There are 2 separate discussions for this assignment. Each discussion needs to be ONE PAGE each a minimum of 300 words per discussion answer on it’s own page. With 3 reference sources each discussion I am only allowed so many attachments to describe the project. So, once the project is accepted. I will send more attachments to complete the discussion answers. Week 1 Discussion 1 What leaders really do! Respond to the following statement by Peter Senge: “The organizations that will truly excel in the future will be the organizations that discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels of the organization” (Senge, 2006, p.4). Required reading: Week 1: Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Revised and updated. Currency Doubleday. Read Part One, Chapters 1-2, Chapter 12, 15. Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World. Berrett Koehler. Chapter 9, Chapters 1-3 Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Miller, M., & Fleming, A. (2014). Making business personal. Harvard Business Review. Access through NU Online Library. Systems thinking summary: https://hbr.org/2014/04/making-business-personal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo3ndxVOZEo Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2017, October 26). The value of systems thinking [Video]. YouTube. [10:09] Dialogue Guidelines – Word Document (14.6 KB) Attachment 1 is the discussion board rubric Attachment #2 seems to be an article that is needed to answer Discussion 1 Attachment # 3 is Something that can help with both Discussions 1 and 2. Now onto Werk Discussion #2 Leadership as a Process, not a Position Summarize your viewpoint on the statement: “There are no good leaders, only good leadership.” Required WEEK 1 LECTURES: Week One Lectures “An intellectual is something more: a person concerned critically with values, purposes, ends that transcend immediate practical needs. By this definition the person who deals with analytical ideas and data alone is a theorist; the one who works only with normative ideas is a moralist; the person who deals with both and unites them through disciplined imagination is an intellectual” (James Burns, 1978). Where do mental models emerge from, especially those that seem to create distorted views of leadership? Senge (2006) argues that new ideas, new insights fail because they get into conflict with deeply held internal images of how the world works as we cling to the familiar ways of thinking and acting. Consider the Ladder of Inference. How do assumptions interfere with learning? What actions support learning–knowing that assumptions are ever-present in our deeply held values, in our mental models of how things work? Ladder of Inference – PDF Document (560.4 KB) Machiavellianism In answering the question of whether it is better to be loved than feared, Machiavelli, in 1513, wrote, “The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.” As Machiavelli asserted, commitments made in peace are not always kept in adversity, however, commitments made in fear are kept out of fear. However, a prince must ensure that he is not feared to the point of hatred, which is very possible. Above all, Machiavelli argued, do not interfere with the property of the subjects, their women, or the life of somebody without proper justification. Regarding the troops of the prince, fear is absolutely necessary to keep a large garrison united and a prince should not mind the thought of cruelty in that regard. For a prince who leads his own army, it is imperative for him to observe cruelty because that is the only way he can command his soldiers’ absolute respect. Machiavelli compares two great military leaders: Hannibal and Scipio. Although Hannibal’s army consisted of men of various races, they were never rebellious because they feared their leader. Scipio’s men, on the other hand, were known for their mutiny and dissension. Of course, there is not a helpful analysis of whether or not this was true, but the purpose of this anecdote is to surface the origins of mental models of leadership, and so far in this article, a western world view. The study of leadership progressed to analyzing individuals in positions of authority and power to better understand what they did in order to lead successfully. Many of these earlier studies assumed that leaders possessed certain traits which made them natural leaders such as intelligence, height, attractive appearance, usually Caucasian, and a member of the elites within the dominant population. This view of leadership is sometimes referred to as the giant surrounded by pygmies because of its view of the superiority of one individual leader. Former models of organizational leadership Traits and Behaviors This approach to leadership includes the belief that not only do certain traits create a great leader but also the right behaviors would also cause a leader to be effective. Indeed many management and leadership consultants alike continue to promote an understanding of certain behaviors as the key to making an effective leader. Trait theory evolved to include dimensions of personality as well as physical attributes such as “a people person” or charisma. Frequently this type of understanding of leadership produced those in positions of authority that created a dependency on their superiority in order to be effective. Because much of the US was immersed in heavy authority laden top-down hierarchical organizations, this theory was dominant because of that organizational design and structure. Great Man Theory Leaders are born, not made. (Perhaps both are true.) “A leadership perspective that sought to identify the inherited traits leaders possessed that distinguished them from people who were not leaders” (Daft, 2005). Formal authority. Authority is not a substitute for leadership. The study of leadership progressed to analyzing individuals in positions of authority and power to better understand what they did in order to lead successfully. Many of these earlier studies assumed that leaders possessed certain traits which made them natural leaders such as intelligence, height, attractive appearance, usually Caucasian and a member of the elites within the dominant population. This view of leadership is sometimes referred to as the giant surrounded by pygmies because of its view of the superiority of one individual leader. Trait theory evolved to include dimensions of personality as well as physical attributes such as “a people person” or charisma. Frequently this type of understanding of leadership produced those in positions of authority that created a dependency on their superiority in order to be effective. Because much of the US was immersed in heavy authority laden top-down hierarchical organizations, this theory was dominant because of that organizational design and structure. Stogdill in 1948 conducted an extensive review of literature on leadership studies based on trait theory. He looked at over 100 studies and identified those traits that seemed consistent with successful leadership. Stogdill identified traits such as general intelligence, self-confidence, drive for success, responsibility etc. He also indicated that these traits were connected to situational factors and did not ensure success explicitly. Leadership Theories based on the sole actor model. The model is based on formal authority and begins to “inch” towards leadership as a process. If the single actor in authority is flawed with shadows or narcissism the model is irrelevant. Leadership Theories begin to move….. Situational Theories Situational leadership theories include a popular model published by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in the late 1960’s. Situational Leadership includes a model utilized to determine what approach may be effective depending on the readiness of the followers determining the approach needed by the leader. A major criticism of Situational Leadership Theory is if the leader does not interpret the situation adequately, the approach may be flawed. The approach may not fully make use of leadership throughout the organization due to its focus on an individual leader versus the development of leadership. See also: Situational Leadership Theory Situational.com This graphic depiction is from: Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Progress to Post Industrial Leadership Transformational Leadership James McGregor Burns seminal work titled Leadership was published in 1978 and won a Pulitzer Prize for his thorough work on the detailed take on leadership throughout the last few centuries until today. Burns argues that leadership as an influence process. Burns stated: “Transforming leadership . . . occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality” (Burns, 1978, p. 20). It is this key understanding of influence with motivation and morality that distinguishes Transformational Leadership theory as unique and significant for the understanding of leadership. Joseph Rost in Leadership for the 21st Century (1991), emphasizes that leadership is a relationship between leaders and followers. Rost also commented on Transactional and Transformational approaches to leadership. According to King (1994) “Rost offers a new definition for leadership and explains the four essential elements of his new definition. He defines leadership as ‘an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.’ He believes the dynamic interaction between leaders and followers has been greatly overlooked. Also crucial to his new definition is the importance of ethics within the process of leadership.” Consider this quote by Rost concerning the work of Burns (1978): “But, again, it becomes quite clear as one reads the 400+ pages of Burns’ 1978 book that the intended changes also have moral values, for good or for evil, and transforming leadership equates with good moral values. Transactional leadership does not require good moral values, and that is one of the major differences in the two forms of leadership Burns developed.” (Rost, 2005, listserve communication) Noted authors on Leadership as a relationship: Joseph Rost Jean Lipman-Blumen Kouzes and Posner Mary Uhl-Bien Read the following article: Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676. Uhl-Bien etc, Rost Post Industrial Leadership Leadership is A Process Current approaches to leadership theory include the understanding that leadership is a process not a person. Dr. Terri Monroe frequently states that “There are no good leaders, only good leadership.” The view of leadership as a complex process throughout the organization and the systems of organizations is increasingly relevant as we shift from a post-industrial era to a knowledge economy and frequent change. No longer can a top-down authoritarian paradigm be successful in times of frequent, rapid change, uncertainly and globalization. Increasingly there is a need to understand issues or adaptive challenges differentiated from technical challenges (Heifetz, 1994). Leaders have long operated in an industrial economy and were successful at adopting management practices that operated with a mechanistic view of organizational structures and culture. Leadership theories evolve in order to become effective in a dynamic and unpredictable world. Heifetz and Laurie’s (1996; 2001) work on The Real Work of Leadership provides excellent insight to what leadership does: identifying adaptive issues and mobilizing people to do the work. This view is quite different from the leader identifying a problem and delegating work. Mobilizing people involves both functions of authority (similar to management) and leadership that asks the tough questions that nobody wants to discuss and then creates an environment where people can find the solutions. The leader does not have the answer and would be headed for failure to allow the organization to think he/she does. People may be disappointed that the leader has not provided a solution and has instead turned around only to ask more tough questions. Recommended Reading for Week 1. Which could help answer both Discussions 1 & 2: This article explores the need for collaboration, transparency, and 21st Century Leadership–even though resistance continues. Volini, E., Schwartz, J., Roy, I., Hauptmann, M., Van Durme, Y., Denny, B., & Bersin, J. _2019, April 11_. Leadership for the 21st century: The intersection of the traditional and the new. Deloitte. Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers, Belknap Press. Heifetz, R. and Linsky, M. (2017). Leadership on the Line: staying alive through the dangers of change. Harvard Business Review Press.