PERSONAL LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 

Leadership Philosophy

Kevin Jones

Indiana Wesleyan University

Dr. Jim Laub

DOL 710 Advanced Global Leadership

August 16, 2006

Revised November 7, 2008

Personal Leadership Philosophy

Introduction

This stands as the fourth iteration of this philosophy of leadership paper. The philosophy of leadership paper builds from term to term and incorporates new learning as well as a demonstration of the beginning of mastery of additional domains. This iteration includes a new learning section on the domain Organizational Learning.

Central Domain: Servant Leader as World Changer

The need for effective leadership

A great need for biblically based spiritually mature leadership exists. In our rush to embrace tolerance we have abandoned leadership for popularity. Popular thought seems to look at leadership as being the most popular person rather than one willing to have a vision that is beyond easy attainment and one that may not be achieved without investment in discovery, time, and resources.

In particular there is a need for leaders who see themselves as servants (Russell & Stone, 2002). One truly becomes a servant leader when they begin to put the need of others above those of self. Servant leadership was modeled by Jesus who "made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant" (Philippians 2:7, New International Version).  

Leadership is not a concept that is easy to comprehend and practice. Leadership is complex and requires the individual to constantly reflect on whether the leadership pathway will keep followers moving in the direction of fulfilling the vision which will be constantly changing.

Those of us who are involved in higher education may be among the most difficult groups in the world to understand. On one hand, we are slow to change our methodologies and yet, on the other hand, we seem to always be jumping on and off all kinds of higher education bandwagons. A desperate need exists for educational leaders who are committed to a vision of providing a sound education that is foundational to everything students will do in their lives. We need leadership that understands education is holistic and is willing to touch the spirits, minds, and souls of students.

Leadership defined

A leader is one who sees beyond the immediate and while moving towards that vision is able to influence others to become part of the journey in order to effect constructive change.   

Definition of key terms

To see is to be able to look beyond the immediate and to have a vision for the future. It is the ability to begin with the end in mind. To see requires one to consciously break away from the current circumstances and begin to envision what breaking out of the box one is in will produce in one's self and in others as well.

Current reality is those circumstances which cause us to be so lost in the moment that we lose hope and sight of the future. They are those things which may be important but which one must be able to set aside long enough to begin to see the potential of the future.

Motivation is motive in action towards what has been seen and refusing to be sidetracked regardless of whether the movement is swift or slow. It is a determined advance towards the vision of a better place and time. God gave Abram a vision of a land and it says in Genesis 12: 4 "so Abram left, as the Lord had told him" (The Leadership Bible). Abram had a vision and began to move towards the fulfillment of that vision without knowing if he would ever reach the land that had been promised but knowing that without movement the vision could never be known.

The vision is what is seen that inspires one to begin moving. The vision is a glimpse of a better future whether it is personal, departmental, or organizational. Without vision there is little hope and even less intrinsic motivation to strive for a better way of living or doing. Vision is that which focuses on what can be, ignites the passion of others, evokes positive movement in a specific direction, and compels others to follow.

Influence is the impact on others that comes with having a vision and moving towards that vision. Influence is the power that comes from others seeing passion in the leader that persuades them to follow towards the vision even though they may not see it initially themselves. Influence ultimately empowers followers to begin to get a glimpse of the leaders' vision and create within them the intrinsic motivation to continue on the path towards the vision and perhaps even beyond what the leader originally envisioned.

To effect change is to cause change as a consequence of the vision and the movement towards that vision. To effect is to create a change from the present circumstances towards that which has been envisioned. Change cannot be effected by hesitantly sitting back and waiting to see if the vision was valid. One must move towards what has been seen in order to cause there to be change. Change only occurs when others have adopted the vision and carry it forward.

Without change one can legitimately question whether leadership actually occurred. As a plaque in the Banquet Goods corporate headquarters in St. Louis states: "Effective leadership: a leader has a vision and conviction that a dream can be achieved, and inspires the power and energy to get it done" (Kotter, 1990, p. 136). 

Leadership vs. Management

Many confuse leadership and management although they are different functions, albeit integrated ones. As noted in the above definition, leadership is the influence the leader has upon the follower while management is more a function of getting things done. Rost (1993) defines management as "an authority relationship between at least one manager and one subordinate who coordinate their activities to produce and sell particular goods and/or services" (p. 145). Rost defines leadership as "an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes" (p. 102).

While both leadership and management can be positional it seems clear that management is all about having authority while leadership is based primarily upon influence. One might come to see that it would seem as though leadership without influence that has come about as a part of relationship building and communication would be void of positive impact on followers. Leadership can be practiced from any place within an organization while management is positional in nature.

On the other hand, Daft (2005) states that leaders "develop effective crisis management skills that help their organization weather the storm and move toward something better" (p. 9). This type of definition seems to blur the line between leadership and management. It has elements of both. On the one side you see the "crisis management skills" and on the other you see the moving towards the vision of the leader. This comes about when the leader is relational, inspiring, and persuasive.

Kotter (1990) notes that leadership has existed from the beginning of time while management has evolved primarily over the past 100 years. Kotter states that leadership has three primary functions: to establish direction though vision, to align people, and to motivate and inspire people. Management has three very different roles: to plan and budget, organize and staff, and problem solving. Management tends to focus on the here and now and perhaps a short distance into the future while leadership is visionary and looks much further into the future.

I would define management as the relational empowerment that moves an organization towards fixed, stated goals on the path to reaching the vision. Those managing the move towards the achievement of the goals may or may not have the vision of the leader and the one with the vision may not be the best one to provide the management along the journey.

Key Leadership Theories

Transformation leadership has been defined by Burns (1978) as a process in which "leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation" (p. 20). In order for this to happen the leader must place the needs of the followers in a preeminent position. If one were to practice transformational leadership as it applies to the context of my definition of leadership than it would seem as though the ability to motivate followers to join the journey towards effecting positive change.

Daft (2005) notes that transformational leadership is different than transactional leadership in at least four significant areas:

1.      Transformational leadership empowers the followers to change roles and to become leaders.

2.      Transformational leadership changes the way followers think from being deeply concerned about their physical needs to their psychological needs.

3.      Transformational leadership motivates followers to put their self-interest aside for the good of the group.

4.      Transformational leadership shares the vision of the future in such a way that the journey seems worthwhile regardless of the cost (p. 154).

I believe leadership should be transformational, inspiring, and empowering. Recently, Dr. Henry Smith shared some of his leadership vision for Indiana Wesleyan University with me. Part of his vision is that those who hold office as vice-president would be prepared to become presidents of other universities in three to five years (personal communication, August 3, 2006). This seems to me as though it demonstrates transformational leadership by having the welfare of the follower at heart. I say this because finding the right people to become vice-president is not an easy thing to do yet Dr. Smith believes it is the correct way to lead.

Transactional leadership is typically linked to transformational though as noted previously there are some distinct differences. Yukl (2006) points out that there are "two types of transactional behaviors: contingent award and passive management by exception" (p. 263). On the one hand there are awards contingent on task performance and on the other there are punishments for not meeting acceptable performance standards.

Transactional leadership can be found in biblical principles such as "lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth" (Proverbs 10: 4, New International Version). We see many times in scripture where we are told that if certain things are done there are rewards but on the other hand if other things are done below an acceptable standard there will be punishment.

Believing that transformational and transactional are descriptors of leadership I believe an argument may be made that each have a time and place where they are appropriate for use in leadership. It is not that it must be one or the other but when each should be practiced.

My leadership vision

          I envision a time when the Alliance for International Christian Business Education (AICBE) will be the organizational leader in providing online business education courses to universities in developing countries at a cost no greater to the student than what they pay for tuition in that country. I see AICBE being folded into the educational programs of Indiana Wesleyan University (IWU) giving the program immediate additional credibility in the academic community. As of July 1, 2007 the AICBE has been made a part of the IWU budget. This is the first step in being able to expand the program into other countries.

I envision a time when the AICBE program is just one part of a department for international studies that covers a number of disciplines. I see this department for international studies as being a natural extension of our mission of preparing students to be worldchangers. The difference would be that the scope would become world wide and not just primarily within the borders of the United States.

I envision myself playing an active role in this department for international studies. Part of my desire to learn more about leadership is to prepare myself for the advancement of this vision. I envision a time when I will be able to serve an even greater number of international students than I currently have the privilege of serving.

World Changing Vision

The fulfillment of this vision for a department of international studies would be the preparation of students to go into their world prepared not only to be the best in their discipline but also prepared to spread the message of Jesus Christ. The courses provided by this department would be filled with natural faith integration that applies biblical principles to every area of study. This would enable students to become transformed through the "renewing of their minds" (Romans 12: 2, The Leadership Bible).

I see transformed students taking their skills and relationship with Jesus Christ into their countries and beyond. They will take the Gospel into countries that are closed to missionaries from the United States. They will have access either as citizens of their own countries or into other countries as a result of having a marketable skill or knowledge. We will have increased our sphere of influence throughout the world and have prepared world changers in the truest sense of the mission.

I also see international students taking the learning which we will help to foster in them to the market place in their countries. I see these students applying principles that will empower them to become leaders within their areas of occupation, their communities, and their country.

Personal Leadership Style and Strengths

The interpretive report of my Myers-Briggs Type Indicator showed I was an ESFJ. I scored very highly in extraversion and judging while only scoring moderately in sensing and very low in feeling.

I found the report to pretty accurately reflect who I am. I am energized by organizing others and seeing that tasks are followed through on and done well. I do not enjoy confrontation and will attempt to diffuse it when possible but when necessary I will confront others, particularly when I perceive it as a matter of principle.

Typically people find me to be a warm and caring person with a lot of energy. I do not do well at sitting around. I prefer to be busy even when on vacation. I do not spend a lot of time just watching television because I like to be around people and interacting with them. I receive my greatest satisfaction from assisting others in being successful.

I tend to see things as more black and white than they sometimes are and I have to discipline myself to try and see the whole picture before making decisions. As a result, I can at times be more autocratic than I would like.

I would categorize my leadership currently as transactional but moving towards transformational. I have worked most of my adult years in organizations that trained leaders to be transactional in nature. My movement toward transformational leadership came as a result of working through the Master's in Education program at Indiana Wesleyan University. I realized for the first time that if I could influence students to become self-directed learners that it would completely transform their lives.

If through transformational leadership, backed by a servant leader mindset, I can inspire those involved in the AICBE program and beyond to get a glimpse of my vision than I can have a part in impacting the world and in preparing world changers. I desire to continue to move towards transformational leadership in order to become the type of leader I believe that Christ would bless. When I say bless, I am referring to having the day come when I have run the race and I can hear Him say, "You have done well".

Domain One: Personal Authenticity

Mission Statement

My mission is to use whatever influence I have to point others to Jesus Christ. In doing so I will fulfill the Great Commission (Mark 16:15).

Core Values

I value first of all an increasingly close personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is the highest priority in my life. As I become more like him so will my leadership be more reflective of His leadership. As a part of this I must continually strive to maintain a biblical worldview based on biblical principles and practices.

My second core value is my commitment to my wife and family. I aspire to lead them in such a way that they see Christ in me as a result of seeing that I put their needs above my own. If I were able to lead others but not my family I would be a great failure as a leader.

A third core value for me would be advancement Christian Higher education or lifelong learning both for students in the United States as well as for international students. As I watch the lives of students being transformed through being introduced to Jesus Christ and as I watch them grow as they learning I marvel at the potential number of world changers I have the possibility to influence. God has led me to this unique position and empowered me to lead at Indiana Wesleyan University.

A fourth core value for me is to lead in such a way that those who follow know that they have great value to me as individuals. They are not simply a means to moving towards a vision but are viewed as having value to me personally as well as to the organization.

Indicators of Personal Mastery

I will use as indicators of personal mastery of authenticity the feedback I receive from my family. I believe that if I do not lead my family well I will not be entitled to hold a high level leadership position (I Timothy 3:4). Although this passage is referring directly to one who would be a pastor I believe that the principle may be applied to anyone seeking a leadership position with high levels of authority.

I will also use the information that I receive through the use of 360 degree feedback from those with whom I work. Receiving feedback from those of all levels within my department will enable me to see the areas in which I am weak and those in which I am strong. This will allow me to focus on remaining strong in my areas of strength as well as to work on improving in the areas in which I am lacking.

I will also use as an indicator my ability to follow. I am convinced that I will never be a great leader unless I learn to first become a great follower. I will accept as an indicator of my ability to follow feedback from those in leadership positions above me as well as the feedback from fellow workers regarding their perceptions of my willingness and ability to follow.

Domain Two: Organizational Learning

New Learning

Gavin (1993) defines a learning organization as "an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights" (p. 80). In other words, while ideas cause learning it is the change in thinking and processes that characterizes an organization that is truly a learning organization. If there are new ideas but no implementation than learning has not occurred within the organization.

Argyris (1991) defines double-loop learning as "a reflection of how they think - that is, the cognitive rules or reasoning they use to design and implement their actions" (p. 100). Double-loop learning is the process of reflection whereby one gets at the heart of the reason for taking the actions taken or the attitudes demonstrated. It is the process of looking within at one's own learning process in order to become willing to make change as necessary for the good of the organization. When an organization allows its members to begin to reflect in this way it becomes a learning organization (Ortenblad, 2002).

Domain Three: Culture and Behavior

New Learning

Greenberg and Baron (2003) define organizational behavior as "the multidisciplinary field that seeks knowledge of behavior in organizational settings by systematically studying individual, group, and organizational processes" (p. 4). In other words, it is an attempt to understand what causes people to behave the way that they do within the context of an organization. Another term used for this process is attribution or "the way people come to judge the underlying causes of others' behavior" (p. 39).

Leadership in an organization involves influence with a purpose (Greenberg & Baron, 2003). As a result, leadership is in reality two-way communication. The leaders of an organization must strive to understand what motivates the followers to respond in the way that they do in order to begin to empower them to follow the vision and to reach worthwhile goals.

Organizational culture is "the pattern of basic assumptions, values, norms, and beliefs shared by organization members" (Cummings & Worley, 2001, p. 259). Organizational culture typically stems from what has been successful in the past until it becomes a part of how the members of the organization see themselves.  Organizational "culture…can influence whether executives look for and develop people with leadership potential" (Kotter, 1990, p. 127). 

Domain Four: Change, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship

New Learning

            De Caluwe and Vermaak (2003) state that "people change their behavior first and foremost because they want to" (p. 6) which would seem to indicate that a leader must be able to cast a vision that inspires members of an organization to follow in order to create organizational change. The vision must gain full buy-in in order for the vision to become intrinsic leading to the followers having a desire to change.

According to De Caluwe and Vermaak (2003) poorly defined goals often cause a resistance to change. When there is ambiguity in an organization's mission it may also cause resistance to change. There certainly appears to be a bit of a correlation between clarity of vision, mission, and goals and a willingness to change. In reality, why would one want to be involved in change when there is not clearly defined purpose for that change?

Members of an organization are willing to make almost any change as long as they see that the change will empower them to better fulfill the mission of the organization. Typically, it is only when members of the organization cannot see what the benefits will be that they are reluctant to change. This falls in line with Millard's change concern cycle (2007, Power Point presentation) which notes that most of the time spent in presenting potential change needs to be in the curiosity, consequences, processes and repercussions stages in order to effectively lead change.

Another great challenge that exists is in determining whether an organization operates in the sphere of an external or internal locus of control (Millard, 2007, Power Point presentation). Change within an organization is to a large extent within the control of the members of the organization.

Domain Five: Globalization and Multiculturalism

New Learning

One must first understand the concept of worldview before they can truly begin to understand culture. Worldview is that underlying factor that drives culture. Sire (2004) defines worldview as "a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being" (p. 17). A lack of a basic understanding of worldview will likely lead to a lack of real understanding of culture.

Moran, Harris, and Moran (2007) list ten categories which can be used for understanding culture. The ten categories are as follows: Sense of self and space, communication and language, dress and appearance, food and feeding habits, time and time consciousness, relationships, values and norms, beliefs and attitudes, mental process and learning, and work habits and practices. A basic understanding of each of these categories will go a long way in determining whether or not an organization will be successful cross culturally.

This has been an area of personal weakness in the AICBE program which I did not even identify until taking the Global Perspectives course. I find myself now asking the following questions when working on the AICBE project. How do people coming from these cultures typically express their sense of self-identity? How can we communicate most effectively in an online environment with those from many different cultures?  How can we state things in ways so that they are received in the spirit and meaning in which they are intended? What is the underlying worldview that drives the culture?

I have defined global leadership in the following way: Global leadership is taking the time to understand the worldview and the culture of those you are leading in order to be able to develop strategies that enable strategic goals to be met which in turn allows the organization to move towards its mission. This includes understanding the difference between direct and indirect communication, challenges presented by language fluency as well as differing accents, views and attitudes toward organizational structure whether flat or hierarchical, understanding of the values, norms, and cultural assumptions of those in the organization and the ability or desire of those within the organization to adapt. The leader who is able to recognize when conflict is caused by worldview and cultural differences and not by personalities and is able to make strategic adjustments in his/her approach has the opportunity to become a truly global leader.

Domain Six: Ethics and Governance

New Learning

Anderson and Davies (2000) point out that having an ethical decision making model may assist in the following ways when ethical dilemmas present themselves to presidents and boards. First, a model assists in maintaining objectivity. Second, a model allows a board and president to check their reasoning processes. Looking through these lenses allows a board and president a framework in which to operate in an ethical manner.

Anderson and Davies (2000) suggest the following ethical decision making model. First, identify the ethical dilemma. There may be more than one path to solving an issue but does one of them violate the ethical code of the institution?

Second, gather facts, self-monitor, and consult. Gather all of the facts about the situation and do not make assumptions. Monitor individually and collectively the board members and president's initial response to the situation. Finally, consult with others who are objective professional peers. The objective peer can ask the difficult questions in a not-threatening way.

Third, ask important questions. These questions revolve around the following four areas: "feelings, additional information, political concerns, and the ethics code" (Anderson & Davies, 2000, p. 720).

Fourth, develop alternative plans of action. Fifth, evaluate the alternatives. Finally, implement the course of action decided on by moral follow-through Rest (1994) and virtue ethics (Jordan & Meara, 1990).

Ingram (1996) notes that trustees have become less patient with leaders who attempt to keep the board at arm's length. My vision for an effective board/CEO relationship is that we develop a trusting relationship that recognizes we all have the best interests of the university at heart. I see our relationship as being one that is strong enough that when we have disagreements we are able to address those with civility and mutual respect.

Chait, Ryan, and Taylor (2005) point out three types of governing: fiduciary, strategic, and generative thinking. An effective board is able to operate in all three types of governance. The fiduciary part is somewhat obvious in that board members have a legal and moral obligation to oversee the overall financial health of the institution. The second type, strategic, is also somewhat obvious in that the board is charged with assisting in developing a strategic plan and assessing that plan on an ongoing basis.

The third type, generative thinking, involves picking up on clues and cues and taking a hard look on how we frame the information received (Chait et al., 2005). Generative thinking also requires us to take a look in the rearview mirror from time to time in order to review what has been successful and what has not in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over. While we have no desire to live in the past and miss the opportunities that await us in the present and in the future we must from time to time reflect back on what has brought us to this point in our institution's history.

I have adopted the following as my personal and professional code of conduct. I have framed it and placed it both in my office and in my home for all to see and to help hold me publicly accountable. My ethical behavior should be the same at home or at work therefore I have developed a code that encompasses both.

1. I will treat others in a way that gives evidence that I hold them as having high value to me.

                        2. My word is my bond. If I cannot deliver than I will not promise.

3. I will conduct myself with ladies in a way that is above reproach. I will not allow myself to be put in a situation that may be seen as compromising.

                        4. I will speak the truth even when it may cause me pain.

                        5. I will admit to mistakes and failure and work to see that they are not repeated.

Conclusion

My desire is to become the kind of leader that people eagerly choose to follow. I intend to be a leader who is a visionary and is able to influence others to begin to see the vision and join me on the journey towards fulfilling the vision. We are already impacting students at four universities in Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lithuania, and Romania but there are many other universities that want our assistance and we need others to also see the vision to make that happen and I desire to be a leader that can help to make that happen. Effective in September of 2008 Caribbean Wesleyan College will join the AICBE program.

I have been forced over these past few months to look at leadership in an entirely new way and I do not have my arms wrapped completely around these concepts as of today but I am committed to consistent improvement both in scholarship and in practice. I realize that learning about leadership will be a life long process and I am committed to that task.

References

(Anderson S K Davies T G 2000 An ethical decision-making model-A necessary tool for community college presidents and boards of trustees)Anderson, S. K., & Davies, T. G. (2000). An ethical decision-making model-A necessary tool for community college presidents and boards of trustees. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, (24), 711-727.

Argyris, C. (1991, May-June). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 99-109.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Chait, R. P., Ryan, W. P., & Taylor, B. E. (2005). Governance as leadership: Reframing the work of nonprofit boards. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

(Cummings T G Worley C G 2001 Essentials of organization development & change)Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Essentials of organization development & change. Cincinnati, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Daft, R. L. (3^rd ed.). (2005). The leadership experience. Toronto: South-Western.

(De Caluwe Leon Vermaak Hans 2003 Learning to change: A guide for organization change agents)De Caluwe, L. & Vermaak, H. (2003). Learning to change: A guide for organization change agents. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Garvin, D. A. (1993, July-August). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 78-91.

(Greenberg J Baron R A 2003 Behavior in organizations)Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2003). Behavior in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

(Ingram R T 1996 New tensions in the academic boardroom)Ingram, R. T. (1996). New tensions in the academic boardroom. The Educational Record, 77(2-3), 49-55.

Jordan, A. E., & Meara, N. M. (1990). Ethics and the professional practice of psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 107-114.

(Kotter J P 1990 force for change: How leadership differs from management)Kotter, J. P. (1990). Force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York:

          The Free Press.

(Moran R T Harris P R Moran S V 2007 Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for the 21st century)Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. V. (2007). Managing cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for the 21st century (7th ed.). Boston: Butterworth- Heinemann.

Ortenblad, A. (2002). Organizational learning: A radical perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(1), 87-100. Ortenblad, O

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership: Developing a practical model [Electronic version]. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145-157.

(Sire J W 2004 universe next door: A basic worldview catalog)Sire, J. W. (2004). The universe next door: A basic worldview catalog (4th ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.  

Yukl, G. (6^th ed.). (2006). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.