Tag Archives: Leadership Coaching

Leadership

Do You Want to Launch a Leadership Revolution?

There are many terrific books that offer information on leadership as both an art and a science. They are books that every manager, in any capacity, should invest their money and time into studying and applying in their work situation. Reading such books to keep abreast of the times will help you launch a leadership revolution that will enable you to make your work environment run smoothly.

Reading books that help you become a better manager is information that deserves deeper study than just a casual reading. These types of books are driven by the intelligent analysis of leadership provided within the book. They provide many of the guiding principles that make leadership a science. Leadership books that teach are balanced with the emotional intelligence that makes leadership an art.

The principles learned in books about management are given in explanations we are sure to hear repeated as better management practices are taught and discussed in the future. This is especially true of concepts like: “the art and science of leadership”; “five levels of leadership”; and, “the tri-lateral leadership ledger.”

What’s in a word?

Before you start gleaning insights from reading leadership books, I want to suggest you take a moment to consider the titles and what they mean. As you do so, why not apply the concepts to your own life and leadership scenario? Why not look at how they impact your life?

It always helps to pause a moment to challenge our own assumptions. I am always an advocate of the analysis process. (After all I paid a lot of graduate tuition to learn analysis processes and it would be a shame to let those thousands go to waste.)

I suggest that you take a moment and consider three words that are key to management applications, and that you learn from reading books that teach leadership skills. These are words that if you never even pick up a book, just pausing to consider their definitions and applying them with what you already know can be a mini refresher course in leadership. These words are “launch,” “leadership,” and “revolution.”

It will often expand your thinking to look at the different definitions of a word in a dictionary. That is the expansion of thinking you will find here. You will find definitions of the words: launch, leadership, and revolution. With the exception of “leadership, the definitions are correlated to personality types.

The four personality types are: Choleric, Sanguine, Melancholy, and Phlegmatic. Cholerics lead through assertiveness and strength of will; Sanguines through charm; Melancholies through rules and systems; and Phlegmatics lead by consensus or mentoring.

Leadership definitions were not correlated with any specific type since all types can be leaders. As you read them, keep in mind you are probably a combination of two or more personality types. Don’t try to understand yourself using one personality type only. There are numerous web articles about personality types if you want to learn more.

What is leadership?

To lead is to direct or control the movement of something. It is often associated with authority. Another meaning is to influence the action of others by example. A definition which brings in the concept of future vision is “to guide on a way by going in advance”. Using these definitions you are you are ready to define “leadership”.

Definition 1: Leadership is an office or position according to Merriam-Webster. You may have a position in a corporation, a church, a business to which has been given to you. You may also have obtained it by virtue of being a founder.

Definition 2: Leadership is a capacity to lead. People may have said to you, “You have leadership”. They mean that they see in you something that they often attribute to a natural talent for leadership.

Definition 3: Leadership was also defined as the act or moment of leadership. It makes me think of you as stepping forward and rising to show leadership because the moment called for it.

Definition 4: Leadership is also given a collective definition. It is a select group of people at a high level in the hierarchy of an organization, movement, or institution who collective have the power to control direction and activities. In politics you might talk about party leadership in this sense.

Continue reading →

Leadership

Does A Best Leadership Style Exist?

So much is said [and written] about leadership. All questions are answered, it seems. How should you lead? What are the requirements to be a successful leader? How should a leader handle his/her followers? What are the better leadership styles? Everyone knows how to delegate, discipline, and develop your followers. We are also taught how to determine and use vision, mission, motivation and the like. In general, we live in times where the science of leadership, in all aspects has been thoroughly covered. Or has it?

I have often queried the fact that leadership gurus feel so secure in their statement that a ‘one best leadership style’ does not exist. How can they make such a statement when they have not properly researched the leadership style of the most important leader of all times? In my thesis and subsequent series of books on True Shepherd Leadership, I provide much evidence that a best leadership style does in fact exist, and that Christians are in fact instructed to apply the same leadership style. It is not as if we received a hint, pointing to the fact that if all else failed, we could perhaps consider this as a last resort, or handy alternative. We are admonished to go and do as Jesus did. We were supposed to lead according to the style that Jesus described and exhibited. We are supposed to be True Shepherd Leaders according to the example of Jesus.

Questions that need to be answered are: [a] How did Jesus lead, and [b] how do we know that it is the best leadership style?

Let us start with the second question, which to my mind is the easiest to answer. How can we say that the True Shepherd Leadership style, [the leadership style of Jesus Christ] is the best of all leadership styles? My suggestion to the doubtful ones is always to answer the following two easy questions: [i] Was Jesus in fact the most important leader ever on this earth, and [ii] would Jesus [being the Son of God] use an inferior leadership style, considering that He had all knowledge from eternal past to eternal future at His avail?

Beginning with the first question, all you need do is go to your local newspaper to prove that in fact Jesus is the most important leader ever. How does the newspaper prove this? Look at the date. It declares that today, [whatever the date], came up a certain number of years, months and days after the birth of Jesus. Wonderful is it not? Your calendar, diary, newspaper and magazines all witness to the existence of Jesus. Now, how many newspapers have you seen dated from the birth of Hitler, Kennedy, or Napoleon? If somebody had been printing such dates on papers, I have not seen any. I will not spend any more space to prove that Jesus is the world’s most important leader ever, but if you disagree, do some research yourself on who had the greatest influence on the human race ever, and I am confident you will also come to the same conclusion.

Secondly, how do we prove that Jesus applied the best ever leadership style? Answer this: Why would the Son of God, who had foreknowledge of everything from the beginning of the earth, NOT utilize the best leadership style available? In all honesty, I have not heard any worthwhile argument against Jesus exercising the best leadership style.

But, for the sake of the doubtful ones, let us think this over. The eternal all-knowing God provided mankind with a complete and perfect redemption plan. This plan was not only perfectly planned, but also perfectly timed. Making a study of God’s redemption plan, you cannot but stand in awe. Everything was so perfectly planned, and nothing was left to coincidence. You can look at many examples, such as for instance crucifixion as mode of capital punishment, or the total eclipse of the sun after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ crucifixion was foretold by prophets hundreds of years before. The words that Jesus uttered on the cross are recorded in the book of Psalms. There are so many facts making up the totality of the redemption plan, that it is unthinkable that God would have left anything to chance.

Why then, would He not have specifically designed and planned the leadership style of Jesus in the same meticulous manner? Jesus’ leadership style would have been perfectly planned as everything else, and therefore I cannot be convinced that He made use of a leadership style which was anything but the best.

Returning to the first part, namely what was the leadership style of Jesus really like, let us consider a few facts. Jesus [again without coincidence] came to earth in a time when farming [and especially sheep farming] was well-known and widely practiced. If a person came to any local school today and started talking about the behaviour of mountain sheep, chances are that no child in the school would have any knowledge about it. Not so in Jesus’ time however. Sheep, sheep farming, and the behaviour of sheep were well known. Sheep farming were part of the community.

Continue reading →

Leadership

Management Versus Leadership

Manager or leader, which are you? How to distinguish between leadership and management is a never ending question. One problem is that some writers don’t separate them at all. Also, we have too many concepts of leadership. Finally, management is seen in a negative light.

Why Identify Leadership and Management?

Those who refuse to differentiate the two concepts envisage a senior executive in a role with power over a group. For them, it is the same person who does both roles and the two roles are at best a slight difference in emphasis. When you throw in style differences, it is argued, that there is no way to tell them apart.

Confusion About the Meaning of Leadership

Most of our thinking about leadership focuses on the person at the head of a group – the president of a country. the chief executive of a company, the chairperson of a committee or the chief of a tribe. But what about the leadership of Al Gore. He is showing leadership to people around the world who don’t report to him. Whatever groups he might be heading, the main impact of his leadership is outside any particular group. The same is true of Martin Luther King Jr. who showed leadership to the US government when the Supreme Court ruled segregation on buses unconstitutional. This was without being in a member of the government let alone the head of it.

We also use the term leadership in some casual ways that adds to the confusion. We talk about someone leading us in song, leading us to safety through a swamp, or leading a tour. Organizational writers used to say that leaders or managers were those people who provided direction. Now, admitting that direction is to hard for any one person to determine, they have switched to saying that leaders facilitate the identification of new directions in others by being catalysts.

Then there is what might be called thought leadership, where employees with good ideas for new products or better ways of working convince their bosses to adopt their proposals.

The Real Meaning of Leadership

The truth is that our concept of leadership is evolving. It is changing faster in high tech businesses that are driven by innovation than it is in slower changing organizations like charities, communities and stable public sector organizations. What is happening is that the power upon which leadership used to be based is melting away. At one time you had to be physically strong to get to the top, then it was a matter of having a powerful personality. But now we have a war of ideas and it is the power of innovation that determines organizational direction. Thought leadership is the new power. As they say: content is king. Thought leadership is not about holding a position of power over people, which means that all employees can show leadership even if for a moment.

Leadership vs Management

Management is really a role, leadership is an activity. Think of a mother teaching her young child to count to 10. Being a mother means occupying a role, one you will have for life. But teaching is just something the mother does occasionally. Similarly, managers occupy roles in organizations and they occasionally show leadership. But showing leadership now means promoting new directions. It is managers who manage, develop and coach people, because it is their role to get things done as efficiently as possible.

See http://www.leadersdirect.com for more information on this and related topics. Mitch McCrimmon’s latest book, Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes was published in 2006. He is a business psychologist with over 30 years experience of leadership assessment and executive coaching.

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

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/793556

Leadership

Leadership Found in the Few and the Small

Introduction

Envision an army of ants, multitudes of them carrying food and piling the food on a large rock. These ants are performing their task in uniformity and in a sequential order. The leadership is responsible for delivering the goods in order to maintain the survival of the ant colony.
On the human side, imagine a commanding officer of a unit assigned to a foreign country, responsible for his troops’ safety, operating an efficient command post, defending his country, and operating as an assumed dignified commander.

“Success in leadership, success in business, and success in life has been, is now,

and will continue to be a function of how well people work and play together (Kouzes & Posner, 2002, pg. 21).”

The two films which were selected represented a virtual-time situation, “A Bug’s Life” and a real-time situation “A Few Good Men.” Each film demonstrated a leadership style conducive to its environment and a communication style which revealed its strengths and weaknesses. Both films illustrated deception in leadership, the revelation of power in numbers, and the success and failure of leadership in action.

Analyzing Leadership in the Ants

The main character of this movie was an ant name Flik. Flik was an army ant who had a creative imagination. His role brought challenges to the leadership team and forced them to make a decision to send him away to find an answer to their dilemma of confronting the grasshoppers. In the beginning of the movie, the ants are gathering food and marching the food up to a rock. This gathering of food serves a two-fold purpose:

 

  • First, to feed the swarm of rebellious grasshoppers, led by “Hopper” their leader, and
  • Second, to secure the survival of the ant colony.

 

The story focuses on a colony of ants who seasonally gather food for themselves and a wild gang of rowdy grasshoppers. When bumbling worker-ant Flik (David Foley) destroys the food supply, the angry grasshoppers, lead by the maniacally warped Hopper (Kevin Spacey) threaten to kill the ants if they don’t produce a new supply of food by the time they return, an impossible feat. Flik leaves the anthill in search of help in the form of bigger bugs to wage war against the grasshoppers. What he doesn’t know is he has actually discovered a group of down-on-their-luck traveling circus insects in need of a job. When the ants realize that their heroes are really circus performers (and the circus bugs realize that these grasshoppers are really big and mean) the situation goes from bad to worse. Ultimately the ants use their large numbers to overcome the grasshoppers. (Gore, 1998, http://www.allmovie.com).

Yukl’s definition of leadership basically defined the process in which leadership was demonstrated in “A Bug’s Life.”

 

Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives (pg. 7).

 

Leadership was prevalent in all parts of the movie. The “Queen Ant” and the “Princess” were the female leaders who were born into their natural assignment by virtue of the fact they were the reproducers of the colony. They performed their assignment with the utmost of integrity, considering the safety and well-being of the colony. Because of this demand, their leadership skills reflected, “….consensus building, inclusiveness, and interpersonal relations, being willing to develop and nurture subordinates and to share power and information with the colony (Carr-Ruffino, 1993; Grant, 1988; Hegelsen, 1990; Rosener, 1990) (Yukl, pg. 412).” The movie demonstrated how each ant was committed to the survival of the ant colony; thus, demonstrating the shared power from the leadership. Leadership’s goal was to organize and protect the colony, laying down their life for one another if necessary.

 

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another (John 13:34, NIV)

 

Although there was a Hierarchical type of leadership, the movie shifted the spotlight to the workers who were part of a “networking” which reflected the Paradigm Shift stated in Benus and Nanus book, written by Chronicler John Naisbitt (1997, pg. 13).

Communication in the Colony

When Flik was sent away to seek help, he heard the colony cheer for his leaving. The colony was communicating a cheer of “yea, he is leaving” but Flik thought they were communicating a cheer of “yea, he is going to find help.” Communication was the main element in this movie. There was:

 

  • Miscommunication – When the colony sent Flik away to seek help, they did not communicate the real reason of why he was being sent away.
  • Non-communication – When Flik hired the circus bugs, he did not communication to them the real purpose of their going to the colony.

 

Body language was prevalent in the movie and reflected powerful emotions throughout
the movie:

 

The face is the language of emotions. Different parts of it are used to display different emotions. Fear is usually looked for in the eyes, as is sadness. Happiness is seen in the cheeks and the mouth as well as in the eyes. Surprise is seen in the forehead, eyes and mouth (Latiolais-Hargrave, 1999, pg. 39).

 

Communication was a powerful tool within the colony expressing emotions, surprise, anger, and deception. The biggest turnaround in the movie took place when the Princess communicated to the colony to rally together and unify for the purpose of saving what generations of ants have fought for. Once the Princess realized the colony was more powerful in number and unity, they were able to defeat the grasshoppers and end their harassment. The model of communication which this movie followed was the Superior and Subordinate Nonverbal Relationships: Appearance, Gesture and Movement, Face and Eye, Vocal Behavior, Space, Touch, Environment, Scent, and Time. This reflected the Higher Status definitions and the relationship to the Lower Status relationships (Goldhaber, 1993, pg. 197).

Analyzing A Few Good Men

The main character of this movie was Navy lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee. He was assigned to defend two Marines who were facing a Court Martial for the death of a fellow Marine. The intensity of the movie bounced leadership off the wall in almost every scene. From the beginning of the assignment of defending the accused until the end of the trial, the leadership and the tremendous interaction revealed a range of leadership from the ethical down to the dark side of charisma.

In this military courtroom drama based on the play by Aaron Sorkin, Navy lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is assigned to defend two Marines, Pfc. Louden Downey (James Marshall) and Lance Cpl. Harold Dawson (Wolfgang Bodison), who are accused of the murder of fellow leatherneck Pfc. William Santiago (Michael DeLorenzo) at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Kaffee generally plea bargains for his clients rather than bring them to trial, which is probably why he was assigned this potentially embarrassing case. But when Lt. Commander JoAnne Galloway (Demi Moore) is assigned to assist Kaffee, she is convinced that there’s more to the matter than they’ve been led to believe and convinces her colleague that the case should go to court. Under questioning, Downey and Dawson reveal that Santiago died in the midst of a hazing ritual known as “Code Red” after he threatened to inform higher authorities that Dawson opened fire on a Cuban watchtower. They also state that the “Code Red” was performed under the orders of Lt. Jonathan Kendrick (Keifer Sutherland). Kendrick’s superior, tough-as-nails Col. Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson), denies any knowledge of the order to torture Santiago, but when Lt. Col. Matthew Markinson (J.T. Walsh) confides to Kaffee that Jessup demanded the “Code Red” for violating his order of silence, Kaffee and Galloway have to find a way to prove this in court. A Few Good Men also features Kevin Bacon as prosecuting attorney Capt. Jack Ross, and Kevin Pollak as Kaffee and Galloway’s research assistant, Lt. Sam Weinberg. — (Deming, 1992, http://www.allmovie.com).

The lawyers and the Marine Officers each formed their leadership relationships which described the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX). This theory “…describes the role-making processes between a leader and an individual subordinate (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975) (Yukl, pg. 116).” The exchange relationship usually takes one of two different forms. According to the theory, most leaders establish a special exchange relationship with a small number of trusted subordinates who function as assistants, lieutenants, or advisors (Yukl, pg. 116). In the case of the Marine Commander and the LMX Theory, his intention in usurping his authority was for deceptive purposes. The lawyers utilized the LMX (Yukl, pg. 116) Theory to produce a values and ethical outcome for the Marine prisoners.

Continue reading →

Leadership

Defining Leadership – Trying to Understand

You can ask ten different people what their definition of leadership is and you will probably get ten different answers. Leadership doesn’t have a specific definition. By giving it a definition, you are putting restrictions and limitations on the word and the true value of leadership. Leadership is something that is complicated to explain and understand. It is formless; it doesn’t take on a particular shape or form, nor does it go in one particular direction. A great leader can adjust to any situation at any given time, under any circumstance, and still come out successful.

Leadership is something that can’t be measured or tested by science or technology. Leadership theories are based on an opinion of an individual, i.e., human factors, and no two humans are the same. Although it can’t be measured by science, it is considered a soft science, because you really can’t base it off of experimental data. No one can prove what it is, but they can show what it does. It is like fine art, it crafts in a formless way that tends to go in many different directions at any given time. Leadership is rational and emotional; it involves both sides of human experience, which can include your “firmness, fairness, dignity and compassion.”

Some people believe that being a leader is either in one’s genes or not; others believe that life experiences mold the individual, and no one is born a leader, hence the saying “Leaders are made, not born.” Who’s to say which is right? This saying has been an ongoing debate for years and always will be. But in a sense, they both are right and they both are wrong. “Both views are right in the sense that innate factors, as well as formative experiences, influence many sorts of behavior, including leadership. Yet, both views are wrong to the extent they imply leadership is either innate or acquired” (Hughes, 2006). What matters most is how well a leader makes these factors interact with one another.

Leadership can be created from inspiration and a leader must have a true passion to lead. A true leader understands that leadership is continuous and is a constant learning process. He also understands that leadership is a process and not a position. There are great leaders, but there are not perfect leaders. A great leader must have failed at something in order to succeed. If you have never failed at anything, you can never appreciate the true value of success.

A good leader is someone who utilizes effective leadership skills in dealing with people. They are someone who respects their subordinates as well as their leaders. In reality, a leader is a servant for his subordinates; he works for them just as much as they work for him. A leader must work to make sure that his subordinates are taken care of to the best of his ability by utilizing all of his leadership skills. In turn, his subordinates will take care of him.

Subordinates expect leaders to show them the standard and train them to reach it. They expect leaders to lead by example. Additionally, they expect leaders to keep them informed and not withhold the truth. Leaders may have to ask others to make extraordinary sacrifices to achieve goals. Leaders may have to call on them to do things that seem impossible. “If leaders have trained their people to standard, inspired their willingness, and consistently looked after their interests, they will be prepared to accomplish any goal, anytime, anywhere” (Reeves, 2004).

In reality, most subordinates are leaders. A lot of them just haven’t exercised their true ability to lead. Not to mention the exemplary subordinate who is a self-leader per say. Like a good leader, he can adjust to any situation at any given time. He is very independent and can be depended on. This type of subordinate can help a good leader become better.

Many believe that leadership implies power, but it shouldn’t imply power, it should influence the ability to apply powerful leadership. Power is something that isn’t measured by a position or billet; it is merely a function of the leader, the subordinates, and the situation. Leaders have the potential to influence their subordinates’ behavior, attitude, and growth.

“Leadership allows leaders to have different styles of interaction styles when dealing with individual followers” (Hughes, 2006), hence one of the reasons why leadership will always be open to many different opinions and debates. Study after study has been done on leadership and no one still knows what it is and what makes a true leader. Even those with the most extensive knowledge in leadership research can be poor leaders, which proves, it is not about how much research or studying you do, it’s what you do with it that can make you a success.

In conclusion, we can spend five lifetimes trying to figure out what leadership really is, where it comes from, and which is right or wrong. But it’s not about defining it (it can never be defined, just shown). It’s not about where it comes from, and it’s not about which is right or wrong. It’s about continuous learning, trying to understand it, and which style to use at the right time.

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2006). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reeves, R. (2004). Changing Your Style. In Leadership.. Retrieved December 12, 2006, from United States Marine Corps Web site: http://www.usmc.mil

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Darnell_E._Patton/119217