Tag Archives: Leadership Coaching

Leadership

Elevate Your Leadership by Immersing Yourself in a Wide Array of Leadership and Organizational Tools

There are so many books, seminars, coaching, and consulting practices based on leadership and organizational development. There are many forms of leadership and organizational development models such as transformational leadership, executive coaching, Six Sigma, TQM (Total Quality Management), business process improvement, learning organizations, and systems thinking to name a few. Some of you may feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of authors, seminars, coaching, and consulting practices claiming to have the answers for improving your leadership and/or organization’s performance.

I used to be one of those individuals, as I too was initially overwhelmed by the number of books, speakers, and seminars pertaining to leadership and organizational development. However, I soon realized that life, learning, and leadership is all about taking in knowledge from multiple sources and then deciphering for yourself what works best for you and your particular situation. Whatever improved my personal leadership, I incorporated in my repertoire. Whatever did not work, I allowed to fall into the recesses of my subconscious so that I could retrieve it in case I ever needed it in the future.

There is so much knowledge available in the world in regards to leadership and organizational development. However, all of this knowledge may not be beneficial to our particular situation or life. Therefore, we must obtain this knowledge with a discriminating eye, assessing multiple leadership models from multiple sources, looking for those tid bits of information that can improve and shape our lives and organizations to be what we want them to be. However, for this to occur, we must overcome our intimidation and immerse ourselves in the vast genre of leadership and organizational development for optimal absorption.

Personally, I try to read as many books and articles on leadership and organizational development as my time allows. In addition, I still attend leadership and organizational development workshops and seminars because even though leadership and organizational development is what I do, I can always learn more.

My personal leadership development is the result of all of my years of academic study coupled with my ongoing appetite for learning about leadership and organizational development. The books, coaching, seminars, and blog are expressions of what I have learned and continue to learn. I am sharing my insights with you because I know that leadership and organizational development does not occur overnight, rather it consists of a continuous immersion of both your conscious and subconscious into the depths of who you are and how you relate to the challenges of the world you live in.

By immersing yourself in all of the leadership and organizational development training offered by the various leadership development outlets, you will provide your conscious and subconscious with a steady diet of ideas that you can then pick and choose from. Immersing yourself in multiple leadership and organizational models will afford you the ability to pick and choose the ideas that work best for you. It is important to note that one model may work for one individual and not another. Also, a combination of ideas from several models may work better for you than someone else. Therefore, do not limit yourself to any one model, as there may be something you can learn about yourself, or your leadership from another. Always remember that leadership and organizational development is a life long learning process. If you truly want to develop your leadership, don’t be intimidated by the vast amounts of knowledge in the field. Immerse yourself with a discriminating eye and come out a leader.

Dr. Barrett has an earned PhD in applied management and decision sciences, with a specialization in leadership and organizational change. He also holds a MS in organizational leadership and a BS in organizational management. In addition to these degrees, Dr. Barrett has completed several executive certificates focusing on various areas of management and leadership development.

Dr. Barrett is proud of his academic accomplishments, as they are the product of his long and sometimes difficult journey out of poverty. Along his journey, Dr. Barrett served honorably in the U.S. Air Force, participating in several vital overseas operations in the Middle East and Europe. He has also taught organizational leadership courses at the graduate degree level at Mercy College. This desire to develop leadership whether it be in myself or others is what drives Dr. Barrett. Dr. Barrett currently lives in NYC, where he runs The Barrett Center for Leadership Development, LLC ( [http://www.TheBarrettCenter.com] ) and The Barrett Leadership Blog ( http://www.TheBarrettCenter.blogspot.com ). The Barrett center offers workshops, seminars, coaching, consulting, and speaking engagements focused on the leadership and organizational principles developed by Dr. Barrett. You can find his current leadership model (The Barrett Leadership Model) in his new book Leading from the Inside-Out.

The Barrett Center’s Mission: To help clients develop their leadership from the inside-out. The Barrett Center’s Vision: Uplift the human condition by teaching individuals and organizations how to lead their existence from the inside-out.

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Dr._Mario_Barrett,_Ph.D./245459

 

Leadership

The How and Why of Participative Leadership

As a business owner, one of your biggest challenges is to lead your team well. Should you focus on employee participation at the cost of business goals? Or do you “show them how it’s done” and expect the team to follow your lead? Is there a different approach for every situation?

In this piece, we’ll take a look at a particular leadership style – “participative leadership” and its benefits.

Leadership means different things to different people. However, a generally accepted definition is that it “is a process that takes place in groups in which one member influences and controls the behavior of the other members toward a common goal.”

While every leader creates his or her mantra of leadership, most leadership practices fall into one of these categories. Try and figure out your style!

Directive Leadership: You have the first and last word, and the group merely follows instructions. Do we sense a secret longing to be in the army!

Supportive Leadership: You create warm, personal relationships with your team members in order to coax their best efforts.

Participative Leadership: Group members are involved in the decision making process right from the start, by contributing their ideas and suggestions. You’re a strong believer in team work.

Achievement Oriented Leadership: You give your team a goal and they work independently towards achieving it. Either you’re plain lazy, or more likely, have a high degree of confidence in your team’s ability.

For now, let us take a closer look at Participative Leadership

A person who follows the participative leadership style will get a buy-in from group members on most changes and important decisions, before implementing them. However, the leader is still the final decision making authority. Remember, participative leadership is not about reaching consensus – if you keep looking for universal approval, you’ll never get anything done.

Some people feel that participative leadership is a “female thing” and makes you look soft. Let’s set the record straight – using this style is not a sign of weakness, in fact, it’s a strength that your team will respect you for.

When does participative leadership work?

While it’s not practical to change your approach with every situation, you might like to try participative leadership under specific conditions. Say you’re working on an assignment where you have limited expertise but your employees collectively have a lot of knowledge and experience. Using participative leadership is likely to create a win-win for both – they will feel included and you’ll make better informed decisions. And if you’re the owner of a start-up firm, getting buy-in on key issues from your core team members could prove invaluable.

Can I learn to be a participative leader?

Sure! Leaders are made, not born. Here are some of the important tips offered by experts:

Encourage group values: Allow the group to establish values and thereby take ownership. Of course, these will have to support the firm’s objectives.

Share vision: Participative leadership is all about sharing, starting with your dreams for the firm. Let your employees know where they’re headed.

Create a healthy environment: It is your responsibility to create an environment based on trust and mutual respect. Give your employees their space. No growth is possible without it.

Equip the team: No point taking their inputs, if they don’t have the necessary skills for the job! Ensure they have the tools and the training.

Organize and energize: Not every speech needs to be “rah rah”, but it’s important that you nurture and motivate your employees. Get those juices to flow!

Take and give feedback: Two-way communication is the cornerstone of participative leadership. Be generous with praise and objective with criticism. Talk, but also listen.

Expect accountability: Since your employees are given more responsibility, they must be accountable for their actions. At the same time, don’t turn into a control freak!

If you are interested in knowing more, take a look at which features a wide selection of books on leadership.

What’s in it for me?

Participative leadership is not all about feeling good about yourself. It can take you through many challenging business situations.

Implementing change: Regular involvement of the team prior to introducing the change will ensure that they’re already prepared for the transition. This works better than a separate “buy-in meeting” that other types of leaders might resort to.

Encouraging risk taking: A senior manager from a global telecom company relates how he used participative leadership to encourage employees to think out of the box, while charting their company’s growth plan.

Solving technical problems: If you need to get a group of gruff, technically qualified people to solve a complex problem, a participative leadership style will help draw out their combined expertise.

So, is participative leadership the best?

There’s probably no answer to that one. Each style works better in a specific situation and vice versa. Participative leadership is no different – while we’ve talked about the benefits, it’s equally important to recognize those instances where it won’t work. A situation that requires firm control and immediate action – like say, a disaster site, certainly cannot afford a consultative approach. To be an effective participative leader, you must also develop an astute judgment for when not to use it!

Hi, I’m Akhil Shahani, a serial entrepreneur who wants to help you succeed. If you like to work smart, check out [http://www.SmartEntrepreneur.net] It’s full of articles and resources to help you start and grow your business successfully. Please visit us & download our special “Freebie of The Month” at [http://www.smartentrepreneur.net/freebie-of-the-month.html]

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Akhil_Shahani/52098

 

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