Articles from Integral Leadership Review

Transcription

1 Articles from Integral Leadership Review Values Driven Leadership :11:35 Kenton Hyatt and Cheryl De Ciantis Kenton Hyatt and Cheryl De Ciantis Kent on Hyat t Cheryl De Ciant is Introduction T his explorat ion int o leadership is not yet anot her leadership prescript ion, offering what should be done. It is an approach that offers a multi-prism lens that allows for a variety of leadership needs and styles, and yet keeps their descript ion at manageable levels. It is descript ive, not prescript ive, and decidedly not judgment al. T his approach promot es a clearer observat ion of what passes f or leadership, which also provides some insight about how t o proceed in the future. And while this is not a complete review nor critique of leadership t heories, a brief summary is usef ul t o est ablish a general identification of how leadership is most often characterized. Leadership Chaos might be used t o describe t he polit ical, social, economic, religious, and environmental conditions for much of the first decade of the 21 st Century. T he difficulties faced in all of these various domains are so drastic

2 that it is difficult to refrain from being sarcastic about the effectiveness and utility of what is referred to as leadership development. In the continuing, increasingly complex, and changing challenges, many of which have pot ent ially disastrous implications, the need for effective leadership is greater now than perhaps at any time in recorded history. And at the same time, what is being called for in terms of leadership sounds as confusing as the issues and conditions facing us. We often hear of the need for strong leaders, results driven leaders, servant leaders, charismatic leaders, heroic leaders, collaborat ive leaders, innovat ive leaders, t ribal leaders, and more. But what we observe in those calls for leadership is that each arises out of an ideologically driven world, and implies t hat every ot her t ype of leader, except the type it is calling for, is ineffective, inappropriate, or just outright wrong. Looking for clarity and direction in regard to effective leadership in academic discussions isn t much help. A quick review of leadership t heory will reveal many descriptions of, and prescriptions for leadership, but there is little agreement about how we might effectively approach the complexity of the world. For the most part, the clamor for effective leadership simply refers to leadership that reinforces what is already desired. People call for what they already understand to be best, for them. Quest ions like What makes an ef f ect ive, great leader? And, How should I lead to best succeed in my particular situation? seem to beg for a prescript ion, but t he answers, as will be shown, are not resolved t o simple behavioral prescriptions. Nevertheless, the first step to effective leadership is an awareness of styles, and the motivating values that underlie those styles. What is presented makes it possible to understand both leadership style and what allows for or inhibits development and flexibility. Leadership T heories Much of the time leadership is defined with characteristics of achievement result s[1], personal t rait s,[2] power[3], designat ed aut horit y[4], st ewardship[5], relationship abilities,[6] and charisma[7]. T hese characteristics come to us as approaches, t heories, and models of leadership t hat have labels like T rait T heory, Charismat ic Leadership, Power T heory, Sit uat ional Leadership, Servant Leadership, and more. We do not disagree that these are important and sometimes useful ways to discuss leadership and specific leaders. But far t oo quickly we f ind ourselves deeply involved in a discussion about leadership wit hout an awareness t hat all def init ions and discussions of leadership are framed within a set of priorities that are based on assumptions about what leadership already is. T he assumpt ions and priorit ies t hat each descript ion carries often operate as limitations to our discussions and understanding of leadership, saying in effect, Look at this part of leadership first (then look at everyt hing else). Cont rary t o leadership responsibilit ies and behaviors, leadership t heories and models are pretty simple. Leaders are commonly required to be, all at the same time, visionary, strategic, attentive to the core business, keep people

3 aligned wit h t he organizat ional mission, and make sure t he organizat ion st ays compet it ive, while st aying calm in st ressf ul sit uat ions. Leadership t heory focuses on one aspect of leadership and tries to explain it. So it is easy to see why nearly every t heory successf ully explains some leadership some of the time. T he values based model suggested in the following pages provides a f ramework wit h which t o underst and leadership st yles in general, and allows for specific situational influences to emerge without requiring yet another theory. T his model provides a series of flexible perspectives with which to frame leadership as it exists, within a dynamic set of responsibilities and relat ionships, and helps us underst and and even predict what will happen in complex and stressful situations. We will refer to several of the more commonly used leadership theory types (T rait, Contingency, Servant, etc.) as contrast to the values model presented here, however, it is not our intention to provide you with a review of existing leadership theory. T here are many widely available texts and internet sources that review and discuss the field.[8] Our objective is to provide an accessible and pragmatic approach to leadership, one that does not favor a particular st yle of leadership over ot hers, an approach which suggest s each st yle can be effective, but that each also has its limitations and potential pitfalls. The Values Perspective Approach to Leadership T he Values Perspective approach to leadership offered here is an outgrowth of six basic perspectives or world views developed during the past century by major authors in values theory. T hese perspectives describe how we frame and prioritize our perceptions and actions, and can be located along a continuum that can be described by two concepts, scope and dynamism. In the first part of this of this paper we will briefly introduce and describe these perspectives after which we will suggest and discuss four basic leadership st yles, which come f rom t he values perspect ives, and which f ollow along the same continuum of scope and dynamism. Each of t he six Values Perspect ives is an approach t o human values, which operat e as worldviews, and t hrough which we perceive and express ourselves. In this model there is no implication or suggestion that one perspective is in any way better, or more well developed, or advanced than another. T hey are simply, and prof oundly, views on t he world. T hey are Grounding, Family, Management, Relational Awareness, Systems Awareness, and Expansion and are brief ly described: Values Perspectives Grounding Family Management Relational Awareness Systems Awareness Expansion

4 Address the most basic needs for securit y and prot ect ion. T his Perspect ive also charact erizes our most f undament al view toward the world. Reflects group affiliations, both kinship and social which af f ect our most basic relat ionships to ourselves, and others in personal and work contexts. Necessary f or effective managing regardless of situation. Many opport unit ies for using t hese values occur wit hin formal organizat ional settings. Emphasizes individual responsibilit y for developing one s own pot ent ial, as well as the quality of our relat ionships wit h ot hers. Widening Scope Increasing Dynamism Addresses our int eract ion in and connect ion with dynamic groups, net works and larger syst ems. Operat es as a guide to the future, our goals and aspirat ions. Associat ed skills may be limited, but this perspect ive operates to pull us toward our vision. At the Grounding Perspective end of the continuum, those holding this worldview also work wit h a narrowly f ocused percept ual scope, and priorit ize stability the establishment and maintenance of stability in the world. In each of the other perspectives, moving toward the Expansion Perspective, percept ual scope widens, and t olerance, f or and expect at ion of change increases. For a more complet e descript ion of t he perspect ives, we ll ref er you t o, and recommend Values Perspect ives, a paper which more f ully describes each perspect ive.[9] Since there are literally thousands of human values, trying to identify which specific values might be most effective in terms of leadership would be a tedious task indeed. Nevertheless, a few specific examples of values for each perspective are useful to operationalize the various perspectives. Grounding Family Management Relational Awareness Typical Typical Typical Typical Values Values Values Values Curiosit y Belonging Achievement Balance Systems Awareness Typical Values Beaut y Expansion Typical Values Alt ruism Food and Shelt er Kindness Obedience Physical Funct ioning Safety Discipline Economic Securit y Honest y Loyalt y Respect Authority Compet ence Financial Success Managing Rat ionalit y Being Present Collaborat ion Creativity Independence List ening Quest ioning Risk Empowering Ot hers Flexibilit y Integrity Strategy Human Right s Inspiring Ot hers Mind-Body Int egrat ion Planet ary Ecology

5 Safety Wonder Self Worth Responsibilit y T rust Ecology Sust ainabilit y Simplif icat ion Spirit ualit y T he sample values shown in each perspect ive are t ypical priorit ies f or individuals, groups, and organizat ions, and can be def ined generically, and then expanded or placed in specific contexts to provide more specific operat ional def ining behaviors. T here are many addit ional values associat ed wit h each perspect ive t hat are not ident if ied, simply because each list would become unwieldy, and would inevit ably omit ot her values. T heref ore, as you consider t hese perspect ives, you may t hink of addit ional specific values, important to you that have not been included in these examples. We invit e you t o pencil in or ment ally place such values you have ident if ied in an appropriat e perspect ive. Each of us uses a particular perspective as a sort of home base. It is from that core perspective that we frame and filter the information we perceive, and it is from that same perspective that we send messages and create relationships. T he specific values on which we depend most do occupy a priority order, but that order is quite flexible, and often changes quickly to meet situational demands. T op priority values are also highly influenced by culture, age, gender and other important variables. In spite of those inf luences, our home base, or core perspect ive, remains relat ively st able. Of course it too can change because values are subject to our conscious choices as well as ext ernal inf luences, but changes in one s core perspect ive are usually not f requent in adult s. T he values we use to govern our lives are not limited to the core perspective we call home. Indeed, an individual s values commonly span across t he ent ire cont inuum. For example a given individual might hold a Management perspect ive wit h specif ic, support ing, highlight ed values, shown here: Grounding Family Management Relational Awareness Systems Awareness Curiosit y Belonging Achievement Balance Beaut y Collaborat ion Food and Discipline Authority Being Present Shelt er Kindness Obedience Physical Funct ioning Safety Economic Securit y Honest y Loyalt y Respect Compet ence Financial Success Managing Rat ionalit y Creativity Independence List ening Quest ioning Risk Empowering Ot hers Flexibilit y Integrity Strategy Sust ainabilit y Expansion Alt ruism Human Right s Inspiring Ot hers Mind-Body Planet ary Ecology

6 Safety Wonder Self Worth Responsibilit y T rust Sust ainabilit y Simplif icat ion Spirit ualit y Widening Scope Increasing Dynamism In t he above example, all of t he select ed values support t he individual s core perspect ive of Management, values wit hin t hat perspect ive, and t hose select ed f rom ot her perspect ives as well. Generally speaking, individuals t end to rely on 6-10 values to govern most of daily life. Some values are not priorit ized but remain in t he background t o draw on when needed; t hey may be considered foundational for a given person. Other values may operate as goals t o which one aspires, but does not yet possesses t he behavioral skills to fully implement. T hese may be considered vision values. T hose values which are in daily awareness and use might be considered one s f ocus values. Leadership Styles Four leadership styles are a function of the above general values perspect ives: Individual-Cent ered Leadership, Designat ed Aut horit y Leadership, Relat ional Leadership, and Syst ems Leadership. T he relat ionship of these leadership styles to the above values perspectives is represented here: Grounding Family Management Relat ional Syst ems Expansion Awareness Awareness Individual-Centered Designated Relational Systems Leadership Authority Leadership Leadership Leadership Widening Scope Increasing Dynamism Don t miss this point: As is the case with the six values perspectives, there is no implication in this model that one leadership style is any better or more advanced or mature in any way than another. Also, it is important to recognize the linear, left to right bias that is often an implied or assumed underpinning in represent at ions, part icularly graphic represent at ions, t hat each sequent ial style is a further development of the previous one, which culminates in a sort of ult imat e leader. However, bot h t heoret ically, and experient ially, we have found that is a flawed approach to leadership, and eventually results in conclusions that simply cannot be supported and prescriptions which often don t make sense. Just as there is no judgment of morality or developmental sophistication attached to the values perspectives, the model that is derived from those perspectives is also free from judgments of morality or intelligence of any sort. One leadership style does not necessarily lead to, nor does it follow from, another. What is important is to understand that each of these leadership styles has

7 appropriate applications. Each has strengths and each has its limitations. T he values associat ed wit h each st yle all require individual behavioral skills and compet encies. So even t hough one may have personal charisma, hold a high office, be sensitive to others, or be highly visionary, without the behavioral competencies to back up the values that drive each style, one may end up being a very poor example of a leader. Additionally, there is nothing in the identification of these styles that restricts a given person to a single style of leadership. As with our core values perspective, we tend to favor a particular leadership style as native or natural for us, so exercising flexibility in leadership style may be a challenge. And either by habit or native preferences, we tend to draw on specific values. But values are subject to choice, so we might include any array of values in our basic leadership st yle. Import ant ly, we can employ charact erist ics of several styles while maintaining that core style. With that in mind, let us begin our investigation into these four leadership styles so we can then consider the issue of flexibility later. Individual-Centered Leadership T his leadership style is about security. T he two values perspectives called Grounding and Family are both primarily oriented toward the establishment and maintenance of all types of security as a general, governing priority. T hose perspect ives combine int o an applicat ion called Individual-Cent ered leadership. T his leadership st yle depends on, and t heref ore est ablishes, a single and central individual as the leader of a group or organization. T hink of it as the hub of a wheel. No matter how many spokes there are, all the spokes depend primarily on the hub to hold the entire group or organization together, and provide integrity as well as coordinate information. Individual-Cent ered leadership is not limit ed t o small groups, but t hat cont ext is a common venue in which to find it operating. Imagine a typical start-up business where the entrepreneur is often the inventor, marketer, HR director, and more. T he fledging organization must depend on the leader for nearly every decision whet her it be business, t echnical, or human relat ionship orient ed. All inf ormat ion f lows t hough t his person, and everyone depends on him or her. If you are thinking things like T hat leader needs to learn how to delegate, or other judgmental thoughts, consider that without a successful implement at ion of t he Individual-Cent ered leadership st yle, t he new business will not survive long enough for delegation that needs to develop. But it is true that this is a primarily directive style, and requires a great deal of energy and attention from a single source. Depending on the situation at hand the leader may exercise a great deal of latitude in his or her leadership. T here are many examples occurring in highly sophisticated situations which require cent ralized inf ormat ion and aut horit y, hence, an Individual-Cent ered leadership style. Consider the leaders of some medical teams where a central physician is leading a team of well trained professionals. Accurate and timely

8 information flow often requires centrality of leadership to ensure that various interventions, medications, and therapies work in harmony and for the patient s needs and recovery. In other emergency situations, a single authority is the only way to assure the safety and well being of not only those being treated or helped, but the well being of others helping or simply observing. T he Individual-Cent ered leadership st yle can be observed t o be working in any industry or organization, ranging from film directors, to teachers, to sports t eam coaches. When the Individual-Centered leader is working at his or her best, this leader can and of t en does engender an ident if icat ion bet ween individuals in t he group and t he leader in t erms of belonging and group membership, which is always accompanied by a sense of security. When this leadership style is well developed, t he f undament als of relat ionships, saf et y, court esy, and respect are exemplif ied in t his leader s common behaviors. When problems arise, individual self esteem and self worth are not threatened, thereby creating an atmosphere where honesty can be both expected and reciprocated. When saf et y t hat is, physical, psychological, and social are est ablished f irst, people are not offended by the centrality of this leadership style when it occurs as a natural, situational consequence. People have the confidence that t heir own cont ribut ions will be respect ed, valued, and rewarded by t he leader they support. And at the same time, each individual leader is free to work from his or her particular strengths and talents. T he Individual-Cent ered st yle gives rise t o various common and popular leadership models. Indeed, t he most popular model of all leadership t heories is usually termed the T rait theory. It is primarily concerned with the identification of personal traits attributed to successful leaders with the implicit assumption that careful emulation of those traits will result in successf ul leadership in general. While it cert ainly sounds like a reasonable strategy, the application of the T rait theory has not resulted in the reliable identification nor development of effective leaders. T rait theory also assumes that all the successful traits of a leader can be behaviorally identified, that those traits can be transferred to or learned by others through observation and practice, and that the application of those traits is sufficient for most if not all situations. None of those assumptions is supported by research nor practice. Yet the T rait theory of leadership remains, far and away, t he most popular leadership model we have. T he T rait theory of leadership has its variations, some of which are treated as separate theories and models. Charismatic leadership is one of those. Because charisma is considered a part icularly powerf ul leadership t rait as it emphasizes the assumption imbedded in the general T rait theory that leadership, especially except ional leadership, is based on t alent s and gif t s wit h which cert ain people were born. However, Charisma has also been shown through many years of research to be a composite of traits that that combine into an overall quality of attractiveness, but all the contributing areas are quit e variable, int angible and elusive. And alt hough charisma is a wonderf ul

9 and powerf ul set of leadership t rait s and skills, it isn t always available. Indeed, it seems to be frustratingly unavailable sometimes when situations could benefit from it the most. So as a leadership theory or model, it provides little for us except to help identify charisma. Finally, charismatic leadership can appear in conjunction with any of the four major leadership styles discussed here as a personalit y driven subset of leadership and is not act ually a leadership style in and of itself. T he Great Man theory is an additional variation on this theme, and the term itself, with its gender bias, begins to show the limitations of this approach to leadership, however, it is not limit ed t o a male orient at ion and women can assume an analogous role. T he same perspect ive and leadership st yle will of course drive the same or similar behaviors. One of the underlying assumptions to this variation of the Individual-Centered leadership style is that great leaders are born, not developed. However, a quick considerat ion of leaders considered t o be charismat ic or particularly gifted, those whose stories find their way into the mythology of the organizations they have led, will show not only their contributions, but also the difficulty that was experienced when a replacement leader was required. In addit ion t o succession problems, Individual-Cent ered leadership does not scale up easily, and more rarely successf ully. Many organizat ions have difficulty in changing their fundamental culture when they expand in size, and an important part of that difficulty is because the organization s leadership model no longer meets its needs. T he result in those organizations is often a lack of cultural unity with small areas defined by function and referred to as silos that are familial in nature and headed by competing leaders, each the center of his or her area. In worst case situations Individual-Centered leaders can range f rom benignly pat ronizing, parent al f igures t o aut horit arian dictators, and history has plenty of examples of this sort of leader. Smaller versions of the abuse of this style abound in organizations and we suspect you have encount ered more t han one in your own experience and may be thinking about it right now. Of course, t he primary example of Individual-Cent ered leadership is t he parent-child relat ionship where parent s exercise legal, moral, and securit y decisions in unquest ioned aut horit y, especially when children are very small. But this in no way implies this style of leadership only allows for followers that should be treated as children. Indeed this brings us to the limitations of this st yle. When leaders t reat adult s as children using t he Individual-Cent ered leadership style, and when we consider that this style is often accompanied by the power to control money and time, a co-dependent and dysfunctional pat t ern can easily be est ablished where f ollowers support leader behavior regardless of ethical implications because of fears or threats of retaliation by t he aut horit arian leader. It is ironic t hat in West ern cult ures, where individual independence is highly prized, t hat t he highly direct ive Individual-Cent ered leadership st yle is also highly prized.

10 Common Contexts: Religion, Business, Education, Healthcare, Government T he concept of a pastor is the perfect example of the Individual-Centered religious leader. T his is a caretaker role, one that stresses belonging to the group. T he metaphor used to describe the primary group in this context is a flock, and the pastor provides spiritual, and many times social and financial securit y or at least counseling, part icularly in t erms of script ural interpretations and questions. T he message is based in obedience, and often that God loves each person which affirms self worth. Basic messages of honest y, loyalt y and respect are st ressed and endlessly reinf orced. As ment ioned above, in t he business environment, t he Individual-Cent ered leader can take several roles. T ypically he or she is a supervisor or manager of a small group of people, small enough to carefully keep track of each relationship. In new businesses, or start-ups, this is often if not almost always t he ent repreneur, invent or, and/or owner of t he business. In larger organizational settings this person is often in charge of all the activities of a given team which usually has a specific set of objectives. Regardless of the compet ence and experience of t he t eam members, t he Individual-Cent ered business leader is often very directive in his or her communications with team members, where t he leader gives assignment s and direct ions, and get s direct, work relat ed responses. In educational situations, the teacher or professor is the immediate example of this leadership style, for more than formal authority, the teacher has the knowledge that the students, by definition, lack and need. And while more st udent aut onomy is of t en provided as grade level increases, even in graduate seminars, the students ultimately look to the professor as the source of knowledge, int erpret at ion and evaluat ion of all relevant inf ormat ion in regard to a particular course of study. In healt hcare, t he Individual-Cent ered leader is most of t en t he principal or attending physician, but in his or her place, a nurse or other health care professional steps into the same context which demands a parental orientation toward the patient. Of course there are variations on the style depending on the function and the different priority values that operate. For example nurses may priorit ize caret aking and kindness, whereas doct ors may emphasize obedience, honest y, and discipline. T he dif f erent priorit y values will change t he f lavor and nat ure of each individual leader, but t hey will likely all operat e wit hin t he general Individual-Cent ered st yle. Individual-Cent ered government al leaders of t en self select int o posit ions of singular responsibility and even notoriety. It would seem that leaders with this style would naturally be attracted to elected positions, which can be accurate, but we should not assume that all elected officials use this style, nor that this style is in any way limited to elected positions. Nevertheless, regardless of t he scope of responsibilit y, f rom local government t o nat ional, t his leadership

11 st yle can be of t en observed. Int ernat ionally, Individual-Cent ered leadership examples are common, perhaps t oo common, part icularly in government al systems that allow for the concentration of information and power. However, in more democrat ic syst ems, t his leadership st yle can creat e challenges because of mismat ched expect at ions and f undament al percept ions. T he Individual-Cent ered leader always must deal wit h t he challenge of becoming too much of the center, too depended upon. T o be effective, this style requires that a leader spend time and energy maintaining each individual relationship in the group. Perfectly equal distribution of attention is never possible, and the result is often that some group members may begin to feel like the leader is playing favorites. If group members respond negatively to that perception, whether accurate or not, it may become a self-reinforcing or self f ulf illing prophecy. In small organizations where the entire group culture is familial, the necessary centrality and directive quality of the leader tends to keep the organizational structure tight, with true delegated authority at a minimum, usually to a few tested and trusted individuals. Individual-Cent ered behavior may be benign, but dependence on t hat leader does not change. In less than optimum circumstances the leader may become authoritarian or dictatorial with a punitive, My way or the highway, style. As a leader s st at us grows, so does bot h dependence on t hat person, and hence his or her position as the Great Man. (or woman) where the leader assumes a guru t ype of posit ion (in t he limit ed, non-generat ive sense), involving t he at t ribut ion of personal knowledge and power, cont rol of resources, and being an inf ormat ion gat ekeeper. Individual-Centered leadership often makes clear who is to be considered an insider or an outsider. T he centrality of this leadership style tends to create tight relationships among insiders. And when this perspective and leadership style is generalized to a large social or cultural level it shows itself through attitudes and behaviors of ethnocentrism and xenophobia. Status and prestige is highly important and marked by being a group insider, identified by the display of insider knowledge of routine behavior and obedience. Gaining f avor and personal approval are governing issues f or each group member. What keeps this leadership style from becoming nothing more than an egodriven authoritarian? It is both the responsibility of stakeholder and leader to keep in mind that what is driving the organization is not the leader per se, but the work or the mission of the group. Of course the default is to make the leader totally responsible, and to take total responsibility, respectively. T he trick for the leader is the ability to keep the work and his or her personality separate. T he tendency of most team members, because of previous conditioning, is to conflate the two. T hat is, in peoples minds, the leader is t he work, and vice versa. So successf ul, sust ainable Individual-Cent ered leadership also presupposes t hat t he leader has enough self awareness, and

12 self management skills to keep his or her ego in check. Without a self-aware leader, this style can easily lead to a leadership style marked by authoritarian, parent al f avorit ism, and co-dependent relat ionships. T his leader is always at risk in regard to confusing one s self with the power that is inherent in leadership. While all leaders must operat e wit h an appreciat ion and respect of their power, this particular style can most easily conflate self aggrandizement wit h legit imat e leadership. Designated Authority Leadership Leadership defined by designated authority is essentially the manner by which most organizations are run. It is a very old concept, and can be traced back to milit ary and religious examples t housands of years old. When organizat ions remain small, it is common and largely most effective for a single person to remain the center of the organization. However, a part of the nature of nearly all successf ul organizat ions is growt h, which most of t he t ime is an inherent part of what it means to be successful. T he corresponding increase in command and cont rol (and t heref ore leadership) needs, of t en remains a continual difficulty. T he apparent solution to this challenge is to divide the work and delegat e f ormal aut horit y accordingly. On t he surf ace, larger numbers of people allow for better management of increasing technical complexit y and leveraging diversit y of t hought and skill, bot h result ing in an economy of size. Larger organizat ions can get more done, more ef f icient ly. But such change is not simply one of size, but st ruct ure, process, cult ure, t he way aut horit y is approached, leadership st yle, and of course a change in values wit h t heir support ing skills. [RV1] T he values in t he Management values perspect ive, reviewed above, are concerned wit h ef f iciency and organizat ional st ruct ure. Leadership in larger organizations is dependent on the ability of an individual to first establish and then interpret strategy, policy, and standardized procedure. T he shift from the central idea of the Individual-Centered leader, to the central idea of the office, or authority of the leader (as established by the delegated authority from the institution), is fundamental and profound. T he general objective of this leadership style is the establishment and maintenance of a stable environment[rv2]. T his is a shift in overall focus from security to stability, which are generally connected to each other. But the values and supporting skills associated with the Designated Authority style are quite different from the Individual-Centered style of leadership. T he stability sought by Designated Authority leadership also seeks for maximum efficiency, and eventual predictability in regard to everything from daily operations to strategic planning. T hat sort of order and predictability is a function of rationality, which is the primary means for governing. T he assumption guiding this style is that the leader can literally think him or herself to success. Obviously this leadership style lends itself to the strengths of particular cognitive preferences and styles, and creates a cycle of self-

13 select ion, and reinf orcing inst it ut ional mindset s. Evidence f or t his phenomenon is well est ablished t hrough various areas of research, but a good example is in the Myers-Briggs T ype Indicator research that finds that people with a T hinking preference tend to self select into positions that allow them to leverage this natural tendency.[10] T his is a powerful and productive leadership style that leads to effective rationality and critical thinking, and the achievement of tangible objectives, assuming that change factors in the int ernal and ext ernal environment can be suf f icient ly ant icipat ed and managed. However, it may fall short in exploiting the long-term competitive advantages derived f rom f orming and sust aining posit ive relat ionships bet ween leaders and stakeholders due to viewing relationship skills as mere tools of effective leaders. T he Designated Authority leadership style may also lack the agility that derives from flexible structures and attitudes because it depends on the est ablishment and maint enance of a st able environment, even t hough in realit y environment s are complex and changing. T his is the style of leadership for which people are most often rewarded in modern societ ies (and t heir organizat ions), so it should not be surprising t hat this is the style of leadership most often taught and emulated. Of the four basic leadership st yles, Designat ed Aut horit y leadership behaviors are generally the most predictable of the values based leadership styles because those behaviors are pre-scripted by policy. And when compared to other leadership styles, the behaviors of this style are also more similar across indust ry and organizat ional boundaries, and are more generally applicable t o dissimilar situations than any of the other styles. So in this sense, Designated Aut horit y leaders may appear similar t o each ot her, which is not surprising when one examines t he curricula of MBA programs. A Note On Leadership and Management T his is a well worn and familiar topic of discussion in the management and leadership lit erat ure. It concerns t he descript ion of people holding posit ions of responsibility, and asks two questions: Are people who hold positions of responsibilit y leaders, or managers? And which of t he t wo is more desirable? T his is actually fairly easy to deal with because the question presupposes the two exist on a sort of continuum as if in their extreme interpretation they are polar opposites.[11] From a functional position this dichotomy may be useful, and may make sense, but from a values framework, this is a false and forced dichotomy, but one that is often supported as if it is common sense. But common sense has been shown to be wrong every time any sort of important innovation or breakthrough in thinking has been made. Suffice it to say that there are no managers that do not have leadership opportunities and responsibilit ies, and no leaders t hat do not have responsibilit ies and opportunities to manage at least themselves, not to mention other people and resources. T his is not to say the entire body of literature that addresses Management vs. Leadership should be reject ed out of hand. However, t his

14 designation is far too convenient, and is both easily and continually reinforced formally and informally. Its overuse prevents us from understanding and working product ively simult aneously, as bot h managers and leaders. While everyone may not hold designated positional authority or position, from a values perspect ive, everyone does have bot h management and leadership opportunities and responsibilties. T herefore, we do not extend the classif icat ion of Manager vs. Leader as a general leadership st yle, but as a f unct ional dif f erence, primarily wit hin organizat ions, t hat commonly describes dif f erent responsibilit ies, expect at ions, and values in regard t o leadership in a general sense. Common Contexts: Religion, Business, Education, Healthcare, Government Religious leadership based on a Designated Authority style is quintessentially leadership of ort hodox, est ablished, and f ormal procedures and behaviors designat ed, many t imes explicit ly, by f ormal int erpret at ions and prescript ions. T he formal rituals found in many religions are good examples of this style as they depend on some sort of formal initiation, and accompanying title, to perform as a recognized representative of the organization as a whole. From t he perspect ive of t his leadership st yle, ceremonies, rit uals, even meet ings are simply not considered to be efficacious without the authority to invoke, celebrate, and convene by virtue of that authority. T he point is that religious leaders using this style are credible simply because of the office they may hold. T he interpretation of scripture and other officially sanctioned information is also a function of the office of the leader, and formally is not subject to subject ively personal int erpret at ion or inf luence. And when we consider t his applicat ion f or Designat ed Aut horit y leadership, we can also immediat ely see that a leader is not limited to one style, but can employ the Individual- Centered style in combination or separate from a Designated Authority style. T his is not necessarily a contradiction, but simply a shift, or combining, based on situational need. In business, the key operating value often used to describe leaders working from the Designated Authority style is responsibility. While this is a specific value with a specific definition, it is often used as an indicator for the amount and qualit y of organizat ional power a given person may hold. And it carries t he tacit assumption of loyalty to the institutional authority of the organization. T he concepts of command and control have been used for many years to describe designated authority, which itself is a catchphrase that is widely used to describe the nature of the work in which managers and leaders engage. As a leadership style Designated Authority thrives in larger organizat ions where polit ical acumen is as valuable f or success as t echnical and business competence because in this context effective leadership is accomplished by respect ing and working t hrough t he f ormal processes, procedures, and policies of t he organizat ion. At t imes, t he f ormal, ort hodox met hods are reint erpret ed or even ignored. However, when t his happens, t he

15 Designated Authority leader may be taking considerable risk because his or her actions actually run counter to the formal authority structure. T he underlying premise for this leadership style is that its power ultimately rests in the organization or institution itself, which usually prioritizes results more highly than strict adherence to established policy. In education and healthcare, the Designated Authority leadership style is most often clearly observed in staff and administrative positions. Area and depart ment chairs, deans, provost s, and t he like are also obvious examples, and behave organizat ionally in large measure like business leaders. But individually, when act ing in t he academic or t echnical arenas, t hey can share an int erest ing similarit y t o religious leaders, and simult aneously employ Individual-Cent ered leadership as well as Designat ed Aut horit y leadership. T he combination of the two in the educational context can make life difficult, especially for students, which is of course ironic when the goals of education are considered. We tend to think that large governmental organizations, national, state, provincial, or regional, are complex, bureaucrat ic, and bound by an unint elligible web of laws, rules, and policies. T hese charact erist ics are not limited to large governments but can apply to counties, cities, and departments as well. T he Designated Authority leader in government can be t he ult imat e bureaucrat, but need not be when such a person includes addit ional values in his or her personal prof ile such as f lexibilit y and risk as well as more expected values such as productivity and critical thinking. Generally, regardless of specif ic cont ext, overdependence on Designat ed Authority leadership can over rely on rationality, limit the flexibility of behavior and t hinking, and ignore t he emot ional aspect s of organizat ional relat ionships. Relational Leadership All leadership is relationship based. It almost seems ridiculous to have to point that out, but the first two styles discussed so far, Individual-Centered and Designated Authority, have a tendency to either focus on the person per se, or the office held by the leader, and both place the leader as primary and his or her relationships as secondary. It is easy to forget that without both leaders and f ollowers t here is no leadership at all. Leadership always involves a reciprocal, albeit in most cases a tacit, acceptance of the nature of that relat ionship. Relat ional Leadership is markedly dif f erent f rom Individual-Cent ered and Designated Authority leadership styles in that it places the relationship in a primary position of focus. Instead of prioritizing security and stability, Relat ional Leadership is a process orient at ion t o leadership which priorit izes the process of forming and maintaining relationships. It is equally important to point out that from this perspective relationships are always dynamic.[12] T he first two leadership styles assume relationships to exist in support of results,

16 while Relational Leadership assumes results to be a natural function of creating and maintaining relationships. And while the Relational Leader may be quite comfortable with the necessary flexibility required to swim in the soup of emotions and relationships, as well as results, other leaders with a security or stability orientation may not be as comfortable with the emotional ambiguity and dynamic complexit y of human relat ionships. Relat ional leadership draws on values t hat bot h develop and sust ain relat ionships, but t hat also require self-knowledge and a sense of one s strengths and limitations. T he communication processes of asking questions, list ening, being open, and t rust are great ly emphasized. Individual values of creativity and risk taking support self awareness. A quick review of the values of the Family and Management perspectives will indicate these values are very different from the supporting values of those perspectives. Of course the values alone are not sufficient for effective leadership, but require behavioral compet ency in t wo f undament al areas, self awareness and ot her awareness. Ef f ect ive leadership can only be accomplished when t he leader knows him or herself and is willing to engage in the work of self development, which requires working with others. So the relational leader often defines his or her leadership success in terms of being able to relate to everyone regardless of inevitable conflicts, shifting contexts and changing priorities. Relat ional leadership is, t heref ore, much great er t han simply being able t o give good present at ions, conduct int erviews or hold conversat ions wit h others. T his style, perhaps more than any other, appreciates and leverages the fundamental nature of leadership itself, that is, leadership is foremost a relationship between leader and stakeholder, and this style places the importance of this dynamic in top priority. Common Contexts: Religion, Business, Education, Healthcare, Government T he religious context lends itself to and supports the Relational Leadership st yle well. In t hose religious sit uat ions where relat ional leadership is present, values such as openness, list ening, self-development, being present, and trust are the primary building blocks of pastoral types of communication and counseling situations whether they occur between ministers and members or in peer-to-peer relationships. While sympathy and charity are values that are ident if ied, respect ively, wit h t he Family perspect ive (Individual-Cent ered leadership st yle), and Management perspect ive (Designat ed Aut horit y leadership style), empathy is found in the Relational perspective and leadership style. Relational leadership is ideally suited to support the maxim, a variat ion of which is f ound in all t he world s major religions, and known in t he Christian tradition as the Golden Rule, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Business, healt h care, educat ional, and government al cont ext s provide similar opportunities for relational leadership, where customer or patient focus is the

17 behavioral represent at ion of empat hy. In addit ion t he leader is charact erized by having facilitator and conflict manager skills. T his is the manger/leader with an open door policy, one that always has time to listen to a problem, holds a personalized development meet ing wit h each employee (and f ollows up on t he ensuing plan), asks quest ions bef ore jumping t o conclusions, and is known for his or her conflict management abilities. Meetings are characterized with questions that elicit comments and contributions from more reticent individuals, and f eedback is grounded in behavior rat her t han personal charact erist ics. So who wouldn t want to lead this way? What tends to be overlooked with regard to the relational leadership style is that there are potential barriers to it s ef f ect iveness, which we have personally, and of t en seen in organizat ions of all types and sizes. T hree of the most important are: Relat ional leadership is f oreign t o current organizat ional cult ure, and is often rejected as soft, uncompetitive, and lacking goal or achievement f ocus. T he majorit y of successf ul individuals in organizat ions possess cognitive styles that prioritize rational processes over relational processes. T here is little effective training in regard to the skills that would support relat ional leadership, which requires long-t erm personal follow up. In contrast to the first two styles, leaders in the Relational style can operate externally or adjunct to organizations, for example as consultants and outside experts. T here are important reasons for this. T he default leadership style in nearly all medium t o large modernist ic organizat ions (corporat e, non-prof it, educat ional, government al) is Designat ed Aut horit y, and as we have discussed above places priorit ies on achievement (result s), and st abilit y based on est ablished procedures. Relat ionship skills and t he development of self-awareness are seen as a means to these ends. Not that Relational leaders do not recognize the importance of achievement, but this style often supports the assumption that results will follow the establishment and maintenance of healthy relationships. T his is a processoriented priority to leadership rather than a results oriented priority. T he difference is not just conceptual, but functional, and commonly leads to mismatched expectations and approaches, both in regard to the ongoing operat ional def init ion of ef f ect ive leadership in organizat ions, and approaches t o leadership development, where demand is on achievement, even t hough leadership development programs emphasize values like list ening, openness, and t rust. Various religious structures differ greatly in regard to the support and employment of this leadership style. However, religious contexts often rely on bot h designat ed aut horit y, and relat ional leadership, which are somet imes mixed. Without clarification from the leader, confusion in regard to how a

18 particular conversation should be interpreted is often the result of Relational leadership attempts. In spite of all of the above resistance to Relational leadership, there is a great deal of longst anding research regarding it s advant ages.[13] As a represent at ive example, one recent summary def ined ef f ect ive leadership st yle as t he manager s abilit y t o support, encourage, coach, and empower his or her staff so as to facilitate employee self-confidence, selfmanagement, and int erpersonal int eract ions. [14] When an individual begins t o see t he world f rom t he Relat ional Awareness perspect ive, and values a Relat ional Leadership f ocus, he or she must be prepared to operate from a position that may enjoy little real external and internal support, no matter how much ink is spent on praising the virtues of this value set. T his can be an extremely uncomfortable process to begin, and to sustain long enough to develop skills that can then begin to show tangible result s. Bef ore you decide we are cynical about Relat ional Leadership, we at t he Values Perspective hold that it is commonly the most needed leadership style in most organizations, and the style that has the least support. In our opinion, this style is behaviorally weak in organizations in general, and therefore the most critically needed style. For example, most leaders listen to evaluate before they listen to comprehend, which results in the eroding of the perception of respect and precludes the development of trust and collaborat ion. A Note On Creativity A special ment ion regarding creat ivit y and t he Relat ional Awareness leadership style is appropriate because Creativity, as a value, is found within t he Relat ional values perspect ive. Most import ant ly, all people are creat ive regardless of a particular core perspective. T he issue is not if leaders are creative, but just how they are creative. T he explicit need for innovative creativity (the knack for stepping outside problem definitions), is fostered by the values of the Relational Awareness perspect ive and Relat ional Leadership, as opposed t o adapt ive creat ivit y and problem solving (creativity exercised within the parameters of a given problem or context boundaries) which are supported by the values of the Management perspect ive and Designat ed Aut horit y leadership st yle.[15] Amabile and Gryskiewicz describe six organizat ional f act ors t hat account f or innovative creativity in groups and organizations: freedom to pursue a problem, challenge of t he work it self, suf f icient resources, group support, manager support, and organizat ional encouragement.[16] Five of t hese six factors are greatly influenced by the relationships that an individual has with others, particularly one s direct manager/leader. T his is not to say that