Running Head: SELF, WORLD, REALITY
Leadership:
Knowing One’s Self, the World, and Constructing Reality
Dru Macasieb
Brandman University
1
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
2
Leadership: Knowing One’s Self, the World, and Constructing Reality
Chapter 1: Thoughts on Leadership
What comes to mind when one hears the word LEADERSHIP? Do images of friends and
family come to mind? Or do images of public and historic figures like Steve Jobs or George
Washington come to mind? Maybe it is not familiar faces one pictures, but rather actions such as
a firefighter leading a team through a burning building. One thing is for certain; leadership is an
interesting and complex phenomenon.
One could argue that because leadership exists, yet is difficult to define; it must have been
built into the human psyche since birth and developed over time. The concept of leadership is not
a clear-cut idea, but one thing is for certain, because of this ambiguity to define leadership,
leadership becomes a personal philosophy of practice rather than a science. So how does one
begin to develop their definition, or better yet, their philosophy of leadership? It seems to me that
in order to get a better understanding of a well-defined and balanced philosophy of leadership,
one must explore, analyze, and apply multiple leadership concepts as well as learn from one’s
own experiences, the experiences of others, and experiences that hasn’t happened (having faith
and taking risks). This paper will discuss and my leadership philosophy. This first chapter will
present and discuss my thoughts about leadership, specifically in these key areas: my personal
definition of leadership, the similarities and differences of leadership and management, and what
leaders do.
Definition of Leadership
Leadership is an ongoing process of knowing one’s self, understanding the world, and
constructing reality. To support my definition of leadership, I will discuss three methods of
defining it, and then analyze three definitions of prominent figures in the leadership community.
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
3
In researching the definition of leadership, I found three ways to define leadership: leader-centric
definitions, leadership as an effect, and defining leadership by behavior.
Leader-centric Definitions
Founding director of the Center for Leadership Studies in Binghamton, New York and
editor of The Leadership Quarterly, Dr. Bernard M. Bass suggest that leader-centric definitions
imply that leadership is the result of one-way effects due to the elements of a person, which is
why my personal definition emphases knowing. One-way effects can be categorized are as
follows, leadership as: an attribution, a symbol, and the maker of meaning.
Leadership as an attribution. I believe that we all have our own idea of what leaders are
and what they do, and for that reason, leadership can be attributed to certain traits. In studying
leadership, I have incorporated five personalities within my leadership philosophy that define
leadership. These traits are: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and
sociability.
Intelligence. Research shows that leaders tend to have higher intelligence then nonleaders (Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader, 2004). I believe that intelligence is important because it
reflects a leader’s competency on a given task. But intelligence goes beyond being technically
competent; it also means being competent in various fields such emotional intelligence and
communication.
Self-confidence. Having self-confidence allows leaders to influence others better; after
all, it is easier to trust someone who is confident than someone who is uncertain. Bass (2008)
found that almost all of the researchers that studied the relationship of self-confidence and
leadership were unvarying in their positive correlation.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
4
Determination. Determination is having a strong will power to achieve something and
may include qualities such as initiative, persistence, dominance, and drive. It is an important trait
for leaders because its what fuels their perseverance when times get tough.
Integrity. Integrity is the quality of having honesty and truthfulness; it determines the
credibility and trustworthiness of the leader. According to a survey of 15,000 respondents by a
research conducted by University of Santa Clara’s Dr. James M. Kouzes and Dr. Barry Z. Posner
(1992), leaders who do what they say, keep their promises, admit their mistakes, and follow
through on their commitments, are universally esteemed and admired.
Sociability. Sociability is the ability for leaders to create pleasant social relationships.
Studies have shown sociability contributes to inspirational motivation, individualized
consideration, and contingent rewarding by leaders (Bass, 2008). A leader’s social skills greatly
attributes to the behavior of followers. For instance, working in management, I find that good
social relationships in team environments gets members more committed than compliant, which
can be a huge difference in the amount of productivity that is produced.
To conclude, leadership as an attribution would have one believe that the traits of
intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability are crucial for leaders.
Based on my definition of leadership, it is crucial for one to know themselves in order to
understand to what extent these traits lie within them. When thinking about the great leaders I
have had in the past, they have all possessed all of these personality traits. However, leaders are
not created by these traits alone, as non-leaders can also possess these traits, there must be
something else that defines what leaders are.
Leadership as a symbol. It can be suggested that leaders play a symbolic function for a
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
5
group or organization. The idea that leaders are a symbol means that a part of a leader’s function
is to be the representative for the group to the outside world (Bass, 2008). When one thinks about
an organization, or group, one may think about the leader of that group. For instance, when one
thinks about Microsoft, the image of Bill Gates may appear. Likewise, when one thinks about
Apple Computers, Steve Jobs is visualized. Clearly, organizations need leaders to represent
them. In my leadership philosophy, I believe that when a leader arises he or she acts as a
symbolic representation of how members should behave. But thinking of leaders just as symbols
disregards other important functions leaders have; such as the way they clarify goals.
Leadership as the maker of meaning. Another way to define a leader is by how they
create clarity. According to Bass (2008), leaders are the people who provide understanding and
meaning for situations that followers find ambiguous, confusing, indistinct, unclear, uncertain, or
vague. This suggests that leaders are the shapers of reality. In my leadership philosophy, I
believe that leaders are the constructors of reality. They create situations that influence and move
people.
The leader-centric definitions look at leadership from a one-way approach, the leader.
One would mostly certainly agree that leaders must possess certain personality traits, eventually
become symbolic figures for a group or organization, and are the constructors of reality. But one
could also argue that leadership goes beyond the traits or functions of a single person. Another
way to define leadership is by its effects that they have, or by what they accomplish.
Leadership As An Effect
During my studies of leadership theory, a constant element that keeps surfacing is the
idea of the leader as the instrument of goal achievement. According to management expert and
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
6
co-developer of the Situational Leadership theory and model, Dr. Kenneth H. Blanchard (2010),
one good measure of a great leader is his ability to accomplish a group’s goals while being able
to satisfy their needs. I agree with Blanchard that goal achievement is a good measure of a good
leader, but I also believe that goal achievement is an after effect of the leadership process not a
defining characteristic of leadership. For instance, a basketball coach that trains and guides his
team is considered a leader, even if he is unable to achieve the goal of winning. This suggests
that goals play an important part in leadership, namely that leadership is born in the presence of
goals, not achieving them. In my leadership philosophy, goals are visions that are important to
have in order to create a pathway in which to follow.
Leaders may need goals in order to create a vision but merely having a goal does not
create leaders. Instead, goals allow an opportunity for leaders to emerge. This idea suggests that
there needs to be another element that defines leaders beyond traits and goals. I believe that a
huge part of the definition of leadership also lies within the interaction associated with followers.
Defining Leadership by Behaviors
Some believe that leadership should be defined and measured by their behaviors. This
means that leadership is based on what the leader actually does on the job. Behavioral leadership
theories try to explain how effective leaders use different styles.
Bass’ (2008) research has concluded that the vast majority of researchers agree on two
generally accepted types of leader behaviors: task-oriented and people-oriented behaviors. Task
oriented behaviors are concerned with the technical and production aspects of completing a job,
while people oriented behaviors are concerned with ensuring people are satisfied while
emphasizing strong relationships. I believe that knowing one’s self, and understanding the world
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
7
around us (in this case followers and the situation) one can better equip the appropriate behaviors
to accomplish a given task. In my leadership philosophy, I agree with the two general types of
styles and believe that leaders may switch between task-oriented and people-oriented styles at
any given time depending on the situation at hand.
How Other Researchers Define Leadership
Thus far, I’ve discussed three methods of defining leadership, now I’ll discuss how three
prominent figures in the field of leadership studies define it. The researchers that I will discuss
are Warren Bennis, John Maxwell, and Peter Drucker.
Bennis’ view on leadership. Warren Bennis states that “Leadership is a function of
knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues,
and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential” (Bennis, 1989, p. 9).
Bennis’ definition is appealing to me because he first states that leadership is a function, or an
assigned duty. This means that leadership is not something someone is born with, instead it is
something some one seeks to do. Next, he says leadership has several functions: knowing
yourself, having a vision, building trust, and taking effective action.
Knowing yourself deeply resonates with Senge’s (2006) idea of personal mastery. If one
knows himself, then he knows what he wants and can create instruments that achieve his or her
desires. People who truly know themselves, approach life as a creative work, rather than living
life from a reactive viewpoint.
Having a vision is a critical element for a leader. Professor of Management and Director
of Research for University of Southern California’s Leadership Institute, as well as the author of
Visionary Leadership, Burt Nanus states, “A leader’s vision also inspires action and helps shape
the future, but unlike a personal vision, it does so through the powerful effects it has on the
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
8
people who work for, use, or otherwise have an interest in the leader’s organization” (Nanus,
1992, p. 7). I cannot comprehend a leader without a vision; it is like following a map without a
destination. Bennis not only requires are leader with a vision, but he also emphasizes the fact that
the visions needs to be well communicated. A well-communicated vision resonates with Senge’s
(2006) idea of a shared vision. Having a shared vision means that members of the leadership
team are aligned and committed.
Building trust among followers is important because it is acts as the motive behind the
belief and willingness to act on the basis of the leader’s words, actions, and decisions
(McAllistar, 1995). It gives followers confidence and assurance about the guidance they receive.
As a result, trust becomes the fuel for receptiveness. I think about my past leaders that I had little
to no trust in, and I remember feeling unsure, and uncommitted.
“Taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential” is the last statement in
Bennis’ definition of leadership. This is the most important part of his definition because it
emphasizes that a leader needs to take effective action, not just any actions, in order to create a
change.
I find the Warren Bennis’ definition of leadership is easy to understand and inspiring. He
gives the elements that he feels are important in a leader and he goes on to say what leaders do.
His definition also gives a sense of direction and guidance on how leaders should act. On the
other hand, John Maxwell provides a different perspective of leadership.
Maxwell’s View on Leadership
In Maxwell’s (2007) best selling book, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, he
provides his perspective of the true meaning of leadership, “Leadership is influence- nothing
more, nothing less” (p.11). In reading his best selling book, I find that his statement does hold its
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
9
ground. He states that if one does not have influence, then one can never lead others and that
leadership cannot be awarded, appointed, or assigned, it must be earned through influence. I
agree that influence is a key element in leadership, but his definition should go further by
defining a goal, a purpose, or a vision. This is why I like Bennis’ definition, it provides a
framework for what a leader should do, and where a leader should go. Although Maxwell defines
leadership in a short simple sentence, his book he further elaborates on what he believes leaders
do through his “irrefutable laws”.
From a broad perspective and without reading his entire book, Maxwell’s narrow
definition does leave room for plenty of interpretation. The problem with plenty interpretations is
that it distorts and leaves potential for contradictions. The Drucker Foundation’s view on
leadership also suffers from the same shortcomings as Maxwell’s.
Drucker’s View on Leadership
Peter Drucker gives his view on leadership, “The only definition of a leader is someone
who has followers” (Drucker, 1996, p. ii). Like Maxwell’s view, this leaves plenty of room for
interpretation. Answers to questions such as, “How does one gain followers?” or “What is meant
by followers?” can change the meaning of his leadership view. So in a way, his view on
leadership depends on one’s perception of followers.
Looking at the surface of his leadership view, it seems that he ultimately claims that
having followers define a leader. According to his definition, there is very little difference
between leadership and management. During my time in the Army, I have witnessed a lot of
leadership and management processes, both have followers. This creates a problem because if
managers have followers, then Drucker’s definition becomes inconsistent with well-accepted
beliefs that leadership is distinctly different from management.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
10
If having followers is the only criteria for leadership, there is a problem because it
completely disregards other elements of leadership such as: influence, traits, and interactions.
Nevertheless, Drucker does make a valid argument that leadership needs someone to lead.
Bennis, Maxwell, and Drucker all provide valid perspectives of what leadership is or
ought to be. Bennis lists several elements important to his view while both Maxwell and Drucker
list one.
Defining Leadership Concluded
“Leadership is an ongoing process of knowing one’s self, understanding the world, and
constructing reality.”
In observing how leadership is defined through leader-centric definitions such as
attribution, symbols, and maker of meaning; as well as the effects and behaviors of leaders; and
studying how other researchers have defined leadership, my definition of leadership is clear. It is
not only one of these elements that define leadership, but all of them in an ongoing process.
Leadership is a process because some type of action must occur. Knowing one’s self is important
because it clarifies our capabilities and what we want. Understanding the world builds
understanding for how we should act. Lastly, constructing reality is how we create actions that
satisfy us; whether that is accomplishing goals or moving people.
Leadership Versus Management
To further understand what leadership is, it is important to grasp the difference between
leadership and its often-confused counterpart, management. Both are often confused because
there processes usually happens together, shifting from leadership to management and sometimes
intertwining. This section will discuss the similarities and differences of leadership and
management.
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
11
Differences Between Leadership and Management
In looking at both processes from a board perspective, the functions of management
include: controlling, directing, organizing, and planning. Of the four functions, directing is the
most interesting because it has the potential for leadership to occur. The three other functions:
controlling, organizing, and planning deals mainly with the administrative aspects of
management. Directing requires actions and people, which is what leadership is, the
interpersonal aspects of accomplishing goals.
There are many stereotypical differences between leadership and management, some of
them are: leaders are more visionary and managers are more rational; leaders do the right things
while managers do things right; leaders inspire through great ideas, while managers command
through position (Capowski, 1994; Fagiano, 1997). An underlining theme in the difference
between leadership and management is that management is concerned with creating order and
stability through authoritative and administrative means; while leadership is concerned with
adaptation and constructive change through motivation, visioning, networking, and building
relationships (Kotter, 1996). Both are geared towards achieving a goal, however through
different paths.
The Similarities Between Leadership and Management
Leadership and management are similar process in many ways. Both use the power of
influence, works with people, and is concerned with goal accomplishment. Skills, like relating to
others, are an important element in leadership and are also an important requirement for all
management levels (Bass 2008). Leadership and management both cross paths when managers
act like leaders or when leaders perform management functions. Both use power in order to
achieve their goals. It is no surprise why people confuse the two processes, as they are
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
12
constructed similarly and have overlapping functions. However, knowing the differences and
similarities are not as important as acting upon both leadership and management functions to
accomplish goals.
Leadership and Management Together
Kotter (1996) suggests that despite their differences, organizations must know how to
lead and manage, or face the threat of extinction. If the differences between the leaders and
management are taken to the extreme, this would suggest that leaders are inspirational figures
that value relationship-oriented styles while managers are stodgy bureaucrats who value taskoriented styles. From my experience, this is never the case.
Management should not be looked at as an unpleasant sight. Both leadership and
management need each other to move towards the goal. For example, when I worked in retail, I
once solely tried to rely on my leadership role. My leadership style was people-oriented, which
inspired my employees and delighted my customers resulting in high sales. However, I neglected
my management duties and failed to schedule the following week’s schedule, order supplies, and
follow the budget plan. Despite high sales, my business was failing because I had inadequately
planned, organized, and controlled the expenses side of the business.
Leadership Versus Management Conclusion
The difference between leadership and management are over emphasized. They are
sometimes portrayed under an extreme light, when in reality both processes need to be viewed in
the same light, as one needs the other in order to be successful. Having one without the other is
possible, but not successful. I believe that in order to be effective leaders, we must also become
effective managers.
What Leaders Do
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
13
One may ask, “So, what exactly do leaders do?” Thus far, I have defined my definition of
leadership and the differences between leadership and management. However, I have not exactly
stated what leaders do. To answer this question, I will turn to Kouzes and Posner’s (2007) The
Leadership Challenge. Their insights on what leaders do has greatly influenced me as I have
incorporated their “five practices of exemplary leadership” in my everyday life. This section will
discuss how I have used model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable
others to act, and encourage the heart in leadership philosophy.
Model the Way
“Exemplary leaders know that if they want to gain commitment and achieve the highest
standards, they must be models of the behavior they expect of others” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007,
p. 15). Leaders model the way. To be effective, leaders need to practice what they preach. They
need to clarify and live by their values. In organizations, leaders act as representatives, which
mean the leaders need to be aligned with the shared vision of the organization, which include the
values. In order for leaders to model the way, they set the example and inspire others to commit
rather than comply.
In my leadership philosophy, I believe one must lead by example. I follow all the rules
and standard set fourth by my organization. I act the way I would want my followers to act by
sticking with my values as well as moral principles. I keep in mind that it would be difficult to
reprimand others for rules and behaviors I do not follow myself. I know that I have modeled the
way when people act like little versions of myself.
Inspire a Shared Vision
“The dream or vision is the force that invents the future” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 16).
Leaders inspire a shared vision. To be effective, leaders need to share the vision of what they
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
14
want accomplished. It is like putting together Ikea furniture, without knowing what the furniture
looks like; we cannot begin to put it together. Visions originate from personal visions (Senge,
2006). It is our duty as leaders to turn personal visions into shared visions. Merely visioning the
end goal is not enough, leaders need to inspire the vision, which means to get others to act
towards the vision and live for it.
In my leadership philosophy, inspiring a shared vision is necessary to accomplish goals. I
inspire a shared vision by constantly communicating with my team. My vision is never concrete
as it changes with every input of each member. Thus, the visions I share are personal visions that
transform into shared vision. By transforming my vision, I create a high degree of commitment
rather than compliance.
Challenge the Process
“No one person claimed a personal best, by keeping things the same” (Kouzes & Posner,
2007, p. 18). Leaders challenge the process. To be effective, leaders need to venture out and
become pioneers of innovation. They need to embrace experiences that have not happened,
which means to have faith and take risks. Leaders transform organizations; while those who do
not chose to lead merely manage them (Kotter 1996).
In my leadership philosophy, I believe that constant innovation is key to improving one’s
self, the group, and the world around us. As an instructor, I start off the first day of class
disclaiming that whatever thoughts and opinions I share with them are of my own understanding
of how the world works, not the definitive. It is their duty to take the knowledge I profess and
challenge it, in order to create a better understanding of how best to accept the knowledge
presented. Without challenging the process, we are slaves to deeply held beliefs of how the
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
15
world works, thus limiting our true potential (Senge, 2006). By going against the grain, thinking
outside the box, we challenge the process and create new possibilities.
Enable Others to Act
“To get extraordinary things done in organizations, leaders have to enable others to act”
(Kouzes & Posner, 2007, p. 20). To be effective, leaders need to foster collaboration and trust.
Collaboration goes beyond working together in the same group, it also means working together
across other groups. For organizations to be successful, they need to understand the system as a
whole, not the individual pieces (Senge, 2006). Thus, collaboration is a tool for understanding
the whole. Leaders also need to empower their followers so that it strengthens the individual
parts of the group, and as a result will strengthen the group as a whole.
Encourage the Heart
“Leaders encourage the heart of their constituents to carry on” (Kouzes & Posner, 2007,
p. 22). To be effective, leaders need be caring, show empathy, and act emotionally intelligent.
This means that leaders must act with consideration and flexibility. Encourage the heart means
that leaders need to challenge their followers to do their best by motivating and guiding them.
Leaders also need to share the glory of success and suppress the pains of failure. This is not to
suggest lying about failure, but instead to emphasize optimism of better things to come.
In my leadership philosophy, it is necessary to genuinely care about one’s followers and
encourage them to do their best. By showing that one cares, followers will most likely feel
morally obligated to reach higher levels of expectations. As a leader, I recognize and praise
achievements of my followers as well as remain optimistic when failure arises. By encouraging
the heart, I am a considerate, open-minded, kind and honest person.
What Leaders Do Conclusion
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
16
Trying to define what leaders do is difficult as there are many tasks that leaders should be
doing. However, in my research and observations, what describes “what leaders do” is best
discussed by Kouzes and Posner (2007): model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the
process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart. Theses five practices are ingrained within
my leadership philosophy and they provide as a reminder of what I should be doing as a leader.
Chapter Conclusion
To conclude this chapter on my thoughts of leadership, several key insights about my
philosophy of leadership deserve review. My leadership philosophy believes that traits are part of
what defines a leader. The traits that I value most are: intelligence, self-confidence,
determination, integrity, and sociability. My philosophy also believes that leaders become
symbols of the groups they represent, that they are the creators of meaning, and that they must
provide goals, and must lead with varying styles. Furthermore, my philosophy believes that there
are differences between leaders and managers, but the differences are irrelevant because
leadership needs management as well as management needs leadership. Lastly, my philosophy
believes that there are practices that leaders must do. Leaders must model the way, inspire a
shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, and encourage the heart. To sum up my
thoughts of leadership, I provide this definition:
“Leadership is an ongoing process of knowing one’s self, understanding the world, and
constructing reality.”
Chapter 2: Leadership Theory
With so many theories of leadership, why care? Why does one have to study leadership if
others cannot agree on a definition, let alone a theory or set of theories to guide us by? This is the
beauty of leadership; it is a dynamic process that we can control and shape in our own image.
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
17
But in order to fully control and shape it to our advantage, we need to study it and practice it. By
studying other theories, and putting it into practice, we can better put to use the best practices we
find, and at the same time, be aware of the pitfalls of leadership. This chapter will further clarify
my philosophy of leadership by discussing the three leadership theories that is shaping my
reality; the theories discussed are: servant leadership, the path-goal theory, and transformational
leadership.
Servant Leadership
Robert K. Greenleaf, who first coined the term “servant leadership” in his 1970 essay,
The Servant as Leader, brought to light an idea that leaders can be “servants” to followers.
Greenleaf’s concept of servant leadership originates from the idea that leadership derives from a
natural commitment to serve. He further defines servant leadership as a type of leadership that
transcends self-interest to serve the needs of others, by guiding their professional and personal
development. This section will discuss the key aspects of servant leadership that has influenced
my leadership philosophy; these key aspects are: selfless service, effective listening, trust and
results.
Selfless Service
Selfless service means to put the needs of others before one’s own. Servant leaders’
primary motivation comes from serving others; as a result of this selfless service, this type of
leader is a moral leader (Greenleaf, 2002). During my time in the military, nothing became more
motivational for me than when my direct supervisor demonstrated the characteristics of a servant
leader through his awareness, empathy, stewardship, and commitment to my growth as a soldier.
For example, working as a mechanic in the military, I was always busy fixing trucks. My direct
supervisor would demonstrate selfless service by stepping out of his supervisory role, and
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
18
working alongside with me to get the job done. However, it did not stop there. Whenever I had
personal issues that bothered me, he was able to identify it, and offered to take my place so that I
could take care of my own self-interests. He sacrificed his own time and energy to help me both
professionally and personally. As a result of his servant leadership, I felt more than compelled to
follow him; I felt it was morally right and just.
Effective Listening
Effective listening means to listen and understand the needs of others and appropriately
act upon them. Greenleaf (2002) believes that in order for servant leaders to be effective, they
must commit to listening and understanding the requirements, concerns, and problems of those
he or she serves. I live by the standard of effective listening. Instead of blindly imposing my will
on others, I take the time to listen carefully, and attempt to understand the true situation at hand.
Once I have a better understanding, I can choose the best course of action to take. For example,
while working in retail, I have used effective listening to identify the needs of customers; and as
a result, I was able to satisfy their needs while at the same time create a trusting relationship that
turned into repeat sales. Today, I use effective listening unconsciously. It is an aspect of servant
leadership that has highly influenced my behavior.
Trust
Trust is having others believe that they can rely on you. It originates from being truthful
and reliable. Greenleaf (1970) believes that being trustworthy is a fundamental behavior of
servant leaders. Consider a situation in which a person lacks trust. For example, would you hire a
babysitter that hasn’t earned your trust? Likewise, how can we let others serve us if we do not
trust them? As Kouzes and Posner (1996) point out, credibility of a leader’s message is measured
by the trust of the receiver towards the leader giving the message. In order to live by the servant
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
19
leader’s aspect of trust, I have practiced being honest, and trusting others enough to empower
them. In doing so, I have gained the trust of many, both the professional and personal people in
my life.
Results
Merely serving does not constitute servant leadership, there has to be results. In order for
servant leadership to happen, followers need to improve in some shape or form, whether it is
becoming wiser, healthier, or more autonomous (Liden, Wayne, Zhao & Henderson, 2008). I
have had managers disguised as servant leaders, as demonstrated by their Oscar-winning
performances of a caring and sincere leader. However, reflecting back, I saw no improvement in
myself. These “servant leader actors” displayed characteristics associated with servant
leadership, but did not serve me because it did not benefit me. To further elaborate, I had a
supervisor acting as a servant leader. She displayed a sense of selfless service by constantly
training and teaching me the tricks of the trade. As I got better with every sale, she grew happier.
Later, I found out that my hard work did not payoff, as I was not working for commission;
however, she was earning a bonus for the sales I generated. She was acting in her own selfinterest. She was able to gain my trust through her effective listening, but underneath, she only
told me what I wanted to hear. This is why results are so important when it comes to servant
leadership, without results; there is no measure of how well one serves another. It could be
argued that my sales manager improved my skills as a salesman, which would be the result.
However, if one feels that the service being given is inadequate, then one is not truly served.
Servant Leadership Conclusion
The idea of servant leadership is ingrained in my leadership philosophy. Serving others
selflessly, effective listening, building trust, and results are aspects of servant leadership that I
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
20
live by. Greenleaf (1970) believed that servant leadership is a conscious choice, and by serving
others, a contagious effect happens, and they too will want to serve. I am a testament to his
belief.
Path-Goal Theory
Another theory that has greatly influenced my leadership philosophy is the path-goal
theory. The path-goal theory helps leaders in assisting followers along a path towards their goals
by prescribing behaviors that best match the followers’ needs and situation. In doing so, the
leader can affect the performance, satisfaction, and motivation of followers in different ways.
The four basic leader behaviors of the path-goal theory are: (1) directive style, (2) supportive
style, (3) participative style, and (3) achievement-oriented style (House, 1971). These leadership
behaviors styles have the goal of increasing followers’ acceptance of the leader, enhancing their
level of satisfaction, which result in effective performance (House, 1971).
The Leader Behavior Styles of the Path-Goal Theory
I value the path-goal theory in my leadership philosophy because it allows for much
flexibility, as the leader behavior styles allow me to tackle different situations. The directive
style is used to clarify what needs to be done and how. The supportive style motivates followers
through a friendly and caring approach. The participative style consults with followers by
soliciting their concerns, suggestions, and recommendations. The achievement-oriented style
motivates followers by demonstrating high expectations and confidence, while creating
challenging goals (House & Mitchell, 1974).
The path-goal theory is better explained with a personal example. Working in retail, I was
always leading a new group of workers that had very little knowledge of how to do the work.
They demonstrated a high degree of role ambiguity. I used the path-goal theory by prescribing
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
21
the directive style. This allowed me to clarify what they had to do and how, which in turn
motivated them because they understood their job. Thus, a situation that was unpleasant as a
result of being ambiguous became more satisfactory because I removed the ambiguity of their
role. This in turn was able to motivate them to exert higher levels of effort to do the work.
However, as easy as this example sounds, it is actually a bit more complex, as leaders need to be
able to successfully prescribe the right leadership behavior.
Path-Goal Theory Conclusion
Some may confuse the path-goal theory with the situational theory of leadership, as
followers are analyzed and a behavior is prescribed. The difference between the two is that, the
situational theory is concerned with matching the leadership style with the followers’
competency and commitment (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Nekson, 1993), whereas the path-goal
theory is more concerned with the characteristics of followers and work settings (House &
Mitchel, 1974). The path-goal theory suggests that followers are more than the competency and
commitment they display. They have internal needs that the need to be satisfied, which are only
uncovered if leaders create a positive relationship with them. The path-goal theory appeals to me
because I consider myself to be more of a relationship oriented leader. But to truly understand
followers, leaders should not only build relationships that have their followers growing
professionally, they must also grow their followers personally. Which leads me to my next
leadership theory, transformational leadership.
Transformational Leadership
Building relationships between leaders and followers helps create clarity of the vision and
goals at hand. Another leadership theory that has greatly influenced my leadership philosophy is
transformational leadership.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
22
Transformational leadership inspires followers to bring about major, positive, changes by
moving beyond their own self-interest and towards the interests of the group; thus, as it names
implies, transforming them, which then transforms the organization (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In
today’s economic condition, transformational leadership is important to businesses more than
ever. Businesses cannot force people to buy their merchandise or services. However, they can
use transformational leadership in hopes of moving employees from a sense of self-interest to a
sense of group interest. Theoretically, this would improve the internal dynamics of organizations,
thus improving productivity. To get a better idea of how transformational leadership can affect
organizations, we must first dissect the elements of a transformational leader and observe what
actions create transformations.
Four Main Elements of Transformational Leaders
Transformational leaders display four major elements. Bass and Riggio (2006) suggest
that transformational leaders are charismatic. They become role models that are highly regarded,
trusted, valued and deserving of emulation. Transformational leaders have inspirational
motivation. They inspire people by encouraging enthusiasm through challenge and creating a
sense of significance while promoting cohesion, confidence and harmony. Transformational
leaders create intellectual stimulation by thinking with creativity, being open, and by
encouraging novel ideas, questioning, and thinking outside the box. Transformational leaders
display individualized consideration by paying close attention to the needs of his or followers.
The four elements, sometimes referred to as factors, of transformational leadership
resonate with me deeply as I have had leaders who displayed those elements and that have
changed me for the better. As a leader, I want to be able to ignite positive change in others. By
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
23
displaying the four elements of transformational leaders, I can better influence people to become
more positive, creative, and caring.
How Transformations Take Place
Merely displaying the four elements of transformational leadership does not create
transformational leaders. A transformational leader needs to be action oriented. Harter and Bass
(1988) suggest several ways in which transformations take place. Transformational leaders
emerge when they raise people’s awareness. They also help followers think conceptually for the
sake of the team and organization. They help followers go beyond a focus of minor satisfaction
to a quest for self-fulfillment. They help people understand the need for change, both
emotionally and intellectually. They create change by creating a sense of urgency.
Transformational leaders strive for greatness, which means they think ethically, and results
oriented. Transformational leaders see things from a broad perspective rather than a narrow one.
They build trust, not just between leaders and followers, but also between everyone within the
group. Transformational leaders also concentrate their energy on the areas that garner the most
significance.
Transformational Leadership Conclusion
As one can see, in order to become a transformational leader, one must not only display
the charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration,
they must also accompany it with some type of action. However, despite how easy and simple
transformational leadership may sound, it may be harder to achieve. Displaying the four
elements of transformational leadership may be difficult as these may fall under personality traits
rather than a leader behavior than can be prescribed. Furthermore, because of its attention to
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
24
improving individuals, professional and personally, as well as the organizations, transformational
leadership lacks a bit of clarity on what the exact goals are.
Despite the criticism associated with transformational leadership, this leadership theory
has greatly influenced my leadership philosophy because it reminds me of the leaders that have
transformed into the person I am today. In reflecting on their personality, they did display
charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.
They did create positive change within me, both personally and professionally. I know they had
transformational leadership because I want to emulate them.
Conclusion
Leadership is an ongoing process of knowing one’s self, understanding the world, and
constructing reality. In creating a philosophy of leadership, it is crucial that I understand how
others have tried to define and practiced leadership. I have based my leadership philosophy on
the theories and concepts that most resonate with my values.
Servant leadership resonates with my leadership philosophy because I believe that leaders
should serve followers, not the other way around. By serving followers, we can know the true
extent of our capabilities, have a better understanding of the world around us by seeing it through
their eyes, and we can better construct our reality because we have shaped those who exist in it.
The path-goal theory resonates with my leadership philosophy because it provides a path
towards the vision, and a plan to overcome obstacles that may be in the way. However, the plan
to overcome obstacles is complex; as leaders need to be able to know one’s self, and the world
around them (the followers and situation) in order to choose the perfect style that will remove the
obstacles and move forward towards the vision.
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
25
Lastly, the theory of transformational leadership resonates with my leadership philosophy
because it is based on the notion that effective leadership happens when leaders earn the trust,
commitment, and respect of followers. This would require emotional intelligence, which is
knowing and being able to manage one’s own emotions as well as the emotions of others. This
lines up with my definition of leadership as it states that leaders must know one’s self and the
world around them (know others).
Understanding leadership concepts and theories is like having a wide variety of tools to
choose from. However, having a philosophy means having the ability to know which tool to use
for the right situation.
Chapter 3: Self as Leader
Part of developing and understanding a leadership philosophy involves identifying the
core values of the leader and understanding one’s moral reasoning process (ethics). This chapter
will be split into four sections: the first section discusses values and how they shape and guide
my leadership philosophy; the second section will discuss how I apply ethics into my decision
making; the third section will observe my organizational change framework; and the last section
will observe assessments that rate my leadership practice, skills, and style.
Values
Values are abstract ideas that influence perception of what is right, good or desirable.
Values guide the individual or group towards thinking and action. “Values influence every aspect
of our lives: our moral judgments, our responses to others, our commitments to personal and
organizational goals” (Kouzes and Posner, 2007, page 52). Values are about knowing yourself
and what you stand for. As a leader, I have developed my own set of core values that guide my
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
26
decisions and shape my reality. In this chapter I will discuss the following four values that guide
me as a leader: courage, selfless service, determination, and collaboration.
Courage
Courage is the having the moral and mental strength to stand for your beliefs. It is about
withstanding danger, fear, and difficulty while facing uncertainty. Courage is bravery in action as
courage asks one to do things they may not want to do. Courage is an extension of integrity, as
courage requires you to act when no one is looking and to take a route that may not be the most
popular. It is important for an effective and inspirational leader to have the value of courage
because this leader can acts on his beliefs, despite pressure from external sources, such as
authority.
Stogdill (1974) found that courage frequently emerged in his research on his list of
leadership characteristics. When I served in the U.S. Army, personal courage is a value that
soldiers had to live by. Peterson and Seligam (2004) found that courage was among the six
virtues needed in an ethical leader. Clearly, courage is a value that a leader needs to have.
Without courage, leaders create self-limiting structures that decreases their potential to be
amazing and effective leaders.
I have displayed courage many times throughout my life. As a soldier, I have been
deployed to Afghanistan and had to take on dangerous missions. One of the most dangerous
missions I have ever been on was when I crossed the wire, into enemy territory, in order to
recover a vehicle. Fear and uncertainty plagued my heart and mind. But I knew that getting this
mission done was my purpose. I could have easily taken the easy way out and waited for
someone else to take on the mission. However, it was my courage that enabled me to overcome
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
27
fear and frustration. If it were not for the courage I had, I would have failed my mission, and my
country.
In the Army, the most prominent form of courage I displayed was the type that originates
from the fear of physical danger. I have also displayed courage that originates from the fear of
rejection. In team settings, I give my opinions and ideas, and often play devil’s advocate.
Sometimes I am wrong but I accept my faults, not fear them. My faults become my strengths, as
I am aware of them and can act upon them. Without courage, I could not improve myself.
Selfless Service. Selfless service means to help others without expectations. I value this
trait because I believe leadership should be about helping others without expectation. This value
has two very important components, selflessness and service.
The first component, selfless means that a leader needs to act unselfishly. A person who
attempts to lead with selfish intentions cannot lead effectively because their view of the world is
limited by their own desires. A leader needs to view the leadership process through unselfish
lenses, allowing him to think creatively about the decisions he will make and how they will
affect others. An unselfish leader has an understanding of the interest and needs of the
environment around him, allowing him the ability to make a better analysis of the situation.
The idea of unselfish leaders is a global concept. A survey of 3,000 Latinos by the
National Community for Latino Leadership, found that one of the qualities that a leader needs is
unselfishness (Bordas, 2001). Sinha, Singh, and Gupta (2002) surveyed 522 middle managers
and found that selfishness is the highest unwanted quantity of a leader.
The second component of this leadership value is service. Leaders are created to be of
service to others. They serve their team-members, the organization, and the greater environment.
They seek to ensure that others are on the right path, the organization meets its needs, and the
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
28
environment is stable. When a leader forgets he is in service of others (and feels that others are to
serve him), he will be consumed by his own ego, and fail to be effective. When I was a manager,
I became highly successful, becoming one of the best in the company. However, my ego got to
me, and I failed to see serve others. I became so blinded by success that I asked how others could
serve me, instead of how I can serve others. As a result, my success began to deteriorate; as my
team did not have the support I should have given them. But once I became aware of my selfish
ways, I was able to once again serve others before myself.
Selfless service is an important value to have because it guides leaders toward unselfish
intentions and it reminds leaders about their purpose and service. Selfless service goes beyond
the duties needed to accomplish a mission. It extends a leader’s services towards helping
members help themselves, similar to transformational leadership.
Determination
Determination is the fixed intention to achieve a desired goal. Determination is what fuels
the leader to persevere in the face of doubt and hardship. Determination has different names such
as: drive, resilience, tenacity, and willpower. No matter what you call it, determination and its
many names is the driving force that makes the difference between giving up early and
continuing on the fight. A leader needs to have determination in order get things done. Without
determination a leader may stray away from the path towards goal achievement. Not only does
determination keep a leader on the right course, but it also enables the leader to be proactive in
achieving things instead of waiting for things to get done.
I have dealt with determination firsthand. In my junior year of high school I ran away
from home due to family problems. I lived with a close friend and it seemed like my life was in
ruins. But instead of accepting defeat I was determined to survive. I joined the US Army right
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
29
after high school, hoping to make a new life for myself. Becoming a soldier was not an easy task;
I had to endure the physical and mental challenges of boot camp. What got me through boot
camp was the thought of my family and friends. I was determined to show them that I was more
than the 2.0 grade-point average run-away that left for the Army. I wanted to succeed and
become an inspiration to others.
Everyday, no matter what tasks are placed in front of me, determination is what gets
things done in my life. Whether it is managing people, paying off bills, or even going to the gym;
I have to be determined in order to accomplish those tasks. It is important to note that what fuels
determination is motivation. Without motivation, determination may not exist. During my Army
years, what motivated me was thought of my family and friends being proud of me. I took that
motivation and turned it into determination, which helped persevere during difficult times and
gave me the courage to face challenges head on.
Leaders need to have determination in order to remove the barriers that get in way of the
leadership process. However, one must be cautious with determination, as it can lead one to the
dark side of leadership. Determination has to accompany selfless service for if it does not,
determination will cloud one’s judgment and transform into selfish motives. Through his
research, Bass (2008) found evidence that determination was one of the traits that resulted as a
consequence of leadership. A leader who is truly determined will act unselfishly and will be fully
committed to the cause. Looking at where I am in my life, I find that none of what I have
accomplished would have not been possible without determination.
Collaborative
Collaboration is working with others for a common purpose. I choose this core value
because I believe a leader needs to be a collaborative person in order to get people to commit
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
30
towards the goals set forth. Collaboration is more than just working with others, it is also the
ability to share ideas, be receptive, responsive, and respectful in a team environment. It is about
interacting with others in a dynamic way that fosters learning.
Collaboration is an important value to have in a leader because it is the element that
brings a sense of cohesion and value within the team. Working as a manager, I had to create a
team that successfully overcame the challenges of running a business. At first, the business
process was all created and done my way. Eventually, my teams excitement and love for the job
started to dwindle. Their work behaviors became satisfactory instead of excellent. It was
apparent that the lack of their input created a gap between business needs and their own personal
needs. I sat down with my team and together we discussed the issue. They had a lot of input
regarding some of the policies and procedures I implemented. It was then I realized that I did not
fulfill the needs of my team. I thought I had created a structure that would guide them towards
success, but I failed to take to account their needs and ideas. The element of collaboration was
missing in my leadership process; and as a result, the road towards the ultimate goal began to
slowly decay. I started to take their thoughts and ideas into consideration and finally collaborated
with them. As a result, they became happier and their behaviors indicated a sense of commitment
instead of compliant.
The effects of collaboration can be observed in teamwork environments such as fire
stations, hospitals, and retail stores. However, the lack of collaboration can also be observed in
the same places. One example of poor collaboration (or lack of) is witnessed during the events of
Hurricane Katrina. Poor collaboration was apparent when over 500 organizations tried to help
but failed to meet the needs of the population as a whole (Forgette, Dettrey, Van Boeing, &
Swanson, 2009). The collaboration between the Department of Defense and Federal Emergency
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
31
Management Agency was not present as the timeliness for the relief efforts was not as quick as it
could have been. Overall, the whole government relief effort was poorly planned. How can we
be a leading nation when we, ourselves, cannot successfully collaborate with our government
agencies? In order for our government to effectively lead any relief effort, they have to
effectively collaborate with the various organizations involved.
Core Values Conclusion
Core values guide a leader’s thoughts and actions. Whether we are aware of it or not,
everyone has certain values that influence the way they think and behave. When one reflects on
how one has led, he can then pinpoint the core values most important to him. My leadership core
values are a reflection of my past experiences and current understanding of leadership. Courage,
selfless service, determination, and collaboration are the four values I resonate with the most
when I think about how I behave as leader.
My Ethical Framework
Ethics is the morale principle of an individual. It guides how we conduct ourselves
towards what is right and wrong, good and bad, and shapes our moral duties and obligations.
When we become leaders, we assume the benefits of leadership but we also embrace the ethical
burdens it carries (Johnson, 200).
It is no surprise that leadership has ethical burdens. Just look at the countless civil
lawsuits, criminal charges, jail time, and negative public scrutiny faced by some of the most high
profile leaders such as: Martha Stuart, Tiger Woods, and Bill Clinton. The cost of unethical
leaders may go beyond the individual as followers can take on the most damaging after effects.
Ethical problems erode the trust between leaders, followers, and organizations (Kalshoven,
Hartog & Hoogh, 2011). Consider the damage Enron caused its employees and other
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
32
stakeholders. Or how thousands of homeowners are being threatened with foreclosure after
pushy lenders sold them mortgaged they could not afford. The Ethics Resource Center (2009)
conducted a survey on employee attitudes and opinions towards unethical behaviors found that
lying to stakeholders, conflicts of interest, and engaging in health and safety violations ranks as
top concerns. Clearly, ethics plays a huge role in leadership, especially in organizational settings.
Individuals need to behave in the most ethical manner. However, there is a problem with
that statement. What one may consider an ethical decision may not be ethical for another. This is
where the complexities of ethics emerge, when beliefs and visions differentiate. It is our jobs, as
leaders, to set the ethical standards and create structures that foster ethical decision-making.
My Model for Ethical Decision Making: The SAD Formula
My philosophy for moral decision-making is greatly influenced by my time as a soldier in
the U.S. Army and by the Situational Analysis Decision (SAD) formula developed by media
ethicist, Louis Alvin Day of Louisiana State University (2005). As a soldier, I have experienced
many leadership styles and have been in numerous situations where I have witnessed leaders
make difficult decisions. As a scholar, I find that the SAD formula is the most appealing tool for
moral reasoning. The SAD model is a three-step process: (1) situation definition, (2) analysis,
and (3) decision.
Situation definition. Situation defined is the stage where all the facts are gathered, the
principles and values are identified, and where we narrow the ethical question to be addressed
(Day, 2005). Irrelevant information should be dismissed and analysis should stick with the facts
gathered. The principles and values are identified in reference to the beliefs of that society.
Finally, the true ethical issue needs to be stated. Different ethical issues may arise in any
situation, narrowing down the issue helps clarify any misconceptions on the issue at hand.
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
33
In order to successfully define a situation, one must have the courage to be honest and
trustworthy to look at a situation as objective as possible. However, honesty and trustworthiness
requires leaders to act with integrity, that is, “practicing what you preach” (Becker, 1998). This
suggests that leaders must consistently look at situations through objective lenses first, before
taking other elements into consideration. Without these honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity a
situation defined would be constructed from bias foundations.
Analysis. Analysis is the stage where we evaluate the values and principles, factor in
external elements, discuss moral duties and obligations, and apply ethical theories (Day, 2005).
In an ethical dilemma there are at least two sides that can claim moral justification. Evaluating
the values and principles for both situations should be considered. External factors should be
considered in the analysis process as historic, scientific, or widely researched information can be
of importance. Examining the duties and obligations of the various parties involved are important
because it identifies who the “stakeholders” are for both parties and clarifies how a decision may
affect them. Finally, the last stage in the analysis process is to discuss and apply any appropriate
ethical theories
True leaders must service all stakeholders, not just ones directly involved in moral
dilemmas. Because of this element in the analysis process, analysis can prove to be complex. As
a business instructor, I have read countless texts that say a Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO)
primary objective is to maximize the shareholders’ wealth, however this conflicts with a leader’s
duty to service all members of the organization. Leadership scholars, including myself, suggest
that the purpose of organizations such as corporations are not only to serve stockholders, but to
serve all stakeholders in a balanced manner (Simmons, Mitzberg & Basu, 2002). This requires
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
34
leaders to value collaboration, as a means to finding the right balance in the outcomes of
decisions.
One may ponder what types of questions to ask when making analyzing ethical decisions.
Bowditch & Buono (2007) suggests six questions to consider when making an ethical decision,
three of which I will discuss.
•
Is it right? This question suggests that there are universally accepted moral principles.
For instance stealing is considered morally wrong.
•
Is it fair? This question suggests that there are inherently just and unjust actions one must
consider. For instance, hiring based on personal preferences instead of professional
qualifications is considered unfair.
•
Who gets hurt? This question attempts to consider how the affects of decisions will effect
others.
Once the three basic questions above are answered, then the decision should be clear and made.
Decision. Decision is the final stage, where a choice is made from the carefully defined
and thoroughly analyzed situation. Once a decision is made, leaders should follow through and
observe how the decision affects others. The decision made should reflect a balanced outcome
for all stakeholders; reflecting on what is right, what is fair, and considers how it affects others.
Ethical Framework Conclusion
The SAD formula may seem like the perfect tool for moral reasoning, but it is not perfect.
One disadvantage of the SAD formula is that it fails to reach a consensus; after all, the final
decision would be based on your ethical analysis. The SAD formula may also limit creativity as
based on what is right and just in the past, not necessarily what may be right and just in the
future. The SAD formula also ignores implementation, as it decides an outcome, but does not
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
35
necessarily describe how to implement one. However, the SAD formula is appealing to me
because it emphasizes clarity (clearly defining the situation), encourages an orderly, organized,
and systematic approach to moral reasoning, incorporates the values, principles, duties, and
obligations of all parties involved, and discusses moral theories that can be applied.
Organizational Change Framework
Through my scholarly research and professional experience I have concluded that
change is necessary for organizations. Organizations must constantly innovate in order to remain
competitive and relevant (Karp & Helgo, 2009). For example, Boarders, the former bookstore
chain, closed its door in 2011. Analyst suggests that one of the main reason why their business
became unsuccessful was because the organization failed to embrace online sales and digital
books. Whereas, their competitor, Barnes & Nobles, beefed up its online sales and released its
own e-reader to remain relevant in the industry (Noguchi, 2011). This section will define
organizational change and development, and describe how I use the change process model in
order to guide my change efforts.
Organizational Change and Development Defined
Organizational change means to alter an organization’s current state. It is synonymous
with organizational development (OD). By definition, organizational development increases an
organization’s effectiveness (Jackson, 2006). If Boarders bookstore embraced OD, it would have
developed ways in which to remain competitive and relevant in an ever-changing environment.
As leaders, we are agents of change. Therefore, it is our duty to be organizational consultants.
This entails being aware of our environment, both within the organization and outside; strive for
maximum effectiveness, facilitate the change process, and help develop improve organizational
outcomes.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
36
The Change Process Model
Defining change and creating reasons for it is easier to do than acting upon it. However if
one establishes a framework for change, it will become easier to implement change and
development. What guides my ability to create change is the classic three-stage theory of change
proposed by Kurt Luwin in 1958 and developed by Edgar Schein (Jackson, 2006). The change
process model has three stages: (1) the unfreezing stage, (2) the changing stage, (3) and the
refreezing stage (Jackson, 2006).
The first stage is the unfreezing phase. This requires people to become aware of the need
to change (Jackson, 2006). Leaders need to have enough courage to admit that one’s current state
is not satisfactory. But courage is only the beginning; one must also establish a sense of urgency
for the need to change (Kotter, 1996).
The second stage in the change process model is the changing stage. This is where the
bulk of the change takes place, as there are a number of complex processes involved. One
notable process that takes place during the changing phase is William Bridges (2004) stages of
transitions. In this process, agents who wish to change must go through the stages of transition,
which are similar to the change process model. Agents must begin by ending (similar to the
unfreezing stage), by letting go of the old. Bridges (2004) suggest that this requires breaking
with the familiar (disengagement); emotional mourning (dismantling); uncertainty of one’s self
(disidentification); uncertainty of our environment (disenchantment); and finally the feeling of
being empty and confused (disorientation).
As a result of disengagement, dismantling, disidentification, disenchantment, and
disorientation, one will transition into a stage where a sense of neutrality takes place. In this
stage, one reflects on the past and plans for the future (Bridges, 2004). The final stage of the
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
37
transitions process is the new beginnings stage. This is where one acts upon new ideas and
begins to associate themselves with a new identity (Bridges, 2004). But in order to have a
successful new beginning, one must keep in mind that the transitions process occurs within the
change process model; and in the change process model, there lies a critical point where support
will be needed if new behaviors are to occur (Kotter, 1996). This means enlisting friends, family,
and peers, to support one’s effort for change.
The final stage in the change process model is the refreezing stage. This stage is where
one stabilizes the new ideas. It is an unconscious state of mind where actions become habitual,
natural, and without thinking.
Organizational Change Framework Conclusion
In order for organizations to change, leaders must understand the change process model.
They must act as agents of unfreezing by creating awareness and a sense of urgency to change.
They must also accept the fact that members in the organization will go through stages of
transition, which include a time of letting go, neutrality, and new beginnings. Leaders need to
provide support to the new beginnings in order reach the final stage of refreezing. Finally,
leaders can determine if a change effort is successful by observing the unconscious actions of its
members.
My Self-Assessment
Thus far, I have I described my leadership philosophy in terms of my thoughts on
leadership, leadership theories that have greatly influenced me, and I have reflected on my
values, ethics, and organizational change framework. However these reflections are subjective in
nature. I must attempt to look at myself as through objective lenses. One way to accomplish this
is to conduct self-assessments based on popular assessment tools. This section will describe my
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
38
findings based on the Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI), skills inventory, and leadership style
assessment.
The Leadership Practice Inventory
James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2003) developed the Leadership Practices Inventory
(LPI), which is a 360-degree assessment instrument based on the five leadership practices model
proposed in their book The Leadership Challenge. It provides a tool that helps analyze the
magnitude of each of the leadership practices so that leaders can reflect upon ways they can
improve their effectiveness.
From the Leadership Practices Inventory (Kouzes & Posner, 2003), the result of my
leadership practice is inspire a shared vision. The results suggest that I value future possibilities
and that I inspire others to share a common vision. I believe this is true for me because I love
inspiring others to do great things. At first, I thought I would lean more towards practicing a
mantra of enable others to act, as I cherish collaborative learning environments and often
empower others. I believe that inspiring a shared vision out ranks enabling others to act because,
one must first establish a picture of the ultimate goal before one can act upon it.
Skills Inventory Assessment
The skills inventory first presented by Katz in 1955 and developed by Mumford and
colleagues in 2000 is a leader-centered perspective that emphasizes which competencies are
strongest and weakest in a leader (Northouse, 2007). The scores for this assessment are as
follows: technical skills 17, human skills 21, and conceptual skills 23.
The results surprised me because I pegged myself as relating more to human skills, which
is having the intelligence to work with people (Katz, 1974). The results indicate that I think more
conceptually versus thinking about technicalities or interactions with people. This is possibly
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
39
because I am a business instructor and ingrained in my beliefs are the bigger picture of things,
such as maintaining profitability and relevancy in a competitive environment. What I can learn
from the skills assessment is that I need to improve my technical skills so that I can lead by
example. My human skills are only two points away from the conceptual skills, which indicate
that I value the interactions of others, but not as much as I value the bigger picture of things. I am
happy with my results, because according to Katz (1974), my results indicate that I have the
potential to be in top management, which is a position that is in line with my leadership practice
of inspiring a shared vision.
Leadership Style Assessment
The Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) developed by researchers in
Ohio State University identifies a leader’s style to be either a production orientation style or an
employee orientation style (Halpin, 1957). The results of my of leadership style assessment are
as follows: production orientation 39; employee orientation 45. The results indicate that I value
human interactions more than task interactions. This is in line with my skills assessment results,
as human skills trumped technical skills. The leadership theories that I most relate to are servant
and transformational leadership, which most likely influence my leadership style because I value
the human aspect of things more than the technical aspect.
Self-Assessment Conclusion
In completing the self-assessments and reflecting on the results, my leadership style leans
towards conceptual thinking with a focus on motiving and inspiring people. I agree with the
results because my personal purpose in life is to inspire, others to do great things. The
“inspiration” element is demonstrated through the high value placed on a relationship style,
while the “great things” element is demonstrated in the high value placed on conceptual skills.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
40
Chapter 3 Conclusion
In reflecting upon this chapter, I find that the concept of self as a leader is shaped by my
values, ethical principles, and organizational change framework. It is also further observed
through my assessments that correspond to my leadership philosophy. The values that I hold true
are: courage, selfless service, determination, and collaboration. It is important to recognize
values, as they are the shapers of one’s leadership philosophy. Knowing which values are
important, helps clarify a leaders path towards the goal. My ethical framework is based on the
SAD formula. It guides me when making ethical decisions. Questioning what is right and just,
while taking into consideration the effects of a decision, helps create a leader that is fair and
morally balanced. Reflecting on my framework of organizational change helps me recognize the
stages members go through. As leaders, we need to be aware of these stages and provide a level
of support that corresponds to the stages. The self-assessments that I have taken which include
the leadership practice inventory, skills, and style assessments have reinforced my ideas of
leadership. Through my vales, ethics and organizational change framework, and self-assessment,
I have concluded that my self as a leader is centered on being conceptual and relational.
Chapter 4: Leadership in Context
Being able to analyze situations, problems and challenges effectively is an important
asset leaders need to have. Leaders with the knowledge and depth in analyzing issues will be
able to see why things are the way they are. They will be able to select justifiable courses of
action to support follower needs and make their organizations stronger. The intent of this
chapter is to showcase my analytical skills as a leader. In accomplishing this goal, two key areas
will be presented. First, I’ll present a description of a situation. Then, I’ll analyze the situation
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
41
from a systems perspective, organizational behavior perspective, and an organizational
development perspective.
Description of Situation
I previously worked for a private, for profit, vocational school, United Education
International College (UEI). I was a business instructor, mainly teaching introductory courses
such marketing and finance. During my time at UEI, I have observed three notable
organizational challenges.
The first challenge is that they are unable to enroll students because they did not hit
satisfactory benchmarks required by their accreditation. The school’s particular accreditation
requires that at least sixty percent of its students must be employed after graduation. However,
most of the medical students, which make up seventy percent of the student body, could not find
jobs. Because they failed to meet their accreditation's standards, the school lost its Title IV
funding, which allowed students to receive financial aid. As a result, student enrollment ceased
and organizational layoffs began.
The second challenge is they are losing organizational members with years of experience
and proven talents. In speaking with faculty members, they loved their jobs; however, because
the school lacked room for growth, they decided to leave the organization in order to seek better
opportunities. One of their top complaints was that UEI did not demonstrate a fair work
environment as most decisions were based on office politics rather than merit.
The third major challenge for UEI is that the school is resistant to change. UEI lacks
innovation and is suffering from a deteriorating competitive advantage as others are providing
the same service with greater benefits. For example, the school lacks any type of online
integration and has old equipment, such as computers and desk, which are almost ten years old.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
42
Analysis of Situation
Systems Perspective (OLCU 602)
Looking at this situation from a systems perspective, one can see that there is a
lack of synergy among the different components of the organization. Peter Senge (2006)
proposed the idea of a learning organization. Senge (2006) defines learning organizations as
organization that continually expands its capacity to create the future. He suggest that learning
organizations can excel by adapting to changes, as well as generating new ideas, being the
catalyst of change. Senge (2006) outlines five interrelated components of a learning
organization: personal mastery, shared vision, team learning, mental models and systems
thinking. Using these five components I will analyze UEI in terms of a systems perspective.
Personal mastery. Senge (2006) describes personal mastery as continuously improving
ourselves. It is creating a personal vision and purpose in life. Those who have personal mastery
continuously seek to enhance themselves personally and professional through education and
experience. They also take responsibility for their actions, valuing integrity and committing to
the truth. It is about loving ourselves and expressing our true potential to the fullest extent. In
order to have personal mastery we must first be aware of our own beliefs and values that impact
our reality.
UEI lacks personal mastery as demonstrated by its members leaving the organization, due
to the lack of growth. Because members of the organization cannot achieve greatness beyond
what they already have, commitment dwindles and members of the organization seek greener
pastures. However, the lack of growth within the organization is only half the problem, it is the
lack of growth within its members that is creating an organizational disability. Since UEI had no
room for professional growth, they could have instilled personal mastery by providing personal
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
43
growth through training. Training in the form of technical, conceptual, and relational may have
created enough incentives for people to stay, as it would have benefited them individually.
Mental models. Senge (2006) describes mental models as deeply held beliefs of how the
world works. They affect what we see and influence how we interact with the world. In order to
break away from being prisoners of our own thinking, we must reflect on how we see the world
and challenge our own beliefs. We must foster mental models that welcome new ideas, not ones
that are rigid and resistant to new thinking. Ideal mental models strive to learn more about the
world while at the same time express how we see it.
UEI’s culture was trapped in its own thinking as it did not practice enriching its mental
model. Instead of creating a culture that welcomed change and innovation, UEI choose to remain
static. The problem arises when the environment outside UEI changes, and the organization
becomes mismatched. This is evident in their lack to embrace new innovations such as online
learning and current equipment.
Building shared vision. Senge (2006) describes building a shared vision as being able to
get groups to create a common image of a desired future. Those who truly share a vision have the
energy and focus to learn, and are committed because it reflects their own personal visions.
During my time with UEI I did not know their vision. I thought their vision was to
educate and provide students with the tools necessary to become employable. However, in
reflecting back, I felt that UEI lacked a shared vision. The various departments had different
goals: the admissions department’s goal was to enroll as many students as possible; the education
department’s goal was to ensure students stayed in school; the financial aid department’s goal
was to ensure students were able to access funds to pay for school; and the career center’s goal
was to provide employment leads to students. With an unclear idea of a shared vision, UEI felt
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
44
like individual organizations that were not related to each other. UEI could have improved
departmental cohesion by committing to share the organization’s vision. Through this
commitment, the individual departments as well as it members can begin to transform their
personal visions into a shared vision.
Team learning. Senge (2006) describes team learning as being able to learn together in
order to act together. It is about aligning and developing our thinking, which means we should
suspend our individual assumptions and enter a state of group consciousness. Those who have
truly mastered team learning are able to think insightfully about complex issues, are innovative
thinkers, and influence others.
UEI acted like separate entities which affected the ability to learn from each other. The
career center knew they had too many medical students to employ, as a result they should have
communicated with the other departments to shift the student body’s population from medical to
other fields as to create a balance, which may have saved their accreditation. UEI failed to use
team learning because they were not aligned in their cause.
Systems thinking. Senge (2006) describes systems thinking as the conceptual
cornerstone of learning organizations. It is the principle that recognizes the interconnection
between parts of the whole and distinguishes patterns instead of isolated events. Those who can
think systemically are able to anticipate how actions of one group can affect others and the
system as a whole.
Success to the successful. Those who can think systemically, allocate their resources
strategically and avoid blindly distributing resources. Senge (2006) referred to this as success to
the successful, “Two activities compete for limited support or resources. The more successful
one becomes, the more support it gain, thereby starving the other” (p. 385). Since UEI is a for-
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
45
profit, private college, the more students enrolled, the more UEI’s profits soared. Therefore,
admissions were a high priority for UEI. The admissions departed enjoyed much success in
enrolling students, and as a result was rewarded with more financial resources as compared by
the other departments. This became a problem as other departments lacked the efficient resources
needed to perform their job. For instance the education department had outdated text books that
were five years old, as compared to the new marketing material admissions received every year.
Shifting the burden. Those who can think systemically are able to acknowledge solutions
to problems instead of the symptoms, they avoid shifting the burden. Senge (2006) describes
shifting the burden as using short-term solutions to correct a problem. For instance, when UEI
lost their accreditation, they began to develop solutions such as hiring unemployed students,
replacing career counselors, and investing more time and energy into the career center. UEI was
not solving the problem (the problem is not providing quality education), it was shifting the
burden to the career center by temporarily curing the symptom (which is low job placement rates
for students) of the problem.
Limits to growth. Those who can think systemically are able to overcome limits to
growth. Senge (2006) describes limits to growth as, “A process feeds on itself to produce a
period of accelerating growth or expansion. Then the growth begins to slow and eventually
comes to a halt and may even begin an accelerating collapse” (p. 379). UEI suffered from limits
to growth, as witnessed through its accelerating enrollments. Since the school was a for-profit,
private college, the more students enrolled, the more UEI’s profits soared. Therefore, UEI
focused its energy on enrolling students instead of educating them. UEI was experiencing such
high success that they did not see the limiting conditions that was to follow.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
46
The limiting conditions to UEI’s growth can be observed by how each component of the
whole system placed mental barriers (static mental models), as each department had its own
agenda. These agendas prevented each component from seeing the symbiotic relationships they
had, which hindered systems thinking. For instance, the admissions department did not
strategically enroll students; its main agenda was to blindly enroll as many students as possible.
Similarly, the education department was more concerned with keeping students enrolled, instead
of educating them with the highest of standards. As a result of the two similar yet mismatched
agendas, it created a huge burden for the entire school. The education department had to keep up
with the inflow of students, which eventually deteriorated the educational quality. Then, the
career center suffered the burden of finding employment for the poorly educated students. As a
result, placement rates dropped, accreditation was revoked, enrollment halted, and the
admissions department was the first to disappear (without the ability to enroll, they served no
purpose). Thus, the organization had experienced limits to growth.
Systems perspective conclusion. UEI ultimately failed to become a learning
organization because they did not embrace the five disciplines. The individual systems within
UEI failed to think with an open mind (personal mastery) nor they think beyond their own needs
(building shared visions), which crippled their ability to learn from each other (team learning),
and as a result was unable to anticipate how individual actions would affect the larger picture
(systems thinking). By not embracing the five disciplines, UEI was left prey to the system
archetypes of: success to the successful, shifting the burden, and limits to growth. In order for
UEI to improve its organization, UEI must first embrace the five disciplines.
Organizational Behavior Perspective (OLCU 613)
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
47
“Organizational behavior (OB) is a field of study that investigates the impact that
individuals, groups, and structures have on behaviors within organizations, for the purpose of
applying such knowledge towards improving an organization’s effectiveness” (Robbins & Judge,
2009, p.10). The OB opportunities where UEI can improve upon are: motivation, power and
politics, and organizational culture.
Motivation. Motivation is the process that arouses people to move towards desired goals
and it controls the intensity, direction, and persistence of its efforts (Mitchell, 1997). Motivation
derives from satisfying individual needs. Maslow’s (1943) proposed that individuals had a
hierarchy of five basic needs: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization.
McClelland’s theory of needs proposes people had three needs: achievement, power, and
affiliation (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Since motivation derives from satisfying individual
needs, it suggests that leaders need to create relationships that recognize individual differences,
in an effort to better equip themselves with the tools necessary to satisfy followers.
UEI lacked satisfying its members’ needs, evident by their departure. What UEI must do
is to build relationships with its leaders and followers that can communicate how best to
motivate them. One way leaders can achieve this is through relationship listening. Relationship
listening seeks to improve the relationship between two people through three behaviors:
attending, supporting, and empathizing (Kline, 1989). Through relationship listening, followers
may open up to leaders and provide information that the leaders can use. However, it is
important to recognize that leaders may not have the ability to know each and every one of their
followers; but as leaders, we should try are best. Maslow and McClelland’s theories are based on
satisfying individual needs, which are personal in nature. But what motivates people to satisfy
the needs of an organization, which is collective in nature?
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
48
As leaders, which according to my definition of leadership are constructors of reality, we
should understand and consider their individual and personal needs. We can create environments
that motivate people to effectively move towards goals. Locke (1968) proposed the goal-setting
theory, which states that by providing feedback to specific and difficult goals, higher
performance can be attained. However, when deciding on goals, or making decisions in general,
leaders must not forget that decisions made are best followed by members who participate in
those decisions (Siebert, Silver & Randolph, 2004). One way to begin solving UEI’s pressing
problems is to implement the goal-setting theory. By creating goals with input and feedback and
then coaching its members towards the goal, it would clarify the path and increase motivation
levels.
It is not enough to create clarity towards the path of goals; leaders must also create
equity. Adams (1965) proposed the equity theory, which states that individuals compare their
jobs inputs and outcomes with those of others and then respond to eliminate any inequities. By
creating an equitable environment, we can eliminate unfairness and uncertainty, while increasing
satisfaction. Based on feedback from its members, UEI has a great deal of inequality as members
feel that the current compensation system is not based on merit; but rather based on
organizational politics. UEI can take steps towards a fair compensation system by creating clear
and simple guidelines on the compensation policies and standards.
Once goals are clear and environments are equitable, leaders can further intensify
motivation through rewards. Vroom (1995) proposed the expectancy theory, which states that the
degree for which one is motivated is related to the rewards one is expected to receive and that the
individual should desire these rewards. Furthermore, there should be a clear linkage between
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
49
performance and reward. If the rewards are distributed with inconsistency with the performance,
then the reward loses value, as it becomes a matter of luck instead of results (Vroom, 1995).
Vroom’s theory suggests that UEI should take steps in creating benefits and rewards that
its members care about and that these rewards and benefits remain consistent, fair, and equal to
all. For example, if you UEI implements an incentive for the career center that gives them
bonuses for achieving goals, then UEI should allow the same opportunity for other departments,
not just the ones in need of resources. It is also important that UEI distributes rewards in a timely
and consistent fashion. Any inconsistency with a rewards and compensation program, devalues
the incentive (Vroom, 1995).
Motivation and UEI. One of the major problems at affecting UEI is the lack effective
motivation throughout the organization. This lack has caused members to leave and become
resistant to change, which has negatively effected their performance. A way for UEI to
effectively motivate their members would be to first focus on meeting their personal needs. This
could be achieved through better pay, benefits, or rewards. However, it is not enough to create
avenues of motivation, the foundation from which these avenues lie must be structured with
equality in mind. UEI should create an organizational charter which outlines the how members
are rewarded. In this way, there is a set standard to guide members by.
Power and Politics. Feedback from members, reveal that UEI’s distribution of power is
uneven, which is why organizational politics play a key role in the daily operations. Power is the
ability to influence the behavior of others (Bass, 2008). There are generally two types of power:
formal and personal power. Formal power is based on a person’s position and can be exercised
through rewards, punishments, or legitimacy. Personal power is based on a person’s unique
characteristics and can be exercised through expertise or admiration (Bass, 2008). Power is
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
50
important to understand because it affects one of the main functions of leadership, influence.
Without power, there can be no influence.
A better understanding of power can be explained with an example. At UEI, the Director
of Education (DOE) knows the accrediting standards and various policies and procedures within
the organization. The DOE also has the only ability to make executive decisions such as drop or
re-enroll students, create classes, and hire instructors. Because of the nature of the DOE’s work,
much power is inherited (formal power). The problem with the DOE and power, arises when the
DOE creates a huge amount of dependency. Dependency is the strength of power one holds over
another. It increases by the degree of importance, scarcity, and non-substitutability associated
with the one holding the power (Mintzberg, 1983). The DOE creates a huge amount of
dependency by hoarding knowledge and authority; which makes the DOE irreplaceable. If the
DOE leaves, it becomes a huge liability for UEI, as no one else would have the knowledge or
experience the position entails. This may be an underlying problem hidden at UEI. If members
hoard power and become irreplaceable assets, one would assume that they are more prone to
unethical and change-resistant actions. In order to lead an organization, it is important to know
the dynamics of power so that leaders can create it, use it (influence), and hold it (dependency).
When power is exercised, organizational politics emerges. Politics is power in action.
Organizational politics refers to the use of power to affect decisions or behavior that are selfserving and organizationally non-sanctioned (Bacharach & Lawler, 1983). Because the balance
of power at UEI is uneven, members use organizational politics to influence actions. For
instance, using organizational politics to influence performance reviews will deteriorate its
quality and trustworthiness. One way for leaders to avoid this mistake is to accept and
understand the political framework of an organization. By understanding organizational politics
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
51
leaders can better predict the actions of others, allowing them to create polices and procedures
that promote a fair and equal work environment.
Power and politics at UEI. The problem with power and politics at UEI is that people
within the organization are afraid to share their power. It is as if they believe that by sharing their
power their own power deteriorates, thus losing their ability to effectively exercise
organizational politics. This is evident in the DOE’s hoarding of power. One could assume that if
the department head practices power hoarding, then his or her subordinates would most likely
follow suit. From my observations of the organization, it is obvious that members try to increase
the their value by hoarding power. They manipulate dependency for self-security, instead of
sharing power to improve organizational well-being. As a result of power hoarding, members
who cannot attain power begin to leave. The organization also becomes more resistant to change,
as those who hold power become comfortable in their current state and see no need for it.
Organizational Culture. Looking at the lack of effective motivation and uneven
distribution of power one can conclude that UEI’s entire culture suffers from an organizational
disability. Organizational culture is the system of shared meaning as well as the collective
behavior of members within an organization (Dull, 2010). It is created through the values,
beliefs, and expectations that leaders model; the attitudes and behavior of followers; the ethical
and operational guidelines; and the traditions and stories members share (McNeal, 2010). In
summary, organizational culture gives identity to the organization.
Organizational culture at UEI. Leaders must understand the power and influence
organizational culture has on its members. If the culture becomes the obstacle towards the goal,
then leaders would need to change the culture. However, this is easier said than done, as culture
is identity; and in order to change identity, it starts with people, which are complex in nature.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
52
At UEI, their worst enemy is not their competition; it is themselves. The culture at UEI
reflects an “every man for themselves” attitude. This becomes a learning disability as well as a
hostile environment. It is a hostile environment because members are uncomfortable, as they are
“walking on egg shells,” having to be cautious of their actions instead of working in a relaxed
environment. Change and development would prove difficult, as the mental models of its
members seem to be set in stone. Therefore, one solution to change the organizational culture is
to start by creating change within its members. Creating change within people may prove
difficult, but it is not impossible. This change is further outlined in the next section, the
Organizational Development Perspective.
Organizational behavior conclusion. Motivation is the key to influencing behavior.
However, it is the right type of motivation that will get people to behave in the desired manner.
People respond to different types of motivation based on their needs. Therefore, being able to
understand people is the key to developing effective motivators. It is important to clarify that
influence is not power, it is the result of having power. The relationship between the two is that
the amount of influence one has is dependent upon the amount of power one holds; those who
wield great power exercise great influence. It is also important to note that power in action is
described as politics, or the ability to affect decisions and behavior. Being able to understand
how organizational politics works is necessary for survival in the organization as one can use it
to their advantage. Organizational politics is a behavior that dictates the organizational culture,
or identify. However, it is not the only factor, as members of the organization also influence the
culture. Therefore in order to create change or develop an organization, it starts with changing
the organizational culture, which starts with changing people. UEI suffers in all three areas
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
53
discussed: motivation, power and politics, and culture. In order for UEI to survive, it must
embrace the process of organizational development.
Organizational Development Perspective (OLCU 615)
Organization development is a process, which is planned, that is organization-wide, that
will improve the current state of the organization. As Luwin (1958) suggest, before an
organization can begin this process it needs to recognize the need for change (Jackson, 2006).
This section will outline how UEI may improve its organization through an organizational
development (OD) perspective.
As outlined in chapter 3, my method for organizational change is based on the change
process model. The section will discuss the three stages of the change process model and how it
is applied to UEI.
Stage 1: Unfreezing
Consciousness. Recognizing that there is a problem leads to ideas for a solution.
Therefore, the realization for the need to change is important because it is the first step in the
process of change (Kotter, 1996). However, it is not enough to recognize a need for change, as
change must be severe enough to create a need of an intervention. Then, the intervention should
be coupled with a sense of urgency (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). UEI is already conscious of the
need to change, as their business is already failing. The next step is to successfully communicate
the need for an intervention and create urgency.
Communication. UEI may communicate the need for an intervention and establish a
sense of urgency within its organization by displaying transparent communication, that is
communication which is free flowing and accessible to members. But it is important to note that
the way in which the message is conveyed is as important as the message itself. The organization
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
54
should not exaggerate or fabricate the degree of urgency (Kotter, 1996). Doing so may cause
more problems. It is also important to note that the degree of transparency must be taken into
consideration, as not all members need to know information beyond the scope of their
responsibilities (Kotter, 1996).
Change Team. Once the need for change is made conscious, the organization should
develop a team to lead the process. Ideally this team should include upper management from
different departments as well as an organizational development consultant.
Although the change team will include upper management, the upper management needs
to have qualities associated with effective leadership (Kotter, 1996). Without enough leaders, the
vision, communication, and empowerment, which are at the heart of transformation, will not
happen well enough or fast enough to assure organizational needs and expectations are met
(Kotter, 1996).
Two leaders. The change team needs to also include two types of leaders, conceptual and
relational leaders. According to Bridges (1988), the conceptual leaders use intuition-withthinking, while the relational leaders use sensation-with feeling and are the “people’s people.” It
makes perfect sense to have both types of leaders in the change team because organizations are
ultimately concerned with completing task behaviors (the structural component) by using
relational behavior (the human resources component). Having both types of leaders will ensure
task objectives are met as well as maintaining the well being of its members.
Stage 2: The Change Process. Once the change team is created the organization can
begin to develop the strategy needed to conduct change. UEI would now need to align its
members. They can align members by instilling the value and the assumptions of the
development process. Individuals should be aware that the process that is about to transpire is
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
55
designed to satisfy their hierarchy of needs, develop groups interest, and improve their work
environment (Bridges, 1988). The first stage of the change process is to “unfreeze” the current
state. What unfreezing means is that the old ways must end (Bridges, 2004). But before they can
end, one must know where to begin.
Force field analysis. Developed by Lewin (1951), force field analysis recognizes the
restraining forces and the driving forces affecting an organization (Jackson, 2006). This tool will
target and justify what properties of the organization must be unfrozen and ended. UEI can then
focus its energy on maximizing the driving forces while minimizing the restraining forces.
The driving forces that support change for UEI are: accreditation standards must be
meant, employees want to develop, and that the industry is changing. The restraining forces
against change are: the separate departments are comfortable being isolated, upper management
is afraid to develop employees for fear of their own position, lastly, UEI is afraid to incur
additional cost. However, theses restraining forces may have a deeper root cause. O’Toole
(1996) suggests common root causes that may contribute to a resistance to change: satisfaction
(members are happy with the way things are, even if it leading to creative destruction), future
shock (members are resistance to change because they are overwhelmed), and ego (members
cannot admit they have been wrong). Furthermore, Bridges believes that organizational
resistance to change occurs because members will feel the loss of their identity and what is
familiar, which results in disorientation, which creates a fear of change (Bridges, 1988).
Nevertheless, UEI needs to recognize that their current business is being destroyed from within.
If UEI implodes everyone loses. Change is no longer an option; it is a must.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
56
Bridges’ transition model. The second stage of the change process is the actual
implementation of the action plan. Bridges (2004) suggest that change is a process that involves
three stages, endings, the neutral zone, and beginnings.
According to Bridges’ model, UEI needs to let go of its old ways, particularly those that
contribute to the restraining forces. They can achieve this by following the five aspects of the
natural ending experience: disengagment, dismantling, disidentification, disenchantment and
disorientation (Bridges, 2004). UEI can start its endings by hiring an outside business consultant.
The business consultant could further evaluate the organization and make recommendations on
what artifacts from the old organization should be discarded. One suggestion is to begin “rightsizing” the organization. This means that UEI would have to get rid of positions that are least
productive, creating a leaner organization. Another suggestion would be to reorganizing the
symbolic frame. This requires throwing away old books, manuals, and other physical material
that are no longer significant to the new organizational standards.
UEI will then transition from the ending stages to a neutral zone where inner
reorientation and realignments are occurring (Bridges, 2004). At this stage, this is where the
organization begins to embraces the actions necessary for change. This may be in the form of
new directives and policies along with a new mission statement (reorganizing the structural
frame).
Finally, the last stage in Bridges’ transition model is beginnings. At this stage is where
the organization adapts to the changes. It is important to note that organizational development
does not simply end at the moment of executing and implementing new directives and policies,
rather it should be seen as an on-going activity.
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
57
Action Research Model. A very common tool used by organizational development
consultants is the action research model (French & Bell, 1999). In this model, the process of
organizational change requires that action plans go through numerous cycles before the desired
out come is achieved. Once the organization has completed Bridges’ transition model, the action
research model requires diagnosis of the new current state of the organization. This requires
information gathering through survey feedback, interviews, and measurable agents (such as cost
or time). The information gathered is then analyzed, and a new action plan is formed and goes
through the transition process once again (French & Bell, 1999).
Learning. Leaders need to ensure that for every cycle analyzed, they are learning and are
predicting the next outcome. It is important that learning is taking place because better action
plans can be implemented.
Progressive process of organizational change. With each cycle of an action plan, it is
important to recognize the short-term victories that improve the organization incrementally
(Kotter, 2006). This creates a sense of moving forward, which maintains members’ motivation.
Short-term victories are part of a Kotter’s (2006) 8-step progressive process that seeks to
minimize errors of organizational change. Another step in this process is consolidating change
and producing more change, which simply means to reinvigorate the process (Kotter, 2006). This
helps keep the change process alive by breathing new life into the process while improving old
processes.
Stage 3: Freezing. Once the organization reaches the desired state, is when the change
process “freezes” at the new level. Kotter (2006) calls it anchoring the new approaches, whereby
members of the organization need to articulate the connections between new behaviors and
organizational success. UEI may decide to freeze at the current level once it starts to see
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
58
improvement in both measurable agents (such as placement rates) and organizational culture
(members display at partnered relationship with the organization).
Organizational development conclusion. Organization development is a long and
tedious process. Being able to be conscious of the need to change is key to begin the process.
Once consciousness takes place, letting go of the old by removing old structures such as artifacts
and reorganizing people are crucial. Next, implementing the new standards and values of the
organization is necessary by going through numerous cycles, improving each time. When the
current cycle is indistinguishable form the last, this is when the organization may freeze at the
new level.
Chapter 4 Conclusion
Leadership is an ongoing process of knowing one’s self, understanding the world, and
constructing reality. Being a leader is not a part-time job. It means always thinking from a
learning perspective, unconsciously behaving in accordance with our values, constantly
developing ourselves, and influencing the world around us.
The value of thinking from a systems perspective fits into my leadership philosophy, as
my philosophy does not believe leadership ends when a goal is meant or when you clock out
from work. It believes that leadership is always happening and always affecting greater systems
than our own. A systems perspective allows me to think more conceptually, identify patterns,
and find real solutions to the actual problems.
The value of thinking from an organizational behavior perspective is of great importance
to my leadership philosophy because without it I would not be able to know what motivates
people, let alone how to motivate people. Being able to understand how needs, motivation,
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
59
influence, power, and politics are related is necessary in shaping organizational culture both in
professional and personal settings.
Organizational development benefits my leadership philosophy because it allows
me think strategically about how I can create change with the various organizations within my
life. Using concepts from organizational development I can best prepare others and myself for
change.
Chapter 5: Final Thoughts
Defining leadership is one thing and creating a leadership philosophy is another. A
leadership philosophy is different from a leadership definition because a philosophy looks at how
one applies the concept while the definition merely describes the fundamental characteristics.
Philosophy goes beyond describing, as analysis and inquiry are used to determine the best
approach for each situation. Leaders should develop their own leadership philosophy in order to
better guide their judgment and decision making capabilities. This final chapter will describe my
leadership philosophy’s major cornerstones, the evolution of my thinking since I started this
journey, and will conclude my final thoughts of leadership.
Major Cornerstones
Part of creating a leadership philosophy is identifying one’s cornerstones. These
cornerstones are the foundations, made of beliefs and processes, which guide a leader’s action.
This chapter will describe the five major cornerstones that my leadership philosophy embraces
which are: integrity, shared vision, sociability, empowerment, and learning.
Integrity
Integrity encompasses honesty and truthfulness in one’s actions and beliefs. It means
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
60
practicing what one preaches regardless of emotional or social pressure. It is important because it
builds trust and confidence within the leadership process. Integrity may be the most critical
element in accessing another’s trustworthiness because it measures how honest and true a person
is (Becker, 1998). When a follower can identify a leader with integrity, the leader’s influence
becomes more powerful as the follower has a perception that the leader will not act
opportunistically, which in their mind reduces the risk of being abused (Becker, 1998). Simply
stated, when followers identify integrity within a leader, they create a sense trust towards the
leader, making them vulnerable to the leader’s action.
Another definition of integrity is that it is ethical soundness, wholeness and consistency
(Petrick, 1998). Organizations share a level of commitment to high moral standards, and the
consistency of following these standards increases the level of trust, encouraging members to
share undistorted information, negotiate in good faith, take risks, share authority, collaborate and
follow through on promises (Johnson, 2009). I believe that a leader, who acts with integrity as
well influence others to adopt it, is a leader who can truly unify a team towards the
accomplishment of a goal.
Integrity is a cornerstone of my leadership philosophy because I believe it is a core value
that is critical for a leader to posses. Not only does it guide honest and ethical behaviors, it also
establishes a level of trust with others.
Shared Vision
A shared vision is a common future state that the group understands, is fully committed
to, and reflects their own personal vision. Shared visions also create a sense of commonality,
identity, and provide focus and energy for learning (Senge, 2006). Enabling and encouraging
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
61
others to act, and showing the way requires inspiring a shared vision (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). I
believe that visions are the catalyst for the leadership process to exist, as the motives and actions
of the leader are all for the sake of reaching the vision. But it is when visions become shared is
where true leadership flourishes, as members cease to be compliant and become committed. If
shared visions are what gives birth to true leadership then having a shared vision is critical to
one’s leadership philosophy.
Having a shared vision is more than just communicating a vision, it is encouraging others
to share their visions, and have the shared vision be built form personal visions (Senge, 2006).
This enables a sense of collaboration, understanding, inspiration, and commitment. Shared
visions are different from an organization’s strategic vision, as strategic visions are not personal,
but nevertheless they shape and influence shared visions through organizational commitment
(Senge, 2006).
When I was a manager, I hired and trained new employees quite frequently. Part of my
training process included sharing the vision with new team-members. Sharing the vision goes
beyond explaining, it means trying to find out what the personal visions are of the other teammembers and trying to relate that to the shared vision. Sometimes their personal visions fits
perfectly with the shared vision, while other times it does not. When it does not fit perfectly, it is
my duty to bridge the gap between both visions. This could be done by influencing their personal
visions to change or by shaping the one that is shared.
In order to run a business, a shared vision is necessary for all business partners to commit
to. When I first started working in retail, I was a low-level field associate. My manager never
established or explained our team’s shared vision. As a result, I had different priorities and
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
62
agendas that did not fit into our business. Not knowing what the shared vision was wasted a lot
of time and money because members of the team, including myself, were not acting effectively
towards the goal. Where I thought customer service was our main priority, he thought sales. This
created an unaligned force within our leadership process, making our process ineffective.
A shared vision is a cornerstone of my leadership philosophy because I believe that it is
what unifies the leader’s team to be committed to a cause, and is what guides a team’s actions
and behaviors. They are built from personal visions, which means that shared visions are
continually evolving, as personal visions never cease to change. This implies that a shared vision
is not a destination, rather an ongoing journey that guides everyone in the team on how they
should behave.
Sociability
Sociability refers to the ability of leaders to make pleasant relationships with others.
According to research by Bass (2008), he found that sociability was associated with leadership in
13 out of 14 studies and that numerous researchers reported high positive correlations between
sociability and leadership. I believe sociability is critical for leaders to understand because
involves the relationship side of effective leadership. Leadership is not all task-oriented
behaviors, it also involves as relationship oriented behaviors such as: affection, belongingness,
acceptance, and friendship (Bass, 2008). The social needs within the leadership structure are the
responsibility of an effective leader. This is not to say that leaders need to make friends with his
followers or love them any more (although it may not be such a bad idea), the idea of sociability
revolves around creating a relationship with leaders and followers that is mutually understood,
beneficial, and pleasant, in order to encourage and enforce commitment that facilitates the shared
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
63
vision.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs list social needs as the third most important type of need. If
leaders can fill a part of this need through positive interactions (sociability), followers could be
more motivated to take on tasks. It is also important to note that a true leader cannot avoid
sociability because it comes with the leadership process. According to Bass (2008), he found that
sociability was included in the list of traits of consequences of leadership formulated by
Kirkaptrick and Locke (1991), Hughes et al. (1993), and O’Roark (2000). According to Avolio
and Bass (1994) sociability correlated highest with peer ratings of leadership.
Sociability, the ability to create positive and pleasant relationship with people, is a
cornerstone in my leadership philosophy because it is a critical factor in getting people to
commit to a shared vision by motivating members through positive interactions. Studies have
shown that sociability is not only a consequence of leadership, but is also a requirement for
followers to commit towards a leadership process.
Empowerment
Empowerment refers to the ability of leaders to share responsibility, authority, and
influence to others. Empowerment is a foundation in my leadership philosophy because I believe
by empowering others, a leader not only demonstrates trust in his followers, but also
demonstrates his confidence in their ability to exercise initiative and decision making skills.
Followers respond to empowerment through more positive attitudes about their responsibilities
and more positive feelings (Thompson, 2008). Spreitzer (1995) found that empowerment gave
followers: meaning, “the work I do is important to me”; competence, “I am confident about my
ability to do my job”; self-determination, “I have significant autonomy in determining how I do
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
64
my job”; and impact, “I have a great deal of control of what happens to my department”. Clearly,
empowerment benefits the individual but it also benefits the organization.
Empowerment is important for today’s leaders because it enables the leadership process
to formulate limitless ideas and encourages learning through the sharing of responsibilities.
Organizations benefit from empowerment by making every member a source of ideas, initiatives,
and influence. Studies have shown that members within the organization, who are relieved of
routine work and empowered to do other task, are more committed to their organization (Howard
& Wellins, 1994).
Empowerment is an idea that involves a sense of trust between leaders and followers. It is
a cornerstone of my leadership philosophy because I believe that in order to fully embrace a
leadership process, a leader must engage his members through the sharing of leadership.
Learning
Learning in my leadership philosophy refers to the ability of leaders to create an
environment that fosters education. It involves the leader becoming an agent of learning where
he encourages innovation, inquiry, challenges, and change. However, one should not mistake a
leader’s role solely as a teacher, but also as a learner who is helping others to learn. Kouzes and
Posner (2007) point out that leaders are active learners. It is important for the leadership process
to have every member be learners because it means that the team is continually improving
personal mastery.
Developing followers into learners requires leaders to become mentors and models (Bass,
2008). Creating a learning environment means to establish routines that receive undistorted
feedback, learn form mistakes, and make better decisions. Learning is important because it
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
65
prepares the leadership process for change and to deal with unexpected events (Thompson,
2008).
Learning is a cornerstone in my leadership philosophy because I believe it is a necessary
agent in personal mastery and in team and organizational effectiveness. Learning strives to
improve and challenge old beliefs, which is required in an ever-changing environment.
Chapter Conclusion
The five cornerstones of my leadership philosophy are: integrity, shared vision,
sociability, empowerment, and learning. Integrity houses the honesty and truthfulness a leader
should have. A shared vision aligns and commits members toward a common goal. Sociability
encompasses the relationship skills a leader needs to create positive and effective interactions
with followers. Empowerment allows the leadership process to be shared, enabling a greater
understanding throughout all its members. Lastly, learning ensures that both leaders and
followers are at their best by continually improving through challenge and inquiry. There are
other concepts and ideas that can fit into my leadership philosophy, however I find that the five I
chose are the best ones that guide my leadership philosophy.
The Evolution of My Thinking
When I first started my journey of leadership studies, I thought I had an idea of what
leadership was. I remember walking in the classroom so eager to learn, thinking that leadership
was an easy A. At that time, I was working in retail management and considered myself as a
leader. However, in learning the history, research, concepts, theories and many aspects of
leadership, I find that I was a naive man who only knew a speck of what leadership meant. This
section will discus the evolution of my thinking in regards to leadership as a foundation, ethics,
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
66
self and systems, behavior, and development and change.
Foundation
The first day of my leadership journey, the question, “Define leadership” was asked.
Naturally, I did a web search and found a dictionary answer. Discussing it in class, the answers
were inconsistent and unclear. I admit I had no idea what leadership was. Then as weeks passed,
I learned the various approaches of leadership including trait, skills, styles, situational, and
contingency. I learned various theories such as path-goal, leader-member exchange, and
transformational leadership. By the end of the course I felt like I had a new pair of glasses from
which to see the world in.
Not only did I see the world in new lenses but I also applied what I learned in my daily life.
Every moment, I found myself observing how others led and was more aware of I led. I find that
in studying the foundations of leadership, I am more of an adaptive leader as I gravitate towards
theories that are contingent and situational in nature.
Ethics
As I took my second class, leadership ethics, I thought I had already new enough about
leadership. I was wrong. I thought of ethics as simply doing the right thing and being fair. Now,
with the knowledge I have gained, I find that ethics is more complex and involves different
viewpoints and values. For example, I always thought that the utilitarian principle was the best
ethical model. Now I realize it ignores the will of the minority and can be used to oppress them.
Before I took this journey, I found that I did not truly understand what it meant to be an
ethical leader. Now, I find myself looking for traits such as courage, integrity, humility,
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
67
reverence, optimism, compassion, and justice when judging the ethical character of others, as
these are traits that I believe ethical leaders have. I also came to the conclusion that leaders must
be ethical in all dimensions of their life. This includes, personal and professional relationships as
well as to the community and the greater environment.
Self & System
Learning about Senge’s theory of learning organizations is one of the most mind-opening
experiences in my life. I never thought that mental models could create a prison of the mind or
how personal mastery is essential for improving oneself. I thought I knew what shared visions
were, then I learned that shared visions are more than just a vision of the future, they are our
personal visions; and as such, in order to truly create a shared vision, I have to recruit others to
adopt the my vision as their own. I also never utilized team learning or thought of it in a
systematic way. Today, I take every chance I get to learn and share my knowledge with others. I
live, breath, and think systematically. I explore how actions and events that affect the bigger
picture, and I am more aware of patterns, and more cautious about prescribing solutions, as they
may be for symptoms instead of the underlying problem. Studying self and systems of leadership
has allowed me to think in more complex ways, beyond the short-term and beyond what is in
front of me.
Organizational Dynamics
Organizational dynamics developed my understanding of leadership by observing
organizations through the individual, group, and organization as a whole. While Senge’s learning
organization is the most mind-opening subject learned, organizational dynamics was the most
insightful. Before learning about organizational dynamics, I thought I had an idea of how people,
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
68
groups and organizations functioned; I was wrong.
Through organizational dynamics I learned fundamental concepts of the individual such as
needs and emotional intelligence. For example, I used to believe that employees should leave
their emotions at home. Now, I realize that emotions are part of being human and that it is
impossible to separate them from us; therefore emotions will affect productivity. Instead of
ignoring emotional distressed employees, I communicate with them to comfort them and devise a
strategy that will benefit them and the team. Sometimes it is best to send emotionally distressed
employees home then to keep them working at low productivity levels.
I have developed my understanding of small group dynamics, especially in the areas of
communication, power, and politics. For instance, at work I correspond with email and verbally
to ensure my message is understood clearly. I am also more aware of those who rely on
dependency to keep their power, and can respond appropriately. I am also more cognizant of
organizational politics to create alliances and to better anticipate behaviors.
Lastly, organizational dynamics taught me the importance of structure and culture of the
organization. For example, I realized that I enjoy working in organizational structures with traits
that are dynamic, decentralized, and flat as the culture supports a more relational and networking
group environment. Studying organizational dynamics has allowed me to think at all three levels
of an organization: the individual, the group, and the entire system.
Organizational Development and Change
I am more aware of change and development around me. Before I started the
journey to leadership mastery, I was ignorant to organizational change and development; I did
not know when it happened, if it happened, or if it is happening, or if it may happen, or should
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
69
happen. I clocked in and clocked out, unaware. I was ignorant to my environment. Now that I
have learned concepts of organizational change and development, I can spot patterns and events
that may affect me. For instance, people leaving the organization, changing policies and
procedures, or the lack of training may be a warning sign for dangers ahead such as
organizational downsizing and failure. The concepts of organizational change and development
paired with systems thinking brought to light how events can have an affect on an organization
and how organizations may respond to it.
Conclusion
“Leadership is an ongoing process of knowing one’s self, understanding the world, and
constructing reality.”
Reflecting on my past experiences and what I have learned, I have defined what
leadership is and elaborated on my leadership philosophy. Leadership is more complex than just
a process of influencing a group of people to reach towards a common goal. It is about knowing
yourself and being able to lead yourself before trying to lead others. Thus, part of leadership is
knowing oneself. Knowing yourself comes from distinguishing the difference between leaders
and managers, then reflecting on what leaders do. It is about looking at yourself as a leader and
reflecting on the values and ethical framework you carry. Once you are able to lead yourself, you
can then pursue to lead others, however this requires that you understand them and the situation.
Thus, part of leadership is knowing the world around you. This involves studying people,
situations, theories, and events. Once you know yourself and know the world around you, you
may then begin to lead. When one leads, he or she is really creating a reality for those that
follow. Thus, leaders are the architects of reality.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
70
I am an architect of reality. My tools are: my heart, which allows me to care and
serve my followers; my mind, which fosters learning and allows me to think systematically; my
soul, which holds my values and ethical framework; and my body, which holds all of my tools
together.
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
71
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). N.p.: Academic Press. Retrieved
December 2, 2012, from PsycNet (10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2.).
Barcharach, S. B., & Lawler, E. J. (1983). Political alignments in organizations. In R. M. Kramer
& M. A. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications (4th ed.). New York: Free Press
Bass, B. M., & Rigio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Becker, T. E. (1998, January). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness.
Academy of Management Review, 154-161. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from JSTOR.
Bennis, W. G. (1994). On becoming a leader (2nd ed.). New York City, NY: Perseus Books.
Blanchard, K. (2010). Leading at a higher level (Revised and expanded ed.) Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: FT Press
Blanchard, K, D Zigarmi, and R Nelson. "Situational leadership after 25 years: A retrospective."
Journal of Leadership Studies 1.1 (1993): 22-36. ProQuest. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.
Bolman & Deal, (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Bordas, J. (2001). Latino leadership: Building a humanistic and diverse society liderazgo latino:
Edificando una sociedad humanistica y diversa. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 8(112), 112-134. doi:10.1177/107179190100800208
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
72
Bowditch, J. L., & Buono, A. F. (2007). Primer on organizational behavior (7th ed.). New York
City, NY: Wiley.
Burnes, B. (2004, September). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal
[Electronic version]. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977-1001
Capowski, G. (1994, March). Anatomy of a leader: Where are the leaders of tomorrow?
Management Review, 83(3), 10.
Day, L. A. (2005). Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies (5th ed.). New
York City, NY: Cengage Learning.
Drucker, P. (1996). The Leader of the future. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Beckhard
(Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dull, M. (2010). Leadership and organizational culture: Sustaining dialogue between
practitioners and scholars. Public Administration Review, 857-866.
Ethics Resource Center. (2009). National business ethics survey. In National Business Ethics
Survey. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from www.ethics.org
Fagiano, D. (1997, November). Managers versus leaders: A corporate fable. Management
Review, 86(10), 5.
Forgette, R., Dettrey, B., Van Boeing, M., & Swanson, D. A. (2009, February). Before, now, and
after: Assessing Hurricane Katrina relief. Population Research and Policy Review, 28(1),
31-44. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from ProQuest (206263238).
French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1999). Organization development: Behavioral science
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
73
interventions (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power &
greatness (25th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Halpin, A. W. (1956). Manual for the leader behavior questionnaire (Master's thesis). Retrieved
November 25, 2012, from
http://fisher.osu.edu/supplements/10/2862/1957%20LBDQ%20MANUAL.pdf
Harter, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695702. Retrieved November 29, 2012, from PsycNet.
House, R. J. (1971, September). A path-Goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 321-328. Retrieved November 5, 2012, from ProQuest.
House, R. J., & Dressler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and A
priori tests. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency Approaches to Leadership
(pp. 623-30). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Contemporary Business,
3, 81-98.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory.
Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352. Retrieved November 5, 2012.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
74
Howard, A., Wellins, R.S. (1994), High-involvement Leadership: Changing Roles for Changing
Times, Development Dimensions International, Pittsburgh, PA,.
Johnson, C. (2009). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Jackson, J. C. (2006). Organizational development: the human and social dynamics of
organizational change. New York: University Press of America.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2011, February). Ethical leadership at
work questionnaire (ELW): Development and validation of a multidimensional measure.
Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 51. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from EBSCO Host
(58540616).
Karp, T., & Helgo, T. (2010). Reality revisited: Leading people in chaotic change. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(3), 477-512. doi:10.1108/02621710910932052
Katz, R. L. (1974, September). Skills go an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review,
52(5), 90-102. Retrieved November 25, 2012, from Education Resources Information
Center.
Keller, R. T. (1989, April). A test of the path-goal theory with need for clarity as a moderator in
research and development organizations. Journal f Applied Psychology, 208-212.
Retrieved November 5, 2012, from ProQuest.
Kline, J. A. (1989). Speaking effectively. Maxwell AFB, AK: University Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
75
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008, April). Servant leadership:
development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership
Quarterly, 161-177. Retrieved November 5, 2012, from ProQuest.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Oganizational Behavior
& Human Performance, 3(2), 157-189. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 369-370.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as a foundation for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59.
McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business
Review, 54(2), 100-110
Mintzberg, H. E. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mitchell, T. R. (1997). Matching motivational strategies with organizational contexts. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 19, 57-149.
Mitchell, T. R., Smyser, C. M., & Weed, S. E. (1975). Locus of control: Supervision and work
satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 623-630. Retrieved November 25,
2012, from JSTOR (255692).75
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Noguchi, Y. (2011, July 19). Why borders failed while barnes & noble survived. In NPR.
SELF, WORLD, REALITY
76
Retrieved November 25, 2012, from http://www.npr.org/2011/07/19/138514209/whyborders-failed-while-barnes-and-noble-survived
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and
classification. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press.
Petrick, J.A. (1998). Building organizational integrity and quality with the four Ps: Perspectives,
paradigms, process, and principles. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Mangerial ethics: Moral
management of people and process (pp.155-131). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Phipps, S. T., & Prieto, L. C. (2011). The influence of personality factors on transformational
leadership: Exploring the moderating role of political skill. International Journal of
Leadership Studies, 6(3), 430-447.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Organizational behavior (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005, October). Leading from within: The effects
of social recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy
of Management Journal, 845-856.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Sinha, J. B., Singh, S., & Gupta, P. (2002). Relationships among societal, organizational, and
managerial beliefs and practices. Paper, International Congress of Applied Psychology,
Singapore.
DRU’S LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
77
Simmons, R., Mitzberg, H., & Basu, K. (2002, June). Memo to CEOs Re Five Half-Truths of
Business [Electronic version]. Fast Company, 118.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 14421465.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New
York City, NY: Free Press.
Vroom, V. H. (1995). Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (Original work
published 1964)
Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. In J. Antonakis, A. T.
Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 101–124). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage