All posts by MYORBITX

Leadership

The Nature of Christian Leadership

The quest to identify an ideal model of leadership that leaders can replicate in order to have better functioning organizations continues to be a challenge for leaders (Kouzes and Posner, 1987). This has lead writers such as Greenleaf, Winston and Brauna to explore the nature of Christian leadership, which has the capacity to change the moral fiber of man and society. This unique model has shown the potential to revolutionize leadership as we know it, and invariably create more successful organizations.

To fully understand the implications of Christian leadership we must first understand its nature. Hence the questions: what are the fundamentals on which this type of Leadership is based? Why this style of leadership gained preeminence in the work of so many scholars and has proven to be so effective in Biblical Testaments…? What is the nature of Christian leadership that sets it apart from secular leadership styles? In order to ascertain answers to these questions this paper examines the nature of Christian leadership by studying and analyzing Jesus’ Leadership in the 9th chapter in the gospel of Matthew, verses 20-22, by explicitly looking at the attributes which formed the core of Jesus’ Leadership. To assist readers to fully comprehend the nature of Christian leadership in this passage, this paper employs an inter-textual and inner texture approach from Socio rhetoric Interpretation. By examining Jesus’ leadership from different perspectives readers are provided with a more wholesome view of the nature of Jesus’ leadership style. This paper therefore, examines attributes such as: Godly principles, love and purpose of Jesus’ leadership as well as their importance to what constitute Christian leadership. It is my intention that readers will utilize the findings in this paper to enhance their leadership styles which will invariably lead to better leadership and healthier organizations.

Background

Matthean gospel holds much value to the understanding of Christian leadership as it is deemed to have had more influence on the development of the early church and consequently, Christianity. There seems to be much discrepancy about the authorship of Matthew (Desilva, 2004). Some scholars claim that it was written by Matthew, an eye witness, one of the twelve, while others cited the reliance on Mark gospel as evidence against him being an eye witness. Matthew is said to have utilized not only Mark as a source but also the Q. The language while bearing marked similarities to Mark is more elaborate. The Matthean gospel is said to have been written prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. The citation of various Jewish customs, without accompanying explanations, woven throughout Matthew suggests that it was written for a Jewish audience. In order to portray Christ as the King and Messiah of Israel, Matthew utilizes various quotes from the Old Testament, thus all the principal themes are grounded in the Old Testament.

Method

In analyzing Matthew 9:20-22, socio rhetorical criticism is employed to assist in understanding the intricacies of this passage. Socio rhetorical criticism is a method of analyzing text by looking at the values, conviction and beliefs in the text in relation to the world (Robbins, 1996). There are five approaches in this method of analyzing text: Inner texture, inter texture, social and cultural texture, ideological texture and sacred texture. (Desilva, 2004). For the purposes of examining Matthew 9:20-22, an intertexture is first done to provide a conceptual understanding of the existing culture in that era. This is followed by an inner texture approach to help in comprehending the passage. Inner texture refers to the different ways that a text manipulates language to provide more detailed understanding of the text. The argumentative texture is one branch of understanding the inner working of a text. It provides reasons for readers to think and act in a specific manner. The inter-textual method of analyzing a text, studies the specific text in relation to other texts outside of the particular text. This method of analyzing a text may use different approaches and includes the use of other text in relation to the text being studied, in order for readers to fully grasp the meaning of the text. The use of both approaches provides a richer and fuller meaning of the text.

Intertexture Analysis

In order to understand Matthew 9:20-22, we must understand the history surrounding the two sects operating throughout that era; the Pharisees and the Sadducees. A study of the writings of Flavius Josephus, early rabbinical writings as well as the New Testaments provides an accurate description of these two groups. The term Pharisees is derived from the Hebrew perusim, which means “separated ones.” Later findings suggest that it may have been derived from Hebrew parosim, meaning “specifier,” They were regarded as puritans, in other words they were extremely passionate concerning the principles within the Mosaic laws, as well as those that they added to the Old Testament legislation (Huie, 2007). This sect is symbolic of the orthodox core of Judaism and had very strong influence on the Israelites. The Sadducees are said to have been named after Zadok, a priest during the stint of King David and King Solomon, other theorists presupposes that the name is a derivative from Zadok who lived in the 2nd century BCE. In the same vein there are others who believe the name “Sadducee” comes from the Hebrew tsadiq, which means righteous (Huie, 2007). The Sadducees were famous for their unbelief of supernatural happenings. Matt.22:23 express their refusal to believe the resurrection of the dead. This sect had no regards for tradition and despised legalism. In their view the Pentateuch was the only authority, they were often very affluent, aristocrats, member of the priestly tribes and under Herod’s rule were the owners of the temple.

The degrees of differences between these two groups created an imbalance with regards to the political views throughout that era. These two groups had opposing views/beliefs concerning laws, and regulations (Huie 2002). Matthew 9:20-22 is about the woman with the issue of blood. This story may be seen as an interruption, as it occurs while Jesus was on His way to heal Jarius’s daughter. Matthew relates a story of a woman who had been bleeding for over twelve years. According to Jewish Law, this woman is deemed as unclean because of the insistent bleeding (Lev 15:25-27). This woman was scorned by family members and the society and was barred from synagogue and temples (MacArthur, 2005). A poor woman, Luke mentions that she had spent all that she had, looking for a cure. She was ostracized, an outcast by all accounts. As a result of her illness, the traditions of that era prevented women from touching men, it is possible that this is the reason she approached Jesus from behind and touched the hem of His garment. Her belief in Jesus to cure her was evident in her gesture to touch Him. Jesus did not criticize the woman because she opted to mix with people and thereby breaking all the conventions of that era. Instead He encouraged her “Take heart daughter your faith as made you whole, on approaching Jesus the woman thought “if” I touch his cloak I will be healed.” This statement is often refers to as an enthymeme (Robins, 1996).

Continue reading →

Leadership

Our Obsolete Concept of Leadership

We have heard of folk psychology and folk medicine – age old beliefs now discarded – but what about ”folk leadership?” The idea that a leader is a strong individual at the head of a group is primitive given that it is shared throughout the higher animal kingdom. Casting aside primitive notions of leadership could be as beneficial to organizations as modern medicine has been to our health.

There have been books written on folk psychology and folk medicine. An economist, Paul Rubin, writing in The Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 70, 2003 has introduced the concept of folk economics to label the false beliefs of lay people about the economy.

Folk physics contains many false beliefs, such as that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones but many of our everyday beliefs about the physical world are good enough for normal purposes. We don’t need any knowledge of modern physics for basic survival. Similarly, folk leadership might be good enough for simple situations but insufficient for complex, fast changing businesses.

Characteristics of Folk Leadership

History is full of heroic exploits of great leaders who are nearly always men, strong decisive types who knew what they wanted and how to get it. We have moved beyond the need to be physically strong, but it still helps to be tall with a strong personality to really inspire followers. Our folk concept of leadership specifies that the leader should be a father figure, someone we can look up to, admire and who we can turn to when we are in trouble. Like our fathers, we want leaders to know what to do, to be decisive and seemingly invincible. Such leaders must have some sort of strength or power to win our respect and to ward off external threats.

Complexity and Leadership

A simple leadership situation is the small group, such as clubs or gangs. In simple groups, an external threat is met by physical attack. Modern organizations that compete through innovation are also locked in battle, but their ammunition is creative thinking, the rapid development of new products and services. The person at the top of a simple group can direct it into physical battle, but in a complex organization driven by innovation, the person at the top may not know where to turn. Our folk concept of leadership runs into trouble here because we expect leaders to have the answers. But today’s executives depend on front line knowledge workers to come up with creative ideas for new products.

We have two ways to address the problem of complexity. Either we say that the person in charge no longer provides leadership or we change our definition of leadership to fit the facts. The second option is the popular choice; we now say that leadership is a facilitative, empowering activity, that it isn’t necessary for the leader to provide direction.

Changing the Meaning of Leadership

Folk concepts address a human need, even if just to explain how things work. Modern medicine and other sciences succeeded in replacing folk concepts because they could come up with better explanations. If the head of a complex group cannot provide direction, there is the option of saying that such a person is a manager not a leader. Instead of deleting the need to provide direction from our concept of leadership, we could maintain that leaders do indeed provide direction but that it can be bottom-up as well as top-down.

Characteristics of Bottom-up Leadership

– Provides new direction by promoting a better way of doing business or by offering a new product, for example, the Sony employee who convinced top management, despite resistance, to develop Playstation.
– Based on the power to innovate, not the power to dominate a group.
– Captures part of folk wisdom – that leaders break new ground, show the way, challenge the status quo.
– Constantly shifting because no one can monopolize good ideas, so it cannot be position based or hierarchical.
– A one-off act, not a role or person; it is a specific impact which can be shown to an organization by teams as well as individuals.
– Can come from outside the business, such as a competitor. It isn’t restricted to organization members, let alone the person in charge.
– Comes to an end once senior management buys the proposed innovation, so it does not entail the leader managing implementation.
– Has nothing to do with managing people.
– Can be shown throughout the organization, as in guerrilla warfare; it is not exclusively top down.

Implications of Reinventing Leadership

Much of what those in charge of groups do must be recast as management. We can upgrade our image of management and regard it as supportive, facilitative and empowering. We can now say that leadership promotes new directions while management executes them as efficiently as possible.

Organizations wanting to foster greater engagement and talent retention, as well as faster innovation, could do so by making front line knowledge workers feel like leaders, by viewing their attempts to promote new products or better processes as acts of leadership. This takes empowerment a big step further. Senior executives need to be emotionally intelligent enough to recognize that they don’t need to show all the leadership that an organization requires. Folk leadership is disempowering. It creates dependency in everyone who is not in a leadership position.

See http://www.leadersdirect.com for more information on this and related topics. Mitch McCrimmon has over 30 years experience in executive assessment and coaching. His latest book, Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes, 2006, challenges conventional thinking on leadership. Warning: you might find it annoying if you are committed to the usual platitudes about leadership.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Mitch_McCrimmon/79532

 

Leadership

The Relationship Between Leadership and Influence

What is the relationship between leadership and influence? Is leadership always influence and is influence always leadership?

To say that leadership always entails influence is like saying that all snow is white. It’s true but the inference doesn’t work the other way. That is, not all white things are snow. Similarly, although all leadership is influence, there are lots of types of influence that don’t count as leadership. Here are a few examples:

– Intimidating or forcing someone to do something.
– Bribing someone to do your bidding.
– Paying for things you want someone to do for you.
– Teaching a student to behave better in a classroom.
– Encouraging your children to eat their vegetables.

The last two examples are not leadership because they have nothing to do with a group striving to achieve a goal. Teaching students and encouraging children to eat vegetables is for their own interest, not for the good of a larger group. Similarly, salespeople may be very influential but their influence is self-interested. The salesperson and the customer do not constitute a group.

Formal Authority and Leadership Influence

Suppose you are the boss and you decide to ramp up production by 50%, requiring everyone to work faster and longer hours without overtime. Is this leadership? No, it may be influence but it is not leadership because the employees had no choice. To say that leadership is informal influence means that followers have a free choice to follow or not.

What are some prime examples of true leadership influence? One of the most familiar is Martin Luther King’s demonstrations against segregation on buses which led the U.S. Supreme Court to outlaw this practice. King had no formal authority or other power to move the U.S. government. This is the real meaning of leadership.

Another example of genuine leadership influence was the Sony employee who influenced management to adopt his idea for PlayStation despite their feeling that Sony wasn’t into making toys.

Whenever you convince your colleagues or your boss to adopt a new idea, you have shown them leadership. Or, you might simply set a good example for others and, if they follow, you have shown leadership.

Market leading businesses influence their competitors to change course, another example of real leadership.

When executives make decisions that take their teams in new directions, they are taking managerial actions, NOT showing leadership because employees have no choice.

To count as leadership, influence must be informal and followers must get on board completely of their own free will. Leadership is also a group phenomenon and is aimed at serving some unselfish purpose, something to improve the group’s effectiveness.

For this reason, even if your children willingly follow your plea to eat their vegetables, you haven’t shown leadership because you and your kids are not a group working toward a common goal.

Informal leadership and Influence

We often distinguish between formal and informal leadership. The only difference between these concepts is that the informal leader takes charge informally. The formal leader has been given formal authority to govern the group while the informal leader is granted this role by the group itself. The informal leader has personal power – charisma, knowledge or some form of expertise that the group values.

It is vital to recognize that the conventional concept of informal leadership is not the same thing as saying that all leadership influence is informal. The conventional concept, formal or informal, is all about being in charge of the group. The claim made here is that real leadership is independent of position, as it was in the case of Martin Luther King. He was not an informal leader in the conventional sense – the Supreme Court didn’t recognize him as their informal leader. As another example, a technical geek might influence his peers to adopt a new piece of software. He has influenced them informally. However, this geek might be so disinclined to manage the group that they might never view him as their informal leader – someone who they would turn to for help in organizing their day to day work, who they would look to for advice and the resolution of conflict. The geek’s informal leadership is a one-off act, not an ongoing role. His influence is informal but he is not what we normally call an informal leader because he has no interest or ability to take charge of the group in a managerial sense.

So what? By reformulating the meaning of leadership, I am saying that the old distinction between formal and informal leadership is outdated. There is really only formal and informal management because all leadership is informal where this term refers to willingly following someone’s lead NOT to informally taking charge of the group.

Conclusion

Leadership influence involves a group changing direction because of someone’s informal influence. It is always disinterested because, if you influence people to support you by appealing to their needs, you are effectively operating as a salesperson, not a leader. True leadership asks people to set aside their personal needs and do something for the good of the group. Think again of Martin Luther King. He was campaigning for justice, not to be elected U.S. president. His leadership entailed personal sacrifice in the interest of a higher cause.

See http://www.leadersdirect.com for more information on this and related topics. Mitch McCrimmon has over 30 years experience in executive assessment and coaching. His latest book, Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes, 2006, challenges conventional thinking on leadership. Warning: you might find it annoying if you are committed to the usual platitudes about leadership.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Mitch_McCrimmon/79532

 

Leadership

Measuring Leadership Success With Leadership Metrics

Leadership is often equated with a position of authority. In the corporate world, a company’s success could be dependent on how effective the leaders of that company are. A revolutionary way of measuring the effectiveness of an individual’s leadership has been recently formulated. Leadership metrics present a scientific and systematic way of measuring how good a leader is by a series of capital elements. A leader’s performance is graded through these elements. Also taken into account are the leadership conditions in which they operate in. The combined elements of leadership capital and leadership conditions are a surefire way to determine whether an individual is an able and competent leader or not.

The Leadership Capital Assessment is a formal instrument of measurement in this metrics. Leadership Capital refers to the six areas of competency possessed by a person in order for him to lead the company to brighter and more prosperous conditions. These competencies are innate qualities of an individual that are useful for effective leadership. He must have the wisdom, trust, courage, voice, values, and vision. Vision and values are two philosophical frameworks used by a leader in his operations. Wisdom and courage are sterling attributes for a leader to make effective strategies, come up with the right decisions, and solve problems. A leader’s trust and voice could lead others to follow the path a leader is directing them to. These qualities are needed to interrelate with others in the company.

This self-examination metrics basically measure the six competencies on a scale of 1 to 99. An ideal average of 70 is needed after all areas of competency are graded. A score of more than 90 and less than 40 indicates that the individual is displaying tendencies for anti-leadership. Anti-leadership refers to either the lack or excess of leadership capital elements.

Although a leader may possess innate qualities that are very useful for him to lead the company, it is also important to consider the environment he works on and the prevailing conditions. These conditions are important elements that would provide the individual a good opportunity to lead. Ideally, the person must be at the right place and at the right time. He must also do the right things that would move the company forward. Most importantly, he must be working with the right people. These conditions are very vital since these would foster the leadership capital possessed by an individual.

The metrics rate these conditions from the range of very poor to very good. An individual must be presented with good to very good conditions in the four areas. Otherwise, their environment is not good for them and they will have less than ample opportunity to lead.

An ideal leader is someone who exhibits the right balance in all six competencies. Deficiency and excess in these competencies could result to disastrous leadership. Metrics are very important here since these could identify problems in leadership and could save a company from the perils of disastrous leadership. More importantly, the leadership metrics used are better than a mishmash of opinions and judgments where certain elements of leadership might be left unexamined or over-baked in scrutiny.

If you are interested in leadership metrics, check this web-site to learn more about leadership dashboard.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Sam_Miller/77981

 

Leadership

The Characteristics of Good Leadership

Introduction

Some leaderships have been characterized as good and have been used as challenges for others to emulate. This description however raises an obvious question: upon what criteria were these leadership characterized as good? It is certain that some leaders, whose leadership does not fall within this category, have good qualities that others can emulate. For this reason it is important not only to know that a leadership has been characterized as good but also to know the characteristics that qualifies it as good. According to Anthony D’souza, leadership involves an inter-relationship between three elements:

(a) The quality skills and needs of the followers
(b) The need and expectations of the group
(c) The demands or requirements of the situation.1

It can be observed from what D’souza has said that the first element deals with the personality of the leader; the second, his followers and the third, the task to be accomplished.

On the basis of what has been said the characteristics of good leadership will be identified under the following headings:-

(a) The personal characteristics of the leader
(b) The characteristics of the followers
(c) The leader’s task or mission. Selected leaders in the Bible, whose leaderships

have been classified as good will form the basis of this presentation.

(a) The Personal Characteristics of the Leader

It can be observed from scriptures that God was very selective in choosing leaders for specific tasks. God specifically chose Nehemiah to spearhead the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall; Moses to bring the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt; Paul, to pioneer missionary work to the Gentiles and David, whose kinship would have a lasting dynasty, to replace Saul. These men certainly had qualities that were essential for good leadership. God recognized these qualities in them as potentials when He chose them.

In this section some of the qualities of leaders mentioned above will be discussed in a more general way. The goal is to show that it has been recognized that the good personal qualities of leaders, when applied to leadership are characteristics of good leadership.

Nehemiah

In reflecting on the book of Nehemiah, John White said that “the book of Nehemiah serves primarily to unfold for us part of God’s on-going plan for his people. But always it is the man, his character and his leadership that holds my interest”.2 Two important things stand out from John White’s evaluative statement about Nehemiah’s leadership that are characteristic of good leadership. The first is the character and conduct of Nehemiah himself as a leader and the second, is his leadership ability. White further commended that probably one of the reasons why Nehemiah was chosen as a cupbearer was because of a well-trained personal quality like that of a stable character. Such well-trained stable character was not just the effort of Nehemiah alone. This can be seen in the following statement – “God used Nehemiah’s active prayer life to mold him into a godly leader”.3 As a godly leader, Nehemiah was dependent upon God from whom he received his personal support and encouragement, which motivated him enough to succeed. Nehemiah achieved his ministry goal and his leadership has been characterized as good. His good character and conduct and his demonstration of leadership abilities were personal characteristics of his leadership, which made him succeed.

Moses

Moses’ childhood training as an adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter was tailored towards leadership. The incidence, which led to his escape from Egypt, revealed that he recognized his leadership qualities before God called him to leadership. However, it took 40 years from the time of his escape from Egypt, before God called him to leadership. Joyce Peel observed that Moses learns how to be a shepherd. Long years of looking after sheep taught him the patience he was to need as leader of the cantankerous children of Israel.4 This observation by Joyce Peel shows that the personal quality of patience in Moses’ life was a characteristic of his good leadership. This quality was made evident in the life of Moses through the great challenges he faced as a leader over Israel. One example was when he came down from Mount Sinai and found the people worshiping the golden calf. He smashed the tablet inscribed with God’s commandment, and, with a rousing cry, ‘who is on the Lord’s side?’, summons the faithful Levites to a massacre.5 The next day he reproaches the people and then brokenhearted, goes back up the mountain to plead for their forgiveness.6

Patience was not the only personal quality that Moses had. But it has been used to show that good personal qualities, when applied to leadership, bring about positive results. Therefore, good personal qualities are characteristics of good leadership.

Continue reading →