Andrews University
School of Education
Leadership
DEFINING LEADERSHIP: A
SPIRITUAL JOURNEY TO FIND THE
LEADERSHIP WITHIN
A Synthesis Paper on Leadership
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
By
Kimberly A. Mearman
January, 2012
THE CALL TO ADVENTURE:
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE JOURNEY
“The longest journey is the journey inwards.”
– Dag Hammarskjold
Although I am not to consider myself any sort of hero, at least not in its
traditional sense, if the “hero” is defined as one who is flawed and battles
with personal limitations, then Joseph Campbell’s map for the mythical
hero’s journey could be a fitting metaphor. After all my call to adventure
has spoken to me and I will need to walk a road of trials, which will lead me
to achieve my goal, which ultimately is gaining valuable insight into self.
And if Campbell is right, then I will return to the ordinary world and the
application of my new insights should contribute to the improvement of the
world. (Campbell, 1949) This is an ominous task and I currently can only
record its beginning, for this journey has hardly come to any conclusion. I
am still on the road of trails, some of which I have failed and others of which
I have had success. I am only on the fringe of gaining the self-knowledge
that could contribute to the improvement of the world.
Therefore, this synthesis paper will not provide clarity of new insight. It will
instead provide thought provoking questions and ideas for further inquiry.
This synthesis will not provide a concluding definition of leadership, but
rather one that is perpetually evolving; one that evolves within the course of
writing this paper and one that will continue evolving long past the
concluding sentence. My study of leadership is a life-long pursuit and is
certainly more about a journey than a destination. This paper is not
designed to be a research paper, providing all the details and steps of how
to perform leadership. It is intended to be a paper of inspirations, inquiries,
illuminations, and scholarly arguments behind my personal working
definition of leadership.
“…the self is not a thing but unfolding process. We are energized when we
are learning and progressing…” (R. E. Quinn, 1996, p. 42)
BEFORE THIS JOURNEY BEGAN
Much of my working definition for leadership came from experiences,
especially defined by those whom I considered role models. I had read and
studied some materials in my sixth year program, but I had not even begun
to layer in any new ideas or theories which redefine any personal
experiences I had to date. My philosophy on leadership had been defined by
traditional, and even stereotypical, ideas of leaders. My definition was
person focused and was built on the concepts of leader vs. leadership. I had
a long held belief that leaders were great people who can change who you
are and that leadership was a lifelong process.
My Individual Development Plan outlined my understandings about
leadership by categorizing my thinking into “lessons learned.” These lessons
included thoughts about the great responsibility, the importance of
rejuvenation, and the value of relationships that constitute leadership. I
delineated the qualities of leaders as self-reliant, empowering others,
inspiring creativity, and developing a culture of learning. What will become
a focus of curiosity is the degree to which these understandings remain or
evolve along this journey.
AS THIS JOURNEY BEGAN
“We find after years of struggle that we do not take a trip; a trip takes us.”
(Steinbeck, 1980, p. 4)
Why travel at all? From early on in life, I understood that journeys were
more about the roads traveled than actually arriving at a destination. As a
young teacher, inspired by John Steinbeck’s Travels with Charley, I had
taken that concept to its literal level and spent much time traveling the
United States. I made careful study in selecting a section of the country that
could be comfortably traveled with great depth of exploration within the
course of a summer. I had every intention of taking in every sight along the
way, particularly the ones lesser known, so the selection did require some
study and research to find interesting sights and plan a scope of traveling
distance. This research became a hobby and I would spend months reading
and learning about the various geographies, landforms, and history of the
selected region. The research was every bit as fun as the traveling.
However, despite the volume of time I spent researching, I longed to have
the journey plan me. So my actual itinerary only included three things: a
stack of magazines and books of desired sights, a traveling radius that was
only confined by a start and end date, and the first night stay. Yes, I only
planned the first night. I most often found a hostel or airport hotel that
could serve as my launch. From there, no plan existed. Why? This is
simple. The focus was the journey, not the destination. The mission was
learning, completely unconstrained learning. In order o fulfill that mission, it
takes letting your intuition dictate the travel plans, taking the time to listen
to your heart, and being open to just exploring. These journeys were always
more about reading, journaling, and seeing that which is often not noticed.
This could never be a planned route.
“When we get these thruways across the whole country, as we will and
must, it will be possible to drive from New York to California without seeing a
single thing.” (Steinbeck, 1980, p. 90)
So this journey began no differently. I spent my time researching and
taking inventory to determine what to pack.
Packing involves an
examination of all the possible items that could be packed and carefully
assessing the value of each item for its level of contribution towards the
journey. Some items will serve no purpose and be set aside. Some will
provide luxury and comfort; others will be of absolute necessity. The
question is what is worth packing for this journey?
I examined thoroughly every single book I owned, even ones that were
fiction. I pursued many artifacts of accomplishments past and present. I
read over old letters and emails. I studied the pictures and stories of my
life. I pulled together past learning projects. This journey has a focus on
academics. A scholarly journey that will embrace all that I pack and take
these experiences and understandings to a whole new level. For my first
night, it was the Individual Development Plan. It was a great place to start
as it collected all that I currently understood into a single place. From there,
however, the journey took me. And so it begins…
“Out there things can happen, and frequently do,
To people as brainy and footsy as you.
And when things start to happen, don't worry, don't stew.
Just go right along, you'll start happening too!”
(Dr. Suess, 1988, p. 8)
A NOTABLE EVENT
During a compelling afternoon of study about leadership, Dr. James Tucker
made a statement that literally stopped all conversation. He shared with the
group his thinking that leadership and leaders are different. He noted that
in fact, he believed that leadership does not require leaders. Hmmm…
I loved watching the reactions of my fellow learners on both that day and
the subsequent days. I took my time listening to all the reactions to such a
notion before I took this idea on for myself. There were members of my
group who began to refute Dr. Tucker’s hypothesis with a long list of
examples of well-known leaders, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
I listened to their ideas about how the leaders made the leadership.
However, what struck me most with this list of “leaders” was this fascinating
question between the distinctions of hero – leader and leader – follower. I
listened to the reactions of the members that felt pause in their own
understandings and raised new questions for themselves about leadership
and leaders. Can there be leadership without leaders?
After much deliberation, I actually decided to take an afternoon and use the
internet to help. I began with a scholarly effort since this is an academic
journey, but it did not take me long to resort to the Wikipedia and on-line
dictionaries. Out of desperation, I began to search for the meanings and
etymologies of the various iterations of words associated with “leadership.”
I looked up “leadership,” then “lead”, then synonyms, such as “guidance”
and “administration.” The one word I kept avoiding was “leader.”
I had
taken to heart the lesson from Dr. James Tucker. I agreed “leadership” and
“leader,” although connected terms, were not synonymous. In fact the word
“leader” could be substituted with other words, such as “manager.”
So I
was sure that I would not find any support in the word. But then again
maybe I should have started with the word.
“Leader – A person who rules or guides or inspires others”
("WordNet 1.7.1," 2001)
As irony would have it, it was the definition of the word “leader” that steered
me to a new understanding of the word leadership.
Based on much of the readings I had done to date, I had to put aside “rule”
as an aspect of leadership. Yukl speaks about various forms of leadership
that is defined almost exclusively by the concept of positional leadership and
puts forth characteristics that have always had more of a traditional
hierarchical connotation. (Yukl, 2002) Since I am not presently interested
in hierarchal or positional leaders within this journey, it made no sense for
me to continue on my study with this part of the definition.
To guide is a concept that is inherent in much of the study regarding
leadership (Greenleaf, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Kostner,
1996; Yukl, 2002). The concept is rooted in mentoring, which is built on a
principle of an individual leading another, usually an expert leading a novice
(Lipton, Wellman, & Humbard, 2002). And although, this principle plays a
role in leadership, I have chosen to put it aside due to its very nature of
inferring a need for a designated leader.
INSPIRE
This is the word that just jumped out at me instantaneously. How
could such a casual word search yield such a compelling intrigue? This word
became an obsession and certainly focused my journey. It, not only helped
me decide what to pack, but it became my road map. Due to its versatility,
this word opened the exploration for leadership without the need for leaders.
How does inspiration happen? Even experience tells me that inspiration
comes from the dynamic energy of a relationship. I can list my true
inspirations, including this very moment, and always trace them to an
occurring moment in a relationship. Could this be the soul of leadership?
This new idea reshaped my perception and interpretation of the literature on
leadership.
SEEING OLD SITES WITH NEW EYES
"Two things inspire me to awe – the starry heavens above and the moral
universe within." – Albert Einstein
Leadership has two critical features which are defined throughout any
literature on the subject: a relationship among humans and a degree of
change. (Burns, 1978, 2003; Chenoweth & Everhart, 2002; Fullan, 2001;
Gladwell, 2000; Greenleaf, 2002; Hall & Hord, 2001; Heifetz, et al., 2009;
Lippitt, 2003; R. E. Quinn, 1996; Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999; Yukl, 2002)
The context of the relationship is the feature which drives leadership (Burns,
1978, 2003; DePree, 2004; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002; Hall & Hord, 2001;
Heifetz, et al., 2009; Heifetz, Kania, & Kramer, 2004; Heifetz & Linsky,
2002; Kostner, 1996; Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999). Wheatley (1999)
takes it as far as noting that relationships are all there are, nothing and no
one ever acts independently. We define our reality by relationships
(Wheatley, 1999, p. 34). It is not the people, the individuals; it is the
relationship among individuals that is the key characteristic of leadership.
Developing capacity in individuals will never be enough; the relationship is
what needs to be developed. (Burns, 1978, 2003; DePree, 2004; Fullan,
2004; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002; Kostner, 1996; Senge, 2006; Wheatley,
1999) Most literature infers the relationship has at least a single leader.
(Chenoweth & Everhart, 2002; DePree, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Greenleaf,
2002; Hall & Hord, 2001; Kostner, 1996; Lippitt, 2003; Yukl, 2002) The
leader’s role can vary from a positional leader, to a mentor, to a servant
(Burns, 1978, 2003; DePree, 2004; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002), but could
relationships in of themselves serve as the leadership without a leader? This
is an essential question for my journey.
Leadership, with or without leaders, results in a level of change (Burns,
1978, 2003; DePree, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002; Heifetz, et
al., 2009; Heifetz, et al., 2004; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Lippitt, 2003; Senge,
2006; Wheatley, 1999). There are many approaches to change, including
planning, organizing, and implementing the steps to change (Chenoweth &
Everhart, 2002; Cuban, 1996; Fullan, 1993, 2001; Fullan, 2005; Fullan &
Champlin, 1993; Heifetz, et al., 2009; Lippitt, 2003; R. E. Quinn, 1996;
Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999). Vision and strategic planning may be
developed before the start of any change (Lippitt, 2003) or it may build after
some level of implementation has already occurred (Fullan, 1993).
The degree of change is dependent on the need for improvement. If the
foundation is inherently sound then incremental change, a simple alteration,
will be sufficient. In some cases, incremental change takes place to meet a
short term need and things return after some time. If, however, the
foundation is flawed or has become flawed over time, then transformational
or deep change would need to take place. This level of change is rare and
requires intense effort, involving changes to take place at the attitudinal and
philosophical level. Deep change at an organizational level requires changes
at the individual level to result in new ways of thinking and behaving. This
change is about an evolution. (Cuban, 1996; R. E. Quinn, 1996)
“Leadership is a purposeful human activity that occurs episodically among
participants to advance transforming change.”
Michael Kearns, Graduate of Andrews University
Leadership can result in either conformity or deep commitment to the
change from the individuals and the organization (Fullan, 2004; R. E. Quinn,
1996; Yukl, 2002). What or who is changed becomes very contextual and
unique to each situation. Since changes could be at an individual or
organizational level, many changes build upon one another and those
changes become part of dynamic process (Cuban, 1996; R. E. Quinn, 1996).
One idea is that leadership works towards “advancing” change. This allows a
perspective that change is an on-going process. It infers that change is
never actually fully complete. Each step of progress leads to a new avenue
for change. (Senge, 2006)
An important step in the change process is evaluation of the change
(Chenoweth & Everhart, 2002; Cuban, 1996) and the determination that the
change has moved towards achieving intended outcomes. A presumption is
that the grand outcome of leadership is positive and improves the society or
the world at large (Greenleaf, 2002; Wheatley, 1999). Assuming
commitment to the moral imperative of leadership (Fullan, 2001; Fullan,
2005) is comprised of well-intended actions. (Burns, 1978, 2003; Senge,
2006)
“Leadership is relational, collective, and purposeful.”
(Burns, 1978, p. 18)
Regardless of the level of change and the resulting outcome, leadership
occurs when there is a dynamic engagement between relationships and
change (Smith, 2005; Wheatley, 1999). What became a question for my
journey is the degree of intentionality required to connect the change to
leadership. Does change have to be purposeful to become leadership?
Leadership clearly can affect change in a very purposeful manner (Burns,
1978, 2003; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002; Smith, 2005; Wheatley, 1999). What
have become more interesting to me are the inferences of what occurs in
chaos. Wheatley (1999) describes how order can emerge from chaos. Does
this mean that leadership can occur without any intention? Can a change
with a positive outcome for improving the world result from the synergy of a
moment without predetermined intentions? Much of the literature speaks to
“plan-full” way leadership unfolds through steps of a change process,
defining purpose and visions, and structures of an organization (Chenoweth
& Everhart, 2002; Fullan, 1993, 2001; Hall & Hord, 2001; Lippitt, 2003).
Until recently I had considered these to be sacred principles of leadership. I
have now begun to challenge even my own thinking on the degree of script
needed for leadership.
ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR MY JOURNEY:
Could relationships serve as the leadership without a leader?
If change is an on-going process, how does transformation actually occur?
A NEW DEFINITION OF LEADERSHIP:
A SCHOLARLY JOURNEY
“Leadership is one of the most observed and least understood
phenomena.”(Burns, 1978, p. 2)
How does “leadership” become defined if the definition is not dependent on
the notion of “leader?” After review of both old and new literature, I have
concluded that the essence of “leadership” is not fundamentally different
than the essence of a “leader.” The shift is more of a mental one versus a
philosophical one. Looking directly at the lessons or principles with which I
began this journey, much of them still hold true. A few have just interesting
new twists. I believe there are still great people who can change who we
are and it may require self-reliant people to spark the change. To me,
leadership is still a lifelong process. I am clear that leadership still requires
great responsibility and functions within the course of relationships. In my
heart, I want to center leadership on rejuvenation, empowerment,
inspiration, and learning. What changes for me is how these things are
generated and sustained within the course of leadership. In my thinking, it
now resides in the collectiveness of a group of leaders, each of whom
contributes to a whole focused on a common mission towards change. The
dynamic of leadership is orchestrated through a beautiful dance of
inspirations, service, and transformation. This reflection has led me to a
clearer articulation of a personal definition for leadership.
MY WORKING DEFINITION FOR LEADERSHIP
LEADERSHIP IS THE DYNAMIC MEMBERSHIP OF ANY GROUP THAT
PERFORMS AN ACT OF SERVICE TOWARDS TRANSFORMING THE
WORLD.
This definition has three major components that are worthy of exploration
and discussion in of themselves.

Leadership is comprised of a dynamic membership.

Leadership is an act of service.

Leadership works towards transforming the world.
LEADERSHIP IS A DYNAMIC MEMBERSHIP
“In the quantum world, relationships are not just interesting; to many
physicists, they are all there is to reality.” (Wheatley, 1999, p. 34)
The importance of relationships cannot be overstated in the body of
literature on leadership (Burns, 1978; Chenoweth & Everhart, 2002; Cuban,
1996; DePree, 2004; Fullan, 1993, 2001, 2004; Gladwell, 2000; Hall & Hord,
2001; Kostner, 1996; Lippitt, 2003; R. E. Quinn, 1996; Senge, 2006;
Wheatley, 1999; Yukl, 2002). Margaret Wheatley (1999) uses the metaphor
of quantum physics to illustrate this point the best. She notes that
everything in the quantum world is contingent on relationships from
individuals to whole organizations (Wheatley, 1999). She goes so far as to
state that relationships are all that there is to reality (Wheatley, 1999, p.
34). That is because particles and elements are all interrelated in the world
of quantum physics. We do not know who we are without relationships. We
define ourselves in relationship to ideas, events, and others. In fact
whenever there are two or more elements, a relationship is created.
(Wheatley, 1999)
It is difficult to talk about relationships and leadership without at least a side
bar discussion regarding empowerment. Empowerment is often connected
with leadership (Burns, 2003; Greenleaf, 2002; Kostner, 1996; R. E. Quinn,
1996; Yukl, 2002). Empowerment, however, by definition is determined to
be an act of delegating power ("WordNet 3.1," 2013; Yukl, 2002). This
infers that one person has the power to give to another. In “leaderless”
leadership, this concept becomes contradictory in nature. Empowerment is
essential to the functioning of a group and in an effort to redefine its
construct in the “leaderless” leadership; Robert Quinn (1996) can smooth
the surface level of the contradictions. He notes that empowerment is a
personal responsibility. The elements of empowerment require a clear
vision, openness, and teamwork. The dimensions of empowerment contain
a sense of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. According
to Quinn, empowerment is not something that is given but rather people
empower themselves. (Burns, 2003; Kostner, 1996; R. E. Quinn, 1996;
Yukl, 2002) If we want to shift our thinking about who the leaders are
within leadership, then we will work with this conceptualization of
empowerment.
“THE LAW OF THE FEW” (GLADWELL, 2000)
“There are exceptional people out there who are capable of starting
epidemics.” (Gladwell, 2000, p. 132)
If relationships are the essence of leadership, then what does this all say
about individuals as leaders? Gladwell (2000) speaks about the important
roles that individuals play in the creating a wide-spread change. According to
Gladwell (2000) there are the connectors, people who know people, the
mavens, people who have knowledge, and the salesmen, people who can
sell (Gladwell, 2000). Fullan (1993) talks advocates, organizers, and
technical advisors who provide for the change (Fullan & Champlin, 1993).
Yukl (2002) discusses charismatic and transformational leaders that create
compelling vision for a group (Yukl, 2002). Hall and Hord (2001) outline the
various levels of implementers of a specific change from non-use to
refocusing (Hall & Hord, 2001). Lipton, Wellmen and Humbard (2002)
discuss the role of a mentor and coach (Lipton, et al., 2002).
All of these
roles seem to play into leadership. And all of these roles seem to indicate
leaders in different positions and places. It seems to be a challenge to
separate one individual as defined as “leader.”
Yukl (2002) describes most of the leadership models in terms of a single
leader, often positional. He describes relationships within leadership as
hierarchal. He describes four major behavior types for leadership:
supportive leadership which provides consideration for others welfare,
directive leadership, which provides specific rules of management,
participative leadership which provides consultation with others, and
achievement-oriented leadership which provides goals and standards for
performance. According to Yukl (2002), leaders need to develop and
maintain relationships, get and give information, make decisions, and
influence people. (Yukl, 2002) As Yukl (2002) describes theories of
leadership dependent on the positional level of individuals, the work of
others raise the idea that not all leadership is dependent on position (Burns,
1978; DePree, 2004; Gladwell, 2000; Kostner, 1996; Senge, 2006;
Wheatley, 1999). If relationships are critical to leadership, could it be
reasoned that the power of the leader lies within the membership rather
than a single individual (Burns, 2003)? Could it stand to reason that without
the relationship among people, a single leader, no matter the position is a
rather useless role?
“Positional power means nothing if a leader fails to get everyone
to join in.” (Kostner, 1996, p. 32)
THE LAW OF THE MANY
“We can build ‘learning organizations,’ organizations where people
continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire,
where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective
aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn
together.” (Senge, 2006, p. 15)
Leadership is dependent on the relationship within a given organization
(Burns, 1978, 2003; DePree, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Kostner, 1996; R. E.
Quinn, 1996; Wheatley, 1999; Yukl, 2002). An organization lives within
greater systems of organizations (R. E. Quinn, 1996; Senge, 2006;
Wheatley, 1999). This multi-dimensional relationship provides us with
complex interconnections between individuals and groups. Organizational
change is dependent on the change at the individual level (R. E. Quinn,
1996; Senge, 2006). But at the same time, the individual change and
personal growth is dependent on the organization (R. E. Quinn, 1996;
Senge, 2006). This dynamic can be best explained with the idea that
leadership is not developed from single leaders. This is a dynamic best
explained by the definition of team. Yukl (2002) defines a team as one that
has a common mission or vision and has interdependent roles (Yukl, 2002).
Roles within the organizations can shift and take on characteristics of
leaders, but each member plays a critical role in the leadership; therefore all
members serve in the capacity of “leader.” (Burns, 2003; Greenleaf, 1970,
2002) action force dynamic
Senge (2006) argues that viable organizations are in fact learning
organizations. These learning organizations are ones that continuously
define their self-destiny and future. These organizations depend on group
thinking to learn. Learning organizations focus on the journey of growth and
the pursuit of knowledge over the focus on a specific destination. These
organizations adapt with knowledge and experience. As a result these
learning organizations have a greater likelihood of sustaining and growing
over time. (Senge, 2006)
Senge (2006) states that all too often structures define positions and
positions define people. These structures and positions constraints, which
are often hierarchal and compartmentalized in nature, affect behaviors. He
suggests a learning organization needs to move beyond such structures and
free themselves from these often dead-fast positions. (Greenleaf, 2002;
Senge, 2006) Therefore, it is the group membership working in a dynamic
nature that creates a learning organization; a collective body of leadership.
“Diversity is a survival factor for the community itself. A community of
a hundred million species can survive almost anything short of a global
catastrophe.” (D. Quinn, 1992, p. 130)
Darwin notes that the diversity of a community creates the best chance of
survival. It is the diversity that allows for the greatest range of
modifications. He speaks of the importance of variations within a species.
The narrower and more specialized the adaptions of a species, the more
dependent the species survival is on the context of the environment having
limited changes over time. However, the wider the range or variability in
the adaptations of a species the more likely the species will survive within
the context of any environmental event with large-scale changes. Diversity
is critical to survival. (Darwin, 1859)
Diversity of perspective, role, knowledge, and experience can be the more
critical element to leadership (DePree, 2004). This would include elements
of understanding diversity of race, ability, age, and gender. In the United
States, the population changes reflect greater and greater diversity,
particular in the area of race (Johnson & Kasarda, 2011). If diversity is
important to the survival of an organization, then it is important that the
membership of that organization should reflect the general population. This
requires a focus on knowing the interactions and connections between
individuals and groups. (Keleher et al., 2010) Recognizing diversity, and in
the case of race, recognizing race provides an openness to diversity.
(DePree, 2004) Color-conscious groups open the group to multi-perspectives
and foster a value of diversity. (Mazzocco, 2006)
If we are looking to make an organization viable and moving towards change
then essential to this is the exchange of ideas and perspectives, which
create new understandings (Fullan, 2001; Palmer, 1998; Senge, 2006;
Wheatley, 1999). There are elements of unique voice that can be and
should be brought into the dynamic of how a diverse population can operate
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2011). If we truly honor the level of diversity within
an organization then we need direct ways to challenge our notions of norms,
rules of engagement, and institutionalized ways of behaving. (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2011; Keleher, et al., 2010; Mazzocco, 2006; Singleton & Linton,
2005)
I have come to personally experience how redefining an organization
through a diverse lens can benefit the organization and its members.
Talking about race provides a new level of consciousness, colorconsciousness (Mazzocco, 2006; Singleton & Linton, 2005). Remaining
color-blind is not a matter of seeing all as equal. It is a mechanism of denial
of identity of self and others. Color-blindness, in fact, is more likely to
perpetuate racism within groups. Individuals often develop their self-esteem
and identity from how they are identified within a group. Therefore, to
establish a group as color-blind suggests something is wrong with the color
of one’s skin. (Mazzocco, 2006)
Talking about race provides new challenges in how we organize and operate
as groups in terms of white privilege, counter stories, and interest
convergence (Delgado & Stefancic, 2011; Singleton & Linton, 2005). For
example, white privilege, for me challenges many notions of traditional
leaders, leadership and methods of operating. What tends to exist among
white people, and our Western society as a whole, is the lack of
understanding that white is a color and white is a culture. (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2011; McIntosh, 1990; Singleton & Linton, 2005) Given our
historical context and the shaping of our scholarly understandings of
leadership, it is hard not to examine this as a critical piece of leadership and
understand the connection to the reference list of this very paper. How
many of these theorists for leadership are white? Arguably since
predominantly white culture values individualism and individual achievement
(Singleton & Linton, 2005) there can be a link to the conceptualization that
leadership is inherent of a single individual leader.
Since white is considered the dominant culture, the design of white privilege
allows for privilege within an organization or society on the basis of skin
color (Singleton & Linton, 2005). Peggy McIntosh’s activity for the color-line
illuminates this loudly, which is designed for people across racial
backgrounds to stand in line according to a scored set of responses on a
series of questions in terms of how they see, feel, and participate in society
(McIntosh, 1990; Singleton & Linton, 2005). Simply creating space for
conversations about race can begin to break down these institutionalized
ways of being and raise new insights into how we can become a collective
body working towards a mission (Mazzocco, 2006; Singleton & Linton,
2005).
So why examine race in the definition of leadership? The simple response is
to understand how much race truly affects our lives and our relationships,
personal and societal (Delgado & Stefancic, 2011; McIntosh, 1990; Singleton
& Linton, 2005). Certainly aspects of racism and other forms of
discrimination can affect leadership. But to take this deeper, it is about
race. Race defines culture and culture defines ways of being and establishes
rules for engagement. (Delgado & Stefancic, 2011; McIntosh, 1990;
Singleton & Linton, 2005) Understanding race has allowed me to have
greater understanding into culture and identity. This has a significant
impact on how we define ourselves in leadership. Admittedly, I am still a
novice with my understandings and particularly at a scholarly level, but I
have gained enough new knowledge to know that what occurs in
conversations about race provides opportunities for unique voice (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2011; Singleton & Linton, 2005). Unique voice opens the
channels of conversations on all levels in all dimensions. Open channels
create a dynamic culture of learning and growing. All of which are central to
the underlying forces of leadership. (Greenleaf, 2002; Senge, 2006;
Wheatley, 1999)
WHERE DOES THE LEADER STAND?
“Leadership is a process, not a person.” (Hollander, 1992, p. 71)
The act of leading does not occur from a single place. Much of the literature
of leaders articulates leadership as something that occurs from above or the
front (Yukl, 2002). This narrow conceptualization leaves out the importance
of leadership from within (Crippen, 2005; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002; Palmer,
1998; Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999) or the idea that leaders can be
followers (Burns, 2003; Goffee & Jones, 2006).
A good place to start this quest is to examine the possible origins of
leadership within human development. In the field of evolution, was there a
need for positional leadership? Mark Van Vugt (2006) outlines the origins of
leadership from the study of anthropology and psychology. He notes that
there is evidence that all human societies have some form of leadership. It
is assumed that leadership is a social process by which efforts of a group are
coordinated towards a given outcome (Burns, 2003). It is also assumed that
leadership is founded in a leader-follower relationship. (Burns, 2003; Van
Vugt, 2006) What is in question is the way in which these roles are created,
grow, or transcend over time and other societies.
In the evolution of humans, it seems apparent that the formalized structures
of selection of leaders, such as elections or appointed positions, were not a
standard function, so this allows for the freedom to explore the dynamic
between leader and followers without institutionalized biases. Van Vugt
(2006) argues that the concept of leader must have had a benefit for the
whole group or it would not be in existence today. The likelihood of the
development of the leader came from the need for group decision-making
and the need to coordinate the actions of the group to fulfill that decision.
One body of study contends that dominance was an active player in the
development of leadership, given further explorations into the make-up of
most small societal groups and the psychology of followers, this theory
actually does not explain all aspects of leadership. Most small societies are
horizontal versus vertical and most followers do not wish to be dominated.
Although such leaders may have existed, it could be conceived that the long
term and wide-spread use of this form of leadership would not sustain. (Van
Vugt, 2006)
An alternative theory comes from the focus of how leadership serves a
coordination function. The real concern of any small society is the need for a
single group action when faced with individual perspectives regarding
decisions. An alternative leadership model in this dynamic asserts that “all
individuals are capable of leading and following, and that they will choose
their strategy flexibly on the parameter values” (Van Vugt, 2006, p. 360) or
the idea that the leader or follower traits of individuals can predict when the
individual will serve as a leader or a follower based on situation (Greenleaf,
2002). The idea is that leadership is a strategy for survival and function of a
group. This survival is dependent on the synchronicity and flexibility of the
dynamic between leader and follower.
(Burns, 2003; Van Vugt, 2006)
“Followers may lead and leaders follow.” (Burns, 2003, p. 171)
An important trait of leadership may have evolved from the degree of
initiation of strategy, and there is research to suggest that those who can
quickly identify a strategy for a given situation are more likely to materialize
as the leader (Van Vugt, 2006). Although there are traits such as social
intelligence, empathy, and trustworthiness (Van Vugt, 2006) that often
define effective leaders, there is a notion that the development and use of
those traits can be contextual to a specific event or situation. For example,
often moments of crisis develop leadership more quickly than moments
without crisis (Van Vugt, 2006; Yukl, 2002). This provides insight into the
idea that leaders and followers could exchange roles within the dynamic of
leadership relevant to the situation or context of the group’s actions (Burns,
2003; DePree, 2004; Greenleaf, 2002; Van Vugt, 2006).
“Lead and be led.” (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 91)
Van Vugt (2006) raises the concept of leaderless groups. He notes that in
some groups having designated leaders are not necessary or possible. For
example, in situations where the activity of the group is repetitive or
predictive, a leader could be pointless or even counterproductive because all
group members know what to do. In other situations, some groups with a
single leader would contradict the structure of the group, such as a network
of social friends. (Van Vugt, 2006) Although leaderless leadership is an
exploration in my journey, these examples do not lend themselves as strong
cases for leaderless leadership. There is more substance to the concept of
leadership found in the two other components in my working definition: an
act of service (Burns, 1978; Crippen, 2005; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002) and a
working mission towards transformation (Collins & Porras, 1996; Fullan,
2001; Mapes, 1996; R. E. Quinn, 1996; Wheatley, 1999).
Examining the concept of leaderless leadership from another perspective
leads me to a new question; could there be leadership in followership
(Burns, 1978, 2003)? There is literature that aligns the importance of the
relationship between leader and follower and even when the literature is
silent on the subject, it infers the relationship of leader and follower (Burns,
1978; DePree, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Gladwell, 2000; Goffee & Jones, 2006;
Greenleaf, 1970, 2002; Hollander, 1992; Kostner, 1996; Lundin & Lancaster,
1990; R. E. Quinn, 1996; Senge, 2006; Van Vugt, 2006; Yukl, 2002). The
role of a follower is critical to the dynamic of leadership. Traditional
concepts of leadership create fixed and defined roles of leader and follower
(Burns, 2003; Hollander, 1992). However, in examining the roles and traits
of a follower; it raises some question to that viewpoint.
Followers play specific roles within the dynamic of leadership. They are
defenders of the status quo, or they are innovators or initiators. Followers
can mobilize either to support or refute a change. (Burns, 2003) Followers
need to possess an understanding of the organization, make meaningful
decisions, use effective communication, and collaborate within a team.
Integrity, personal ownership, contributions, and versatility are
characteristics of effective followers within an organization (Lundin &
Lancaster, 1990). Effective followers are willing to speak “truths” on behalf
of the greater good, have solid interpersonal skills, and understand the
dynamics of change (Goffee & Jones, 2006). Simultaneously followers want
authenticity, recognition of significance, and a sense of community from
leaders (Goffee & Jones, 2006). When these traits are examined from both
a stance of a leader and a follower, the traits extend well into both roles and
do not seem to be distinguishably different from one another despite the
leader-follower relationship being portrayed as opposites. Thus, begging the
question of what is the essential difference between a leader and a follower
(Burns, 2003, p. 171)?
Derek Sivers provides a compelling presentation on the importance of
followers. He shares a video clip of a young man dancing at an outdoor
concert. The man dances solo for some time before another individual
moves in to dance with him. Before long several others come over to dance,
as well, until there is a large crowd dancing. Sivers raises an interesting
point at the end of his speech. He says that the true leader of the dance
was not the initial solo dancer, but rather the first follower. (Siver, 2010)
This articulates well the point to be made that followers can be leaders.
“At this crucial point we are no longer seeing individuals as leaders, rather
we see leadership as the basic process of social change, of causation in a
community, an organization, a nation – perhaps even the globe.”
(Burns, 2003, p. 185)
SHIFTING THE LEADER FROM THE PEOPLE TO THE MISSION
Robert Greenleaf (2002) contends that the most widely accepted form of
leadership is based on a hierarchy, a pyramid infrastructure, with a
designated leader, often with positional authority. This structure establishes
a dynamic that positions the leader from above or in front of the group. In
practice, this mode of leadership is the one most adhered to simply out of
tradition. (Greenleaf, 2002)
Designated
Leader
(Greenleaf, 2002, p. 75)
There are significant challenges with this infrastructure, which includes a
person-dependent mode of operation. What happens if this person were to
leave? The dynamic of a boss-subordinate often closes communication and
narrows the flow of information as boss will attempt to control information
and subordinates do not feel free to communicate with a boss. The
distribution of power is unbalanced within this infrastructure and that
inherently alters the degree of creativity and learning that is often required
for an organization to grow. (Greenleaf, 2002; Senge, 2006)
But what if, as Greenleaf (2002) challenges, this structure was to instead
design itself with the concept of “first among equals” or Primus Inter Pares.
The leader is among the membership and the leadership lives within the
group. The role of the Primus can shift depending on the work of the group.
The power is balanced among the group within this structure. Greenleaf
(2002) positions the leader completely within the group. (Greenleaf, 2002;
Smith, 2005)
Primus
(Greenleaf, 2002, p. 75)
Perhaps the debate of who is a leader and the position of that leader is mute
if we shift our thinking from leadership as person-based to collective-based.
Perhaps the question is not who is the leader, but what is the leader?
Parker Palmer (1998) takes a similar concept to Greenleaf, but places it in
the context of learning. He articulates the typical scenario for learning and
dialogue that has an expert at the center imparting knowledge. The
assumption is that this knowledge is imparted to a group of amateurs.
(Palmer, 1998)
Information
Expert
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
Amateur
(Palmer, 1998, p. 100)
Palmer (1998) argues that relationships within a learning community,
however, are built from a subject and therefore the subject should be shared
among the whole group rather than controlled from an expert. He portrays
the subject as the center of learning rather than the expert. He calls this the
knowing community. (Palmer, 1998)
Knower
Knower
Knower
Subject
Knower
Knower
Knower
(Palmer, 1998, p. 102)
Many sources of literature place the mission of a group as the central force
of leadership (Burns, 1978; Chenoweth & Everhart, 2002; Collins & Porras,
1996; DePree, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002; Kostner, 1996;
Mapes, 1996; Palmer, 1998; R. E. Quinn, 1996; Smith, 2005; Wheatley,
1999). With that in mind it easy to take Palmer’s (1998) notion and
combine it with Greenleaf’s (2002) concept to redesign a structure for
leadership that places the mission within the center of the community or
group.
Member
Member
Member
Mission
Member
Member
Member
(Greenleaf, 2002; Palmer, 1998)
Leadership can be explicitly interconnected with the learning process
(Palmer, 1998; Senge, 2006). As the organization grows and develops
itself, it works fluidly within learning, problem-solving, and decision-making
driven by the sense of mission (Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999). That is not
with an actual mission or vision statement, but a set of actions which define
its purpose and focus (Wheatley, 1999). The organization defines its own
destiny and growth (Senge, 2006). Relationships within this organization
move well beyond the members. It organizes the other relationships along
the mission and the process by which the organization evolves (Senge,
2006). This is an organization that centers the mission as the primer leader.
This, in my opinion, is an organization ready for service.
Vision
Learning
Problemsolving
Service
Member
Member
Member
Mission
Member
Member
Member
(Greenleaf, 2002; Palmer, 1998; Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999)
LEADERSHIP IS AN ACT OF SERVICE
“Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.”
― Albert Einstein
Robert Greenleaf (1970, 2002) contextualizes leadership as an act of
service. Greenleaf (1970, 2002) suggests that the act of service is the
leadership and to serve is to lead. (Crippen, 2005; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002;
Smith, 2005) He believes that part of leadership is to invite others to the
act of service (Crippen, 2005). In service leadership the goal or mission is
the driving force (Crippen, 2005; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002; Smith, 2005). The
mission is larger than oneself and reaches to ultimate outcomes (Collins &
Porras, 1996; Greenleaf, 1970; Mapes, 1996).
Leadership holds a moral obligation within its construct (DePree, 2004;
Fullan, 2001; Greenleaf, 1970, 2002; Mapes, 1996; R. E. Quinn, 1996). The
core set of principles within a service based organization do not change
(Collins & Porras, 1996; Greenleaf, 2002). The moral purpose involves a
sacrifice (Greenleaf, 2002), comes from the heart (Mapes, 1996) and serves
others in a worthy cause (Greenleaf, 2002; Mapes, 1996). The goal is one
that is actually never realized due to its enormity and efforts towards
transformation (Collins & Porras, 1996; Greenleaf, 2002; Mapes, 1996).
VISION AND MISSION DEFINING A PURPOSE FOR SERVICE
“Courage is simply doing whatever is needed in pursuit of the vision”
(Senge, 2006, p. 177)
The notion of service promotes a sense of mission. One measure of how a
mission can been seen by a leadership member is the sense of legacy and a
moral purpose (DePree, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Mapes, 1996; Senge, 2006).
How does one contribute to a larger goal beyond one’s own life? The
existence of one’s life is part of the greater mission (Greenleaf, 2002).
“A mission statement comes from the head, a vision comes from the heart.”
(Mapes, 1996, p. 100)
In the development of a vision or mission, it becomes an integral dance
between the individual and the organization (Collins & Porras, 1996; Fullan,
1993; Senge, 2006). Vision is not imposed on the members of an
organization, but needs to come from the members (Collins & Porras, 1996;
R. E. Quinn, 1996; Wheatley, 1999). The vision or mission defines the
identity of an organization (Collins & Porras, 1996; Senge, 2006). The
projection of that vision or mission in terms of how an organization
functions, or the vibe of an organization, is a stronger statement of that
organization’s vision or mission than the words that might be written about a
vision or mission (Wheatley, 1999). Therefore, the act of writing a vision or
mission statement is simply not enough. The process of developing a sense
of purpose is better as an on-going process of examination of identity,
values, vision, and mission. It comes from the deep and intense
understanding of the purpose of an organization.
(Collins & Porras, 1996;
Mapes, 1996; Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999)
“A shared vision is not idea. It is not even an important idea, such as
freedom. It is, rather, a force in people’s hearts, a force of impressive
power. It may be inspired by an idea, but once it goes further – if it is
compelling enough to acquire the support of more than one person – then it
is no longer an abstraction. It is palpable. People begin to see it as if it
exists. Few, if any, forces in human affairs are as powerful as shared
vision.” (Senge, 2006, p. 175)
Although the communication of a vision and mission is part of effective
leadership, an organization that embraces the vision and mission into action
embeds them into the functioning and learning processes of the
organization, including every member (R. E. Quinn, 1996; Senge, 2006;
Wheatley, 1999). This learning process provides a sense of purpose for the
community of members and the organization as a whole (Fullan, 2001;
Goffee & Jones, 2006; Senge, 2006).
transform (Senge, 2006).
A learning organization is ready to
LEADERSHIP WORKS TOWARDS TRANSFORMING THE
WORLD
PROBLEMS AS THE SOURCE FOR CHANGE
“Problems cannot be solved with the same mindset that created
them.” ― Albert Einstein
The incentive for change begins with a level of disequilibrium or high profile
need that is currently not being addressed (Fullan, 1993; Fullan & Champlin,
1993; Heifetz, et al., 2009; Heifetz, et al., 2004; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002;
Wheatley, 1999). Problems serve as a source for change. Organizations
that adapt see change as an opportunity for learning and exploration of what
lies at the heart of an organization’s purpose and function (Heifetz, et al.,
2009; Heifetz, et al., 2004; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Senge, 2006; Wheatley,
1999). Organizations need problems to create the need for change (Fullan &
Champlin, 1993).
“Chaos is necessary to create new creative ordering.”
(Wheatley, 1999, p. 13)
Heifetz (2004, 2009) provides insight into the kinds of problems that exist in
an organization. There are adaptive and technical problems that lead an
organization to different mechanisms for problem-solving. Adaptive
problems are complex and do not have single sources of resolution.
Adaptive problems do not have clear or known answers. They require a
process of learning in order to develop the solution. Technical problems, on
the other hand, are problems that are clear, well-defined, and have single
sources for solution. The size of the problem, the solution, or change does
not make it adaptive over technical; in fact there can be large technical
problems that create large systems change. The distinction between them is
the level of complexity and the method needed to resolve the problem.
Adaptive problems require discourse and exploration to develop new
understandings and transform values. (Cuban, 1996; Heifetz, et al., 2009;
Heifetz, et al., 2004) Often solutions are ones that require many trials
before finding ones that work. Adaptive problems will challenge the moral
purpose and values of an organization. Technical problems often center
more on methods of operation or infrastructure. (Cuban, 1996; Heifetz, et
al., 2009; Heifetz, et al., 2004; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002)
INSPIRATION AND INNOVATION
Resolving any problem is an act of learning and the development of brand
new ideas (Heifetz, et al., 2009; Heifetz, et al., 2004; Senge, 2006). The
fundamental underpinning of learning is the exchange of information to
create knowledge and understanding (Fullan, 2001; Senge, 2006; Wheatley,
1999). Adaptive problems require organizations to seek new knowledge.
Heifetz (2009) discuss the “productive zone of disequilibrium.” This zone is
created when an organization finds that place of tolerance for discomfort.
Heifetz (2009) explains that real transformation needs to occur when
individuals are in a place of unbalance or discomfort. Too much discomfort
and individuals will slip into modes of avoidance or seek quick technical
solutions to relieve the discomfort. Too little discomfort and individuals
remain at status quo. Just the right amount of discomfort causes individuals
to grow and learn. (Heifetz, et al., 2009; Heifetz, et al., 2004; Heifetz &
Linsky, 2002)
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited.
Imagination encircles the world.” ― Albert Einstein
Organizations that create space for diversity and open communication thrive
(Greenleaf, 2002; Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999). It is important to say our
“truth” and to seek for understanding, which defines our integrity (Covey &
Center, 1991; Greenleaf, 2002; Wheatley, 1999). It is the exchange of
information and “truths” that creates knowledge. Organizations that flourish
are ones that continuously seek new knowledge. (Fullan, 2001; Senge,
2006; Wheatley, 1999)
The concept of inspiration is mentioned as an aspect of leadership, but often
not described or defined. Inspiration is different from motivation.
Motivation is focused on how to get others to perform. Inspiration is
internally based and driven by a sense of higher purpose. Inspiration sparks
creativity and passion. (Kerfoot, 2001; Senge, 2006)
With these
differences between motivation and inspiration, it suggests that inspiration
comes from how a group of people are driven by their sense of purpose and
service. Literature on leadership will note that inspiration is generated by a
leader (Burns, 2003; Collins & Porras, 1996; Senge, 2006; "WordNet 1.7.1,"
2001). However, the concept of inspiration infers that leaders are not
necessary; in fact it can infer that inspiration creates leaders.
WordNet provides us two interesting definitions: “arousal of the mind to
special unusual activity or creativity” or “a sudden intuition as part of solving
a problem ("WordNet 3.1," 2013).” Both definitions work well within
Senge’s (2006) articulation of a learning organization and both of these
definitions seem to link the connection between inspiration and innovation.
(Senge, 2006)
“To invent something, all you need is imagination and a big pile of junk.”
― Albert Einstein
Innovation requires new ways of thinking (Senge, 2006). Senge (2006)
defined innovation as moving an idea into action which can be replicated at a
practical level (Senge, 2006). Hall and Hord (2001) state innovations are
either products or process (Hall & Hord, 2001). Senge (2006) and Wheatley
(1999) speak about how the learning process and the free exchange of
information will create innovation. (Fullan, 2001; Senge, 2006; Wheatley,
1999) Innovation is vital to the life of an organization. Senge (2006)
strongly stresses that innovation comes from learning. (Senge, 2006) The
life of any innovation is the wide-spread use of the innovation (Fullan &
Champlin, 1993; Hall & Hord, 2001).
THE ART OF TRANSFORMATION
“In organizations, which is the more important influence on behavior – the
system of the individual? (Wheatley, 1999, p. 35)
The answer is simple. It is both (Hall & Hord, 2001; R. E. Quinn, 1996;
Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999). It is the dynamic of individual change and
systems change that creates deep change (R. E. Quinn, 1996). If personal
change is needed for organizational change, then open exploration and
reflection are critical to this change. True transformational change for an
organization begins with transformational change of self (R. E. Quinn, 1996).
Individual learning is at the center of organizational learning (Senge, 2006,
p. 120).
“Momentum in a vital company is palpable. It is not abstract or mysterious.
It is the feeling among people that their lives and work are intertwined and
moving toward a recognizable and legitimate goal.” (DePree, 2004, p. 17)
As the individuals grow and learn, it would become important for them to be
an active part of the organization’s growth. DePree (2004) considers
momentum an obligation of leaders. Clear vision, inspiration, and learning
are active parts of how momentum is achieved. (DePree, 2004) This
requires individuals to have a well-defined personal vision (Covey & Center,
1991; Senge, 2006). Senge (2006) discusses the need for “personal
mastery” as a continuous examination of vision and the realization of results
towards that vision; it is about personal growth and learning, in fact, it
ventures into the spirit (Senge, 2006).
The dynamic of such a group takes solid principles built in the understanding
of relationship. According to Depree (2004) every member has the “right”
to be involved, to be needed, to be accountable and to shape one’s own
future. Members have the “right” to be part of the relationships within the
group, to understand and commit to the mission, and to appeal in times of
feeling less than having these “rights.” (DePree, 2004) The idea that
DePree presents these are rights provides a strong message about the ways
in which people are “powered” (vs. empowered) within a group. When
people are “powered” then it allows them the flow of learning and growing
(Senge, 2006) and that allows for deep change or transformation (Quinn,
1996).
AN ACT OF MOMENTUM
“That is the paradox of the epidemic: that in order to create one contagious
movement, you often have to create many small movements first.”
(Gladwell, 2000, p. 192)
The literature provides many insights about the change process. Much of it
provides phases or action steps for change (Fullan, 1993; Fullan & Champlin,
1993; Hall & Hord, 2001; Lippitt, 2003; R. E. Quinn, 1996). What is not
always clear is the level of change that transforms an organization or
society. Incremental changes are changes that affect the organization at a
level of infrastructure or operation. They do not inherently change the
organization. Deep change, however, can change an organization at its
core. (Cuban, 1996; R. E. Quinn, 1996) What does it take to create that
level of change?
Heifetz (2009) discusses the “productive zone of disequilibrium” which
creates a strategic level of disequilibrium and Senge (2006) discusses the
“creative tension.” Fullan (1993) talks about a high profile need or gap. The
disequilibrium establishes a continuous need for growth and learning which
then produces a high level of change at the adaptive level. (Fullan &
Champlin, 1993; Heifetz, et al., 2009; Heifetz, et al., 2004; Heifetz & Linsky,
2002; Senge, 2006)
Quinn (1996) provides insight on the level of change needing to reach every
member of an organization. He makes the claim that deep change can only
occur when every member of an organization changes. (Hall & Hord, 2001;
R. E. Quinn, 1996; Wheatley, 1999) Gladwell (2000) poses the idea that
large scale change takes a momentum (Gladwell, 2000). It is clear from all
of these theories that it takes a whole organization at the individual member
level to reach the point of deep change and that deep change resides in the
space between balance and unbalance (Heifetz, et al., 2009; Heifetz, et al.,
2004; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; R. E. Quinn, 1996; Senge, 2006).
“The name given to that one dramatic moment in an epidemic when
everything can change all at once is the Tipping Point.”
(Gladwell, 2000, p. 9)
So is there a set pathway for change? Despite all of the defined phases of
change, some of the same writers also claim that being flexible and not
living within a specific lock-step strategic plan for change is important to the
change process. (Cuban, 1996; Fullan, 1993; Hall & Hord, 2001) Change is
fluid and ever evolving. Sometimes change shapes the organization rather
than the organization shaping the change. (Heifetz, et al., 2009; R. E.
Quinn, 1996; Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999) But, describing the phases and
steps seems too simple to explain such a complex construct such as change.
What does it really take to create deep change?
There seems to be common elements that lay mostly in the dynamic of
relationships. After all relationships are all there is to reality (Wheatley,
1999, p. 34).
A rather compelling irony is the idea that the more freedom
that exists in an organization, the more order there is (Wheatley, 1999, p.
87). When organization provides freedom of choice and access to
knowledge and information, the organization allows for growth in each
member, which in turn provides change within an organization. (Cuban,
1996; R. E. Quinn, 1996; Senge, 2006; Wheatley, 1999)
“Creativity is contagious. Pass it on.” ― Albert Einstein
Momentum takes mobilization of a group, mobilizing a group of individual
learners and transformers. This is where the literature coalesces. Certainly
Senge, Hall and Hord, Gladwell, Wheatley, Greenleaf, Burns, and Fullan all
bring the idea of momentum into the thinking behind leadership and change,
even if inferred. One can take the diagrams and lists of steps that are
created in literature such as Lippitt, Hall and Hord, Fullan, and even the
competencies of this leadership program, and use them as the road map for
trying to create momentum. And they can be helpful, however… It leaves
out that which cannot be measured.
I find the understanding of momentum coming from my vague memories of
my high school physics class. It is the size of the object multiplied by the
velocity or rate of movement. (Momentum = Mass x Velocity) Albert
Einstein provides us with understandings of the influences of gravity and
time on momentum and thus demonstrating that Newton’s math was far too
simplistic to explain that which is far too complex. If we can follow along
with Einstein’s ideas, momentum is rooted in the relationships among mass
or objects, time, and gravitational pull. (Einstein, 1920)
Physics describes a universe that is built entirely from relationships,
relationships so complex and so interconnected, systems living within
systems, that one affects the other. The affects shape wide variability,
unbelievable variability. Yet, there is order and direction. There is a lifecycle – energy which neither created nor destroyed, just simply transformed.
Gladwell (2000), like physics, provides a formula to explain a movement.
He stresses that much about wide-spread movements actually begins with
small movements. Size does directly impact momentum and at what point
does the small change actually tip the scales into large change? There is
something in the size of groups that affects the way we behave. Small tightknit groups have tremendous influence over its members, and Gladwell
(2000) refers to that as “the rule of 150.” He notes that small groups of
that size create bonding memories and high levels of trust. Groups that are
small have informal structures that shape the way of behaving and
connecting. Peer pressure has greater influence over change then a formal
positional leader. (Gladwell, 2000)
Movements are created because people belong to many small groups. A
member of one group will bring the change to a second group. A member in
the second group will bring the change to a third group, and so on and so
on. Momentum is created by the exponential component of that spread, as
this spread applies with every member of every group. (Gladwell, 2000)
The art of a movement and the momentum of that movement are dependent
on each individual’s contribution.
THE CONCLUSION:
ANSWERS FOR MY ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS
So, what have I learned from this journey? I have learned enough to grow
my definition of leadership. It is a leadership that allows me to maneuver
freely as mentor, consultant, Primus, and follower. It is a leadership that is
focused on purpose and vision, both personal and organizational. It is a
definition that supports me to continuously transform myself as a means to
transform the world. It has given me a humble place to operate as I serve,
but, has it provided me with answers to my essential questions?

Could relationships serve as the leadership without a leader?

If change is an on-going process, how does transformation actually
occur?
“I don't pretend to understand the universe — it's much bigger than I am.”
― Albert Einstein
I have greater clarity of answers to these questions, but I do not pretend to
have the answers solidified. I believe that groups can have roaming leaders
and multiple forms of leaders, including followers. In fact, I have become
convinced that leadership is only defined by multi-dimensional and flexible
roles of leaders and followers. Leadership, I believe exists within the
dimensions of the relationships. What still remains a question, is the idea of
“leaderless” leadership. The only examples I have found, are ones that
typify very informal groups. I am not yet convinced that informal groups
contain the other critical components that define leadership.
“The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”
― Albert Einstein
Gladwell (2000) has provided me with the greatest insight as to how
transformational change can occur. I believe that he has isolated a critical
idea about the size of a group and the intensity of change that can occur. It
makes sense that large changes actually need small changes. I think both
Senge (2006) and Gladwell (2000) really support my personal experiences
that the best ideas that are easily replicated and sold and that are
meaningful and practical spread quickly by individuals from group to group.
The explorations of these two questions have changed my previous definition
of leadership. I used to define leadership on the basis of a person. I now
define leadership as contextual process resulting from the dynamics of
relationships. I now see leaders and followers as having versatile roles. I
have taken on a more conscious and deliberate use of followership within the
course of my own leadership. I have grown to understand the importance of
following and I have grown to love this role as critical part of change. What
I have held onto the most is that leadership is a life-long process. I only
hope that my current working definition for leadership will be different ten
years from now. I know that learning and experiences will continue to
change my world view and thus my understanding of leadership.
RESOURCES
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York: Grove Press.
Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. New York: MJF Books.
Chenoweth, T. G., & Everhart, R. B. (2002). Navigating comprehensive
school change: A guide for the perplexed Larchmont, NY Eye on
Education.
Collins, J. P., & Porras, J. (1996). Building your company’s vision. Harvard
Business Review, 65-77.
Covey, S. R., & Center, C. L. (1991). The seven habits of highly effective
people: Covey Leadership Center.
Crippen, C. (2005). The democratic school: First to serve, then to lead.
Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 47(5), 117.
Cuban, L. (1996). Myths about changing schools and the case of special
education. Remedial and Special Education, 17(2), 75-82.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origins of species by means of natural selection
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2011). Critical race theory: An introduction:
NYU Press.
DePree, M. (2004). Leadership is an art: Crown Business.
Dr. Suess. (1988). Oh, the place you'll go! New York: Random House.
Einstein, A. (1920). Relativity: The special and general theory, by Albert
Einstein. Translated by Robert W. Lawson: Henry Holt and Company,
New York.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.
New York: The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Fullan, M. (2004). Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide and
workbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M., & Champlin, J. (1993). Managing change. Sandy, UT: The Video
Journal of Education.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big
difference: Little, Brown.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Authentic followership. R. Goffee & G. Jones,
Why should anyone be led by you, 189-201.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of
legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles
and potholes. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The theory behind the
practice. The practice of adaptive leadership, 19.
Heifetz, R., Kania, J. V., & Kramer, M. R. (2004). Leading boldly. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 2(3), 21-31.
Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2002). A survival guide for leaders. Harvard
Business Review, 80(6), 65-74.
Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and
followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1(2), 71-75.
Johnson, J. H., & Kasarda, J. D. (2011). Six disruptive demographic trends:
What census 2010 will reveal Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina
Keleher, T., Leiderman, S., Meehan, D., Perry, E., Potapchuk, M., Powell, J.
A., et al. (2010). Leadership and race: How to develop and support
leadership that contributes to racial justice: Leadership Learning
Community.
Kerfoot, K. (2001). From motivation to inspiration leadership. Pediatric
nursing, 27(5), 530.
Kostner, J. (1996). Virtual leadership: Secrets from the round table for the
multi-site manager: Grand Central Publishing.
Lippitt, M. (2003). Leading complex change. from Enterprise Management,
LTD:
Lipton, L., Wellman, B., & Humbard, C. (2002). Mentoring matters: A
practical guide to learning-focused relationships (2 ed.). Sherman, CT:
Mira Via.
Lundin, S. C., & Lancaster, L. C. (1990). Beyond leadership...the importance
of followership. Futurist, 24(3), 18-22.
Mapes, J. (1996). Quantum leap thinking. Los Angeles, CA: Dove Audio, Inc.
Mazzocco, P. (2006). The daners of not speaking about race: A summary of
research affirming the merits of a color-conscious approach to racial
communication and equity. Columbus: Kirwan Institute for the Study
of Race and Ethnicity: The Ohio State University.
McIntosh, P. (1990). Unpacking the knapsack of white privilege.
Independent School, 49(2), 31-36.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of
a teacher's life. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Quinn, D. (1992). Ishmael: An adventure of the mind and spirit. New York:
Bantam Books.
Quinn, R. E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning
organization
Singleton, G. E., & Linton, C. (2005). Courageous conversations about race:
A field guide for achieving equity in schools. Thousand Oaks: Corwin
Press.
Siver, D. (2010). How to start a movement: Ted.
Smith, C. (2005). Servant leadership.
Steinbeck, J. (1980). Travels with charley: In search of America. New York:
Penguin.
Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership.
Personality & Social Psychology Review 10(4), 354-371.
Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order
in a chaotic world (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
WordNet 1.7.1. (2001). Answers.com Retrieved November 9, 2006, from
http://www.answers.com/topic/leader.
WordNet 3.1. (2013). Answers.com Retrieved January 13, 2013, from
http://www.answers.com/topic/leader.
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S., & Montie, J. (2001). Reflective
practice to improve schools: An action guide for educators. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.