The Integrity of Leadership Starts with the Individual

In attempts to answer why executives continue their bent path of organizational destruction even when there are strong leadership development programs in place points directly to individual character; their moral excellence. “The responsibility for organizational integrity must start with the organization’s framework and end with individual accountability” and although raider’s of the organizational ark should “swap their pin stripes for horizontal stripes….legislation alone will not correct corruption” (Barnett, 2002). There is no measure of character with which to grade potential employees and many times strength is determined (or evident to on-lookers) only when fully emerged in hot water. Many organizations have written ethics codes and comply with the legalese of the governmental policies without real “buy in” or understanding by those inside the organization. “We can’t be forced to choose between integrity and profits; rather we must strengthen the relationship between financial performance and social responsibility” (Barnett, 2002). Organizations are learning that their integrity is an evolutional process cultivated through leadership, culture, and values-driven programs. Bureaucratic compliance renders formal peripheral responses but meaningful change comes from within and it happens in informal ways that are organically grown from seed, carefully tended, fertilized, and nurtured. “Doing what is right always come down to the individual. It begins with the most basic leadership skills, supported by the organizational framework. It ends with no less than creating a new corporate culture, by communicating the fundamental principles that the company stands for through stories of leaders doing the right thing” (Barnett, 2002).

Reference:
Barnett, R. (2002). Character-centered leadership. Leader Values. Retrieved March 25, 2009 from http://www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=51.

Courage, Risk, and Leadership

There is "a significant amount of risk..inherent in attaining greatness" (Eden, 2008). I also believe the words of Warren Bennis in stating, "there's no such thing as a safe risk..that's an oxymoron..all courage is a risk". Without courage and risk, we would not have leaders. I can appreciate your experience and your stance with regards to leadership and management and how important courage is as a leadership trait. I would agree that people in management are either on their way toward a higher position or they have reached their pinnacle. I do believe that courage plays a large part in whether they will continue to rise or plateau. "The word courage comes from the French word for heart, coeur, meaning the ability to stand by one's heart or to stand by one's core" and those with courage possess a restlessness, vivaciousness, and brazenness about them that separates them from the pack and allows them to exhibit potential greatness (Lasley, 1999). Developing courage encompasses facing fears, exploring vulnerabilities, leaning into or toward risk, celebrating failure, and to continue to take action without ceasing (Lasley, 1999).

Reference

Lasley, M. (1999). Courage is the Foundation of Leadership. Leadership that Works. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from http://www.leadershipthatworks.com/Articles/Courage.htm.

Theory X and Theory Y Leadership

I am a Theory Y leader. I believe that ruling with fear is an old construct that can be situationally useful and I understand that there are some that respond to an autocratic style of leadership. On the whole I believe that Theory Y leadership promotes a healthier environment for subordinates and the quality of work is higher as is their commitment to the job. I believe that people many times project onto others their beliefs; if someone does not like work and needs to be coerced to work they may believe that others will feel the same and use an authoritarian style of leadership (Theory X). I can attest to this projection theory, and as I know that we are all different, however, I would like to believe that others take pride in their work as I do, or have that potential under a nurturing, motivational, empowering, participative leadership style (Theory Y) to enjoy what they do and have a desire to do it well. I believe that the style of leadership one uses is a reflection of their psychological developmental roots and the attachment theory which creates a balance between attachment and exploration (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). The blending of genetic origins and childhood experiences begins to form personality as well as emotional and leadership development (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002). Avolio and Yammarino (2002) posit that secure and avoidants seek out leadership roles. I believe that even though leaders may use several types of leadership that the one each leader would claim as their preferred method or style would reflect upon whether they fit into the secure (bold in explorations, relying upon themselves and others) which would fit with the Theory Y form of leadership or avoidant (no confidence that they will get what they need, tend to be self-sufficient without support and devalue attachment behaviors and feelings) which would fit closer to the Theory X.

Reference:

Avolio, B. & Yammarino, F., (2002). Transformational and charismatic

leadership: The road ahead. Retrieved September 17, 2008 from

https://mycampus.phoenix.edu/secure/resource/resource.asp.

Neohumility, the New Humility and How it Pairs with Leadership

"The condition of humility is not arrogant or prideful; it is down to earth, patient, compassionate, concerned and authentic in its sincerity" and "leaders with humility act with modesty and restraint" (Lawrence, 2006). I agree that it is a delicate balance between strength and humility without it coming across as weakness which is one of the negative connotations associated with humility. The followers who see the traid of humility as weakness and take advantage are not aware of the "gift" of humility that was bestowed upon them. Much like casting your pearl upon the swine as was written in the Bible. There is now a new term, "neohumility" that has been coined to reflect the "new humility" in leadership and business today. "Neohumility," is "humility without weakness and transformed to fit the business world" as it seeks to operationalize "neohumility and includes characteristics such as self-awareness, valuing others' opinions, willing to learn and change, sharing power, having the ability to hear the truth and admit mistakes," and works to create a "culture of openness where dissent is encouraged in an environment of mutual trust and respect" (Lawrence, 2006). Morris et al (2005) defines authentic humility as "neither self-abasement nor as overly positive self-regard" and he outlines three dimensions of humility: self-awareness, openness, and transcendence (Lawrence, 2006). "Pride is concerned with who is right. Humility is concerned with what is right" (Ezra Taft Benson, nd).

Reference:

Lawrence, P.G., (2006). Neohumility and Business Leadership: Do they belong together? Retrieved September 21, 2008 from http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~lawrenpg/leadership.pdf.

Cultural Nuances and the Optimization of Innovation

Altering organizational culture is “a means to achieving greater managerial control or enhancing organizational performance” (Hatch, 2004, p. 2) Cultural change is a large piece within the entire puzzle of change. Change cannot take place within any environment unless the culture therein is changed. Culture is “a pattern of fundamental assumptions developed by the organization for dealing with problems of internal and external adaptation (Schein, 1985, 1996)” (Gilkey, 1999). Incorporating everyone into change is critical for the success of change. “Policies can go only so far in changing the culture of an organization” there needs to be a focus on organizational structure, and what barriers exist to teamwork, efficiency and productivity (Paslidis, 2008). Within change there is both chaos and stability. “One key to unlocking the dynamics of organizational culture is to understand that, at a given moment, culture is changing only in parts, other parts remain stable” (Hatch, 2004, p.8). Herskovits (1964) stated that “the broad stream which comprises any culture has varied currents, of which now some, now others will be more rapid” (Hatch, 2004), p. 8). The interior of an organization has its culture in the form of a stream and the exterior of an organization has its culture in the form of an ocean. The ocean is constantly providing a source to the stream and so the constant flow of culture and change is never ending always influencing one another and forcing adaptation and innovation to occur.

Reference:

Gilkey, R.W. (1999). The 21^st century health care leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hatch, M.J. (2004). Dynamics in Organizational Culture. New Direction in the Study of Organizational Change and Innovation Processes. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from http://www.commerce.virginia.edu/faculty_research/Research/Papers/Hatch_Dynamics_Organizational_Culture.pdf.

Paslidis, N.J. (2008). Wake-up call leads to organizational transformation. Physician Executive, 34.4 (July-August 2008): p. 28(5). Retrieved September 24, 2008 from Gale PowerSeach.