaching, removing obstacles from the path to success, and also aspired to be
an inspirational leader who tries to motivate (rather than coerce) followers to
achieve our mutual goals and otherwise succeed and grow in talent, knowledge,
and character. Within the past few years, primarily through church and also the
works of Ken Jennings, I have heard about servant leadership and done a lot of
thinking about, and aspiring to, that style. But I’m not there yet.
Along the way, and
especially in this course, there has also been introduced Authentic Leadership.
This is the theory or approach that I find most satisfying. A leader who
possess high moral standards and integrity, who is transparent, who is self-aware,
and able to be balanced in his or her processing of information; this is the
type of leader that I most want to be. I realize that such is a lifelong
process as Authentic Leadership inherently grows out of significant life
events, extensive experience, the process of self-discovery and awareness, and
the sharpening of moral reasoning and commitment. As such, it does not seem
probable or suited to the young and impetuous.
So what of this
definition of leadership? Perhaps it should go something like this:
“A leader is someone who
understands the various leadership theories and approaches, who has experience
with each, and who, based upon the particulars of environment, organizational
objectives or requirements, and follower development and needs, selects and
uses the appropriate leadership approach, or elements from several approaches,
to successfully guide or enable the organization to succeed, while having a positive
influence on its members.”
To be continued….
No comments:
Post a Comment