Running head: LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY

Final Reflection and Leadership Philosophy Matthew Cartwright Loyola University Chicago

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY

For most of my life, I equated power and authority with leadership. Since I did not hold a leadership position as an undergraduate and was generally not involved on campus, it was not until I entered the corporate world when my view of leadership began to evolve. I credit working on various teams, engaging with diverse individuals and organizations, and holding numerous positions for helping me to shift my understanding of leadership from being poweroriented to inclusive, team-based, and purposeful. I did not form this augmented perspective, however, as an attempt to model the behavior of my peers or supervisors; it was a reaction to their apparent leadership philosophies that were rooted in position, authority, and selfadvancement. As a response to what I witnessed, I began formulating what leadership meant to me. Today, I have further refined my leadership philosophy after having been exposed to leadership conceptualizations that provide the language to support my beliefs of what real leadership is: a multi-dimensional process that works to achieve a higher purpose. Since my leadership perspective has advanced over time, I think it prudent to first describe my early understandings of leadership, how they became more progressive, and what stimulated a shift in thinking. Then, I will outline my current leadership philosophy, followed by a reflection of how I might practice it in the future. Shifting Perspectives Throughout my life, the terms leadership and leader were synonymous. Being a leader was not something just anyone could do; it was not something I could do. People were born to lead and possessed innate competencies that others did not (Northouse, 2013). Leaders were the individuals who were voted into positions because of their inherent abilities, granting them formal authority and power (Heifetz, 2010). In essence, the trait approach dominated my

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY leadership worldview, which Ayman and Korabik (2010) aptly summarized as a laypersons

understanding of leadership (p. 161). Good leadership was reflected in leaders characteristics, not in their interactions with others, namely followers. I associated masculinity, confidence, and extraversion, leadership traits identified by Lord DeVader and Alliger (1986) and Zaccaro, Kemp, and Bader (2004; as cited in Northouse, 2013), with an effective leader. However, over time I saw the qualities associated with leadership as relatively subjective and in need of a contextual overlay. As I entered the professional world, my frame of reference shifted from the authoritydriven and trait-oriented impression I held of leadership. To be clear, authority, power, and position dominated the culture of the organization. Hierarchy ruled and credibility as a leader hinged upon the title associated with a position. Nevertheless, the environment served as a catalyst to reframe my perspective of leadership from positional and trait-based to a process that involves all vested parties, which is a viewpoint I continue to employ today. In my professional positions, I encountered and engaged with more traditional approaches and theories of leadership style, situational, path-goal, and leader-member exchange. Though the approaches and theories were described independently by Northouse (2013), I observed tenets of each in action simultaneously during my most recent corporate positions. Notably, leadership was often correlated with management, requiring leaders to enact stylistic and situational approaches to achieve results. Leaders were required to adapt their management style to meet the demands of various situations and the needs of a variety of individuals who each possessed distinct working styles (Northouse, 2013). Similarly, the utilization of elements from path-goal theory was omnipresent. To achieve the goal of

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY productivity, leaders continuously modified their management approach to address the motivational needs of employees (Northouse, 2013).

Finally, in-/out-groups found in the leader-member exchange theory served as an ongoing categorization mechanism across the companies. Those employees who aided leaders in achieving high productivity effectively were often found in the in-group. Unfortunately, ingroups were used in the most basic form, with leaders creating individual dyadic relationships. Leaders did not create high-quality interactions with all employees or other partners within the organization (Northouse, 2013). Further, they did not promote the development of dyadic relationships amongst employees; I found that the most successful team members were the ones who were able to create dyadic exchanges with all parties with whom they engaged. Frankly, I connected success with being part of the in-group as it knowingly resulted in a promotion and recognized leadership. However, entering the in-group and maintaining the status required incredible amounts of dedicated attention, which I found to be tiring. I understood, ultimately, that title did not represent leadership competence. Unfortunately, I experienced many toxic leaders who did not involve others in the advancement of the team but in fact were focused on exploiting peoples desire to belong. Eventually, I recognized that I was continuously finding myself in the same toxic situations, likely trying to prove to myself I was capable of overcoming the circumstances (Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Despite being ingrained in toxic leadership practice, I started to challenge poor leaders power and to question the legitimacy of the framework in which we were operating, finding it to be self-serving. Though I appreciated productivity and setting goals, I formulated a new personal philosophy of leadership that centered on working collaboratively toward a greater, common good.

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY A Refined Perspective Working toward a greater good was an abstract notion that I found difficult to immediately put into action. I wondered what it really meant to me and how it would be

incorporated into my leadership practice. In time, I determined that the greater good in my work was creating a cohesive team environment that supported and empowered each team member to be successful. Further, I knew that vision, ethical behavior, motivation, and effecting change were essential ingredients to achieving success. Notably, my leadership beliefs challenged the conventional-leader behavior occurring within my organization Synthesizing Three Models Though the abovementioned notion of leadership guided me through my leadership positions, I did not possess clear articulation of it; naturally, I encountered resistance, making it difficult to practice my atypical philosophy. However, this semesters course content has assisted me in naming my leadership values and confirming the validity of my views. In retrospect, my prior idea of leadership integrated behaviors indicative of team and transformational leadership (e.g., empowering, motivating, and advocating; Northouse, 2013). Further, my desire to work collectively to create positive change resembled components of the social change model (SCM; Cliente, 2009). These models contain useful elements that can be combined to create a multidimensional leadership approach that effectively represents my philosophy, and which also makes the theories more nuanced and actionable. I gravitate toward team leadership given its emphasis on interdependency and the sharing of goals (Northouse, 2013). Though the team model focuses attention to the leaders role, I find particular utility in its emphasis on helping the group to be effective. However, I diverge from the model because I view all participants as responsible for team effectiveness, not just a

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY

designated leader. To emulate my view of leadership as a collective process, all members should actively engage in assessing the team and determining what actions, if any, should be taken. Further, as a cohesive unit, all members must set standards of excellence, manage intergroup conflict, model ethical behavior, network across and beyond the organization, and advocate for the team (Northouse, 2013). I recognize that fostering a unified commitment to success takes effort. I also acknowledge that not all group members will have had equal preparation to contribute to the leadership process. However, according to Larson and LaFasto (1989), my inclusive process could aid in developing a collective identity that facilitates shared responsibility (as cited in Northouse, 2013). Arguably, accountability within the group leadership process could prompt more prepared individuals to coach others and cultivate their abilities to contribute. Of course, members developmental readiness will need to be considered so they are provided appropriate learning opportunities that advance their preparedness versus dissuade it (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009). Similar to the model of team leadership, transformational leadership centers on the leaders actions. However, I see the models concentration on motivating, empowering, and inspiring people to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them as a means to further construct a team setting (Northouse, 2013, p. 185). Akin to my views of team leadership, I believe all groups members should be vested in the transformational process, even if at varying degrees. Transformational leadership posits that solid values, as well as the ability to communicate a clear vision and establish trust, are essential to motivating others to succeed (Northouse, 2013). I consider these fundamental characteristics of all group members, not just a team leader. All parties should contribute to a collective vision and be responsible for creating trust with one another. Moreover, the entire team should employ Kouzes and Posners (2007)

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY exemplary leadership practices. All should model ethical values and behaviors, enable each other to act, and challenge the status quo, thereby creating change at micro (team) and macro (organizational) levels. However, to further emphasize achieving change, creating community, and promoting collaboration, my philosophy incorporates important parts of the SCM, which will be identified below. The SCM serves as a connective tissue in my view of leadership. The model advocates for creating positive change by means of collaboration and the sharing of values, parallel to the aforementioned tenets of team and transformational leadership (Cliente, 2009). Importantly, however, the model adds additional complexity to my leadership framework by specifically

defining leadership as a process that engages all participants in effecting change. Unlike team or transformational leadership, SCM does not emphasize positional leaders (Cliente, 2009). At its center, SCM involves the values of group, individual, and community that interact to reach change (Cliente, 2009; Wagner, 2009), all of which form core elements of my leadership philosophy. Additionally, the application of SCM is known as socially responsible leadership (SRL). SRL reinforces the element of community by asserting that the wellbeing of participants throughout the change process is an important concern (Wagner, 2009). Therefore, SCM operates as a bonding agent that reinforces key aspects of team and transformational leadership, while also highlighting the importance of involving all participants in order to realize change. Overlaying Social Identity and Justice Though collective in nature, using only three philosophies to support my vision of leadership is insufficient. With community, collaboration, and positive change at its core, the philosophy requires a deeper recognition of the diverse constituents involved in the process. Firstly, it is critical to remain cognizant that systems of power and oppression persist in society.

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY As a result, individuals from underrepresented groups have often not had their perspectives and approaches to leadership valued in a society dominated by male, White, and Western cultural norms (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Eagly & Chin, 2010; Kidwell, Willis, Jones-Saumty, & Bigfoot, 2007; Ospina & Foldy, 2009).

Secondly, in order to cultivate a cohesive group, any discontinuity within the group must be addressed. A unified vision and set of values require that the perspectives of all races, ethnicities, genders, socioeconomic levels, and sexual orientations, to name a few, present in a group are recognized and integrated accordingly. However, members never hold a single identity. Therefore to further reflect the richness of members worldviews, the intersection of their multiple identities and how they uniquely combine to create social realities must be considered (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). More importantly, as I engage with others in the leadership process, my identity serves as an interceding factor. Though aspects of my identity are oppressed in society, my White and male identities afford me certain privileges that I need to consider as I engage with diverse others. Finally, I think it is critical to acknowledge that systemic exclusion of certain groups of people presents challenges when one attempts to incorporate all perspectives in a multidimensional leadership process. Therefore, all members must be dedicated to affirming members unique perspectives and enabling their leadership self-efficacy (i.e., their belief in their abilities to lead). Day and Harrison (2007) asserted that effective leadership in groups cannot occur without an effective leader, which requires that leaders develop appropriate selfefficacy (as cited in Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Therefore, it is necessary that all individuals are cognizant of the importance of group diversity, especially since all participants are expected to contribute to the leadership process. Being dedicated to positive social change

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY involves a commitment to shifting perceptions about who can contribute to the leadership process and what perspectives are valued. In essence, I believe that participants are responsible

for empowering all perspectives and for advocating for social justice inside the group and within the organization. Practicing the Perspective One consideration for putting theory into practice is the importance of ethics. For example, pseudotransformational leaders, those who utilize charisma and motivation of others to a negative and self-serving end, represent the antithesis of ethical leadership (Northouse, 2013). I believe what leaders (i.e., all participants in the process) represent and how they conduct themselves are essential considerations when measuring ethical leadership (Northouse, 2013). Heifetz (1994) noted that since myriad values should be considered simultaneously, conflict between conceptions of what is moral may emerge quickly in a dynamic setting with various social cultures present (as cited in Northouse, 2013). As mentioned, including transformational leadership allows my leadership perspective to help participants shift to higher standards of ethical accountability. Moreover, my philosophy is centered on collective efforts to create change, thereby also reflecting the five ethical principles of leadership: respect others, serve others, show justice, manifest honesty, and build community (Northouse, 2013). All of these practices are essential in motivating a community toward achieving a greater good. As previously mentioned, this behavior is illustrative of a leader performing elements of all three models, which are founded on community and teamwork. A second important consideration for practicing an inclusive leadership philosophy is critical self-reflection. Preskill and Brookfields (2009) described critical reflection as ruminating in and on ones leadership practice. For my practice, I think it is pivotal to

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY understand how I contribute to the leadership process and how I enable others to contribute. Additionally, it is important for team members to use their critical reflection to alter their practice in light of new information regarding the dynamics of power (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009, p. 44). As members modify their behaviors, they might mitigate the negative influences power has on effective practice of inclusive leadership (e.g., reinforcing positional authority). Adjusting how I participate in the process to ensure that power is equally distributed and used positively to achieve a common goal would reflect the informed leadership actions noted in Preskill and Brookfield. Additionally, it is necessary to be mindful of how leadership participants identities may influence how they interact with power. As previously mentioned, many identity groups have been kept from engaging in leadership due to systems of power and oppression. Therefore, critical reflection must involve acknowledging how power has historically been concentrated in the few and has been used to limit justice and to deter community (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009). As I practice and advocate for my inclusive

10

philosophy of leadership, encouraging critical reflection by all involved will be a key component of the process to ensure that all perspectives are considered. Conclusion Ultimately, my view of leadership is a multidimensional and inclusive framework that advocates for community, collaboration, and change. It employs practical behaviors and actions (e.g., modeling the way) from three models, thereby providing utility in practice. The difficulty in applying theory to practice, however, is apparent when attempting to identify precisely how my leadership perspective will work. I believe, though, that the synthesized nature of my perspective provides a flexible way of thinking that can be utilized across various group situations. It is the adaptability of my philosophy that attracts me to it and leaves me confident

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY

11

that it can be applied successfully. More importantly, overlaying critical self-understanding and social perspectives elevates my philosophy and allows me to consider how my actions and identities interact with how I engage diverse others in the leadership process. As shared, my philosophy has evolved over time to represent a more inclusive leadership perspective. I expect it to continue to change as I acquire new knowledge and experiences, thereby reinforcing the flexible, multidimensional nature of my leadership practice.

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY References Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65, 157-170.

12

Cilente, K. (2009). An overview of the social change model of leadership development. In S. R. Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 43- 78). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York, NY: Routledge. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65, 216-224. Kidwell, C. S., Willis, D. J., Jones-Saumty, D., & Bigfoot, D. S. (2007). Feminist leadership among American Indian women. In J. L. Chin, B. Lott, J. K. Rice, & J. Sanchez-Hucles (Eds.), Women and leadership: Transforming visions and diverse voices. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians and how we can survive them. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY Machida, M., & Schaubroek, J. (2011). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in leadership development. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 459-468.

13

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2009). A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature: Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 876-896. Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S. D. (2009). Learning as a way of leading: Lessons from the struggle for social justice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sanchez-Hucles, J., & Sanchez, P. (2007). From margin to center: The voices of diverse feminist leaders. In J. L. Chin, B. Lott, J. K. Rice, & J. Sanchez-Hucles (Eds.), Women and leadership: Transforming visions and diverse voices. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Wagner, W. (2009). What is social change? In S. R. Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 7- 42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.