Evolution of Leadership Theory

my name is deep koala um I have Bruce SCADA as my partner here and we both had a panelist today today our webinar is about evaluation of leadership theory before I introduce our Speaker I would like to go over some logistics so during the webinar have any question you can type your question on the right panel under the Christensen and we will miss all your pens after a webinar during the Q and a session that is the last 15 minutes of the webinar so webinar is from 6 to 7 and let me introduce today's speaker Jeff is a principal with Firefly consulting he has over 25 years as a result oriented advisor with extensive experience consulting in all areas of organizational transformation and process innovation jeff has demonstrated expertise in Six Sigma design lean change management reengineering as well as strategic and performance planning Jeff has successfully deployed process improvement and design initiatives in global logistic distribution chemical financial services semiconductor construction materials industrial automation medical manufacturing combat operations and service companies ranging from 40 million to 40 billions in annual revenue Jeff holds a PhD in leadership studies then MBA ecommerce and yes in management of information system and he is a senior member of asq so let me welcome Jeff if this is your time please all right thanks defect or just a welcome everyone has come to listen to listen to this discussion this evening I hope you'll find something interesting as we go through I know that over the past 25 plus years that I've had the peripheral study of the concept of leadership it never ceases to amaze me just what we do and don't know about the concept so some of the things that I wanted to kind of give you a little bit back on what we're going to talk about is we do a quick introduction I wanted to kind of get around this whole concept around leadership and management roles and positions and how we have unpacked this concept of leadership over the past several 150 close to 200 years that we've been really focusing on some of the some of the concepts around it will take a little bit of a look we'll talk about behaviors and situations and different styles and what happens to a leader and followers as we kind of go through this whole thing and then while there are hundreds and hundreds of models and theories and philosophies around that we you know just don't have the time nor would you have the patience to listen sit and listen to all that so we'll kind of take a little bit of a pick and choose some of these ones that I've been closely associated with over the years and take a look at some of the pros and cons as we kind of do so just to kind of give you a little bit more background around how I came to kind of get interested in this concept of leadership is I spent 20 years eleven days and 15 minutes in the Air Force and was part of the first group as early minds as we started rolling out TQM and was later then became you know kind of Six Sigma before six-second was cool and as we started looking at different organizations within within the Air Force and within the army and some of the joint service areas every time we started having some issues with deployments and we started having problems with trying to get the point across and trying to figure out what is it that's causing us to not be able I mean all of this just makes perfect sense so why are we having problems getting with getting these concepts deployed and almost as if it was like a yellow card in soccer it was well it's a leadership issue if we only had good leaders boy this would all be great so but okay that fine we have a leadership issue in the military this was the late 90s as I was kind of getting my last last few years in once I left that I started working in industry and I started hearing the same thing gosh if we only had good leaders if we only you know the leadership issue what are we going to do so I did like everybody else who's confused about a concept I went out and got a PhD on the subject so I can tell you definitively while I clean my glasses trying to look professor at all that leadership is not at all easy to understand there are I mean just just for us it if you go out and you know those of you keeping track at home if you just move what is a leader you're going to get about 52 million different things that tell you hey this is what a leader is if you take and just expand that just slightly to what is leadership you can see you know about 74 million results so you know it's not surprising that there's a lot of confusion over what is you know what is this thing we call leadership and just even make it more succinct that in about the last 60 years we've come up with about 65 different classification systems all purport to say we understand what leadership is and here it is and then we roll on to the next one coming from an academic / scholarly / Research kind of background now there's tons of philosophical discussions out there and there's tons of folks who over time you know going back to you know the Odyssey and the Iliad who have explaining leaders and what leaders should do but what we're talking about more and you can see that as you go through history there's been a lot of discussion about what a leader is and what leader should do usually it kind of comes from some frustration with where the current thinking is or the current leadership or monarchy or clergy or etc where they are as far as what they are what they're doing and what they should be so you know over time we've started to try to codify and solidify and kind of look at the different pieces and chunks and study bits and from that you know if we roll into and we're going to jump waste fast forward into the late 1800s and we'll start looking at as we kind of go this little snapshot if you will really the initial work in looking at what is leadership really only focused at men in leadership position so they looked at that and they said well you know this is what a leader is the first the first individuals I kind of talked about it were researchers they were people who had an opinion and they wrote that down and they sent it into the wild and everybody went okay I kind of works and you know so they started with that and then by the early nineteen hundred's just we people started asking people when I say people people who research this or scholars and people to look at it started asking well if these are what great leaders look like what made them sell and one of the things that we've kind of seen as you kind of go through here is as we develop the new theory and as we started taking that theory and advancing it and even when we come up with new theories we never put the old theories away so we just keep adding to and adding to and keeps cutting and keep studying and keep rearranging and keep taking it apart and going on so in those early nineteen hundred's we started questioning well these are what made it but what makes them a man a good leader then and I said that on purpose then you know they started questioning is it certain traits that are inheriting this individual or are there certain characteristics we'll talk more about that if you kind of go along and then around the mid 1900s we started saying well gosh is it years is leaders and leadership different and started to gray in the concept of followers and once that started bringing in other concepts and other pieces like that it really started to explode we started questioning roles and started questioning position we then tried to get rid of can we can we tease out the concept of management to get that out of the concept of leader and leadership and how do we all do that with the power versus influence basically what we did over the past 150 years was to take this concept like an old transfer a ssin formula and say okay if this is leadership what is it composed of and how do we measure and how do we get our arms around these different pieces and how do we look at it and how do we tease out it its little fundamentals so we can exclude everything that isn't leadership and look just that that one peek and so as you can see we started looking a lot around relationship between followers we started bringing that term into it and saying you know the lead versus the leader and so you know in some cases that this whole concept could be defined of the process and or a transaction which as a process guy made that's kind of happy because we could now take a look at it from that standpoint and then people started saying well we did a more holistic approach and started looking at different this whole continuum and then emphasis on the betterment of the followers and that's kind of where the end of the end of the nineteen hundred round up and as we started looking into the early 2000 some new concepts started started coming out of that and we started bringing in values and ethics and morals I mean these are orrible qualities for leaders to have so we started looking at those kinda things and we're starting now to advance those discussions so that's just a quick snapshot it's kind of some of the things we're going to talk about kind as we run through and take a little bit more in depth um on a couple these different topics as we move through so a lot of those studies and a lot of the academic literature from before World War two is sure not to be kind of a pivotal moment in the u.s. for the study of leaders and leadership we're more focused on the characteristic of the person themselves after World War two we started breaking a connection again between leaders and leadership and then you know that's carried us through for quite a while and then now we're starting to see kind of a melding of omitting so we took it apart and now we're starting to put it back together in different ways and looking at different conditions and different concepts and pieces and one of the things that I've always found most interesting is if you ask anybody to define either everybody has a definition put five people in the room you'll get at least six definitions and those definitions have really if you think about it have kind of changed over time many of them as it looks and so you see things like back in the early 1920s where this whole idea of leadership is the ability to impress the will leader upon those who are led to do so vidiots which is a very interesting definition that kind of says I'm the leader and I'll tell you what to do and you go do it and everything will be happy happy and now you can see this in many corporations you can see this in many organizations you can see this culturally you'd see it in different industries companies although some things that there is the stock that you know I'm I am the smart one I will tell you what to do and my job as a leader is to induce obedience which is fine but there are some problems with that in that it's kind of harder to teach and it's kind of hard to develop and you wind up with this whole thing around is that really good or is it good for the leader do you see ones that are a little more up-to-date and this one particularly is one of my one of my favorites and one but I use quite a bit as I talk to different groups about this theory in concept is that it's a process you know and we use influence and you know it's not groups and the cheap common goals and one of the things that I like a lot about some of these things it takes the requirement to be in the leader position out of the equation whereby you know a small group even of a group leader you start seeing the process of emergent leadership starting to show up where and it's a process where it has a beginning it has an init and you know what we're using influence and not induced obedience anyway to obtain and then the part I think is probably the most or the most beneficial and kind of looking at these kinds of definition is around this concept of achieving a common goal you know I like in this back anybody who's ever played on a successful sports team you know if you think of that coach as the leader you know there was a process where you know everybody knew their part and there was a common goal and we all work together to achieve that common goal there was a vision and groups within that you know whether they be despairing groups all understood what it was that we as a group we're trying to do in previous definitions and like the one about you see that as being it's my vision and you're going to go get it for me and you can kind of see where that whole inclusiveness and a process and kind of fall a little by the wayside the other piece of this is again being a process guy just a little bit easier for me to understand and try to get my get my brain around so with that one of the first theories that kind of started the whole discussion around formalizing the work in the study of leadership and this one a lot of scholars say we really don't even consider this up one of the theories because there was absolutely no academic research it's just this gentleman Tom Carlyle Scottish writer and said hey guys you got to believe it great leaders or god-gifted they're not man-made you can't you know you can't expect you know you couldn't teach Julius Caesar Alec side of the greater eighties great leaders you couldn't teach them to be great leaders they just work and probably about 20 years later in keeping with good academic rigor uh another gentleman by the name Arabic Spencer said no you're you're wrong and so it started this whole discussion around is it are they a product of their times or they was alter the social condition you know is it that the situation created the leader or the leader created the situation a lot of interesting things happening back you know between the 1800s and early 1900s when they weren't worried about World War one bubonic plague big stuff like that that we were finally able to kind of look at well let's just write about it and we'll produce more of our opinion around this whole concept of leadership and primarily what they did was they with the clergy politicians they looked at the loyalty and they said well see these are great leaders you couldn't you couldn't make this stuff up you couldn't you couldn't teach these people to be great leaders as we go through so a couple the coke pros and cons on the great man theories was kind of hard to argue you know they see there is a great leader okay must be the great man theory the downside is there's kind of no research really hard to teach and there was no real good definition of what a good leader looked like it was all in the opinion with people doing the writing and so again as somebody that likes to look at data and look at you know facts and look at examples and kind of those guys it makes it hard to get around that and say well okay that's interesting so then probably around the early 1930s more research and more people started kind of looking at this concept and this is where we started seeing where they took those great men concepts and said okay what was it about them that made them good leaders so we still focused on people in leadership positions still believe they were you know born to be leaders but better leaders were better with these types of traits it kind of makes sense and again this these theories don't die and they didn't disappear you still see a lot of you know anybody that wants to spend an afternoon doing you know driving their brain insane jump onto Google Scholar and just start googling up the academic research or the research papers on any one of the theories that will talk about it you'll see stuff spanning you know thousands and thousands of pages of interesting studies and research that have gone on looking at different pieces and chunks of this so when I say by the late forties and then on 370 they started identifying some other things they also conceptually the concept of situation starting to creep into the discussion if a couple of the researchers notice that she you know in this situation a leader with this trade that group tended to fare better what better was was hard to describe but they kind of fared a little better then in other groups in another situation not so much so they kind of expanded one of the things I liked a little bit here well you know they started expanding who they considered to be great leaders so we added in you know names like captain the great Joan of Arc and dinner Gandhi even Napoleon showed up as hey let's take a look at these leaders and let's start taking a look more what their trade poor and then started looking at then that discussion around follower came into play and there's the situation that the leader and the followers get themselves in how does that impact what sort of pairings of that allies and then they started talking about hmm maybe we're not talking about traits but we're talking about the characteristics of leadership and how do we get behind those and how can we kind of model does the unfortunate part was they really didn't come up with a whole lot of commonality you can see in one group Wildeve 100 they said you know what the big things that make a great leader a great leader are number one their intelligence their men and their dominating domineering okay those sound good again hard to teach little bias towards men but okay there they are Stahl's is a little bit more expansive in that included you know things like alertness and persistence and self-confidence and then you kind of see late in this area lately as they started walking through these things they started saying gosh you know are we really talking about traits are we talking about characteristics now again potato picado how do you you know are we just taking traits and mailing two of them together and call them in a characteristic there's a lot of debate that goes around on that and you start asking the questions like well great any one of these is good but how do you measure these things if I put in fine and said okay you know on a scale of one to ten how smart is smart okay do we go purely by IQ how do you measure masculinity dominance I'm sure there's probably thing but over time we started to see a couple of different tools and instruments start showing what that are part of the leadership great questionnaires that are starting to come out that have been out for Washington that you kind of say well here's how I feel about this and you look like a 360 kind of assessment they kind of put together right kind of a profile that says well here here are the traits you just you think you have and here are the traits your people think you have which can be eye-opening to some and concern to others so that was begin the work that we started saw on Kerry theory so some of the pros and cons around trait through look hey it's appealing and kind of fits what we think of leaders is the other piece too there's about a hundred years or research behind it so you know it's got a lot of good academic rigor and research measures measurements normalizing data and predictive and all good sort of stuff that goes on in academia and it also gives us kind of a benchmark of what to look for so you want to be a leader these are the traits you need to you need to have I can start as an individual start saying well gosh you know I'm kind of low on that hold dominance thing so I guess I better work on that and you know you can kind of look at some of these other things and go in there some of the downside after a hundred years of research we really don't have a list everybody says what's different things which okay fine we academics tend to do that a lot the other thing is it you play to not necessarily take the situation into account they looked at the person they decided that this is the person we want look at we're going to take go through and look at their traits we're going to use those to create an instruments that were then going to go use to qualify this as a how do you rate against these traits on this great leader so again don't take the situation and those the other pieces are getting taken look at the link between what we would call the traits or characteristics in this case and the outcomes of the leader I did I can tell you in kind of a sidebar looking at the outcomes when it comes to leadership has been another discussion what is what does good leadership produce talk amongst yourselves it's one of those things that it's it has become hard to say what what is good and what has good accomplished you might have tried to measure that has come into this has run into that problem at some point and in their discussions so all that intrigue aside we can roll into the post-world War two which is kind of a watershed at least in the u.s. as far as trying to understand what we saw and what things worked and didn't work because some of the research started at that point at that point looking at the effectiveness of those that were being led and one of the bigger names in in you can see number of books and want to research by James McGregor Burns was someone who was actually a combatant during World War two and he began to realize that even in ordinary unit where there were no officers there were no people in leadership position those fighting units were more effective in the absence of the officers and he started kind of doing some research and start looking around say you know like I think the historians having exaggerated the role and have ignored what the people that were being led were able to accomplish when they started working as a team and started coming together understanding a common you know go back to that noir house definition of a common vision and what could happen when people the common vision get a trope so there was a huge amount of research and probably the from a you know those of us who study this concept we kind of 0 a lot back to a set of studies and a lot of research done by Ohio State and University of Michigan and independently as they started looking at leaders throughout you know trade theory and some of the great man theory and then some of the stuff they were seeing as a result of leadership within world war 2 and over 1 etc they started noticing that you know what what they're seeing is there needs to be a balance in the concern for those being led and a concern for getting the job done that when there was a balance between these two pieces that the success and again they you know again it's hard to measure what do we mean by successful in this case they are talking about you know or the fighting is being successful and other organizations and they took this theory and expanded it throughout other other areas so it's better to say you know what there's this kind of seesaw teeter-totter if you will that says I need to take care of my people but I need to get the job done and so when do I make my trade-offs as somebody in the leadership as the leader of this group how do i balance that and there were a great number there and there continue to be a great number of models and research that take a look at this and say you know underneath all of it we've got to go back to this this balance of concern for the follower and concern for the mission and this is when the leadership behavior then became contingent on that situation what's going on and how do I then balance these two pieces and more that research showed that there's really not one leadership style and many of us can you know a tribute to seeing in the past we're about with a leadership style was very very successful but then they move them to another place that had a different situation they cratered horribly because it's got to be this understanding that there's no one style and there's no one situation and it's an ever evolving back and forth between the two while and here we're starting to get away from this leader versus management position versus role but we haven't really completely broken those two links so we can kind of set those four things aside and study them in the connect and a lot of the a lot of good models and a lot of good predictive models and a lot of good research came out during these time frame all the way up into today and this is still situational consider these behavioral theories are still you know still pretty well in place today and they've got tons of research and support and in fact there are a couple models which I'll show here in a little bit that have just mean everybody's seen them just about own almost all organizations have in some way or another kind of use them in their leadership development or their management developer discussions but we started seeing again about this time some of the movement away from a person to more of a conceptual role and then also being able to split out this here's the things the leaders do and here's the things managers do and while you'll never find you know while we talk about them and somewhat mutually exclusive discussions I've yet to meet somebody who was 100 percent 1 or 100 percent the other in regardless of what arena we tend to be in we tend to have to have we tend to see that we contain both a leadership and a management role I know in industry when we work with different groups that are different teams you know you'll have a team well they'll be that index I in that team leader there will be people who will take that mantle of team leader and they're going to have the the kind of the obligation to establish the vision make sure everybody understands the motivation the inspiration piece but yet at the same time I add that team leader I've got to make sure that all these other things the planning organization get the right people all this sort of stuff has to make sure but now from being a purely thick glasses overstuffed chair brandy snifter discussion standpoint once I'm able to get those two things you know tease apart nicely I can go laughs here and look at what is it that I do as a leader to do these to do these things what behaviors what sort of pieces do I bring to the table from this work and from north very similar there's two models which I'm pretty sure if you haven't seen them you probably will at some point in your career and this is a Blake and Mouton their leadership grid and then the Hershey and Blanchard leadership curve these two have probably been the most trained the most taught the most discussed of saying hey I gotta balance this people concern you can see that in the Blake and Mouton very clearly you know yeah I've got to have a concern for the people and the concern for the mission concern for the task and if I don't get this right in you know in the appropriate place you can see where you might have some issues that you know is it and you can see again that you know how do I help do I you know high emphasis on the people but low in facility tasks oh gosh the people are gonna be added we're not getting anything done you know the other end is I don't care about the people who's just get things done so you can kind of see and maybe you can go back to some situations where kind of felt like you were getting beat over the head you're not quite sure why okay I see what's going on there was a lot more concern about getting the getting this whatever done there was about making sure that everybody understood what it was about just gotta get out there more focus on the obedient side another one the pursing Blanchard's I got it what my personal favorite because it's really complex and it's scary to look at and the thing I like about it is one of the one of the pieces I like is it brings the development of a leader in third sorry the development of the follower into play and starts to look at gee you know if you're if you're new and you don't know what you're doing and you know you're you're willing you know you're not sure well then as a leader I have a quantum that old G that my interaction with you my relationship with you as a person as somebody that's in this group within this sphere of my influence I need to be a little bit more guiding and directing to help you gain that confidence and get you moving along so that you can get up to where your your monetary leve you know you're a little better on the scale you're moreover that and kind of help understand that different people because we talk about you know you need to understand your followers but your followers will be at different points in their development and as a leader you need to understand that and you need to start saying okay I need to treat Joe different than I treat Betty and I need to treat so-and-so better than because there are different points in their continuum all sounds good great where I where I've witnessed in different organizations a lot of angst is when the follower and the leader don't agree that they're in the same quadrant already different subject altogether but if I'm treating me as if you're down on the low end and you think you're up I am we're going to fight so again it's a model all models are useful stop typing all models have problems some are useful we go into that and that's probably one of the ones that if again I think this one we've seen it in about 400 of the Fortune 500 as models that fill into the whole leadership discussion so one of the things that comes out of the discussion on you know the situational approach to leaders is you've got a couple of choices you know leadership style needs to change to fit the situation that makes sense leadership style needs to change to fit the followers make sense as well or we change the situation to fit the leader or change the followers and as a old chief petty officer and maybe friend of mine used to say we had two choices we could change people or change people and so you know it kind of says we have to look at situation followers the people the skills the you know the all of this has to be in the next as we start looking at what requiring what is required of a leader a certain point the drawback I knew the drawback that I've seen with some of these approaches and you probably seen it in some of your organizations is number one this requires that the leader now wait for it actually has to get to know their followers so they've got to understand what motivates them you know intrinsically they got to understand you know what their goals what their needs what their desires you need to understand you need to go out like actually talk to their people and not just walk through every once a while shake their hand Tom they're doing a good job and move on when I've looked when I've had the when I worked in organizations that I would say we're not taught not culturally we tend to see these kind of issues around leadership is they have no idea or they don't spend a lot of time understanding their people they have this kind of you know spray-and-pray mentality that just says well I just treat everybody the same black will be good so in some cases this has been an area where getting to know people having a relationship actually communicating is all kind of key components to this content above and beyond understanding style behavior and situation so in looking at these we've got a couple of pros and cons major shift from traits to the focus on the behavior so let's get away from the person let's talk about what that person does they'll talk about how they how what observable behavior can I see that would tell me that they have these things in mind so there is a huge amount of research to support these again kind of crunch behaviors situational contingency Theory lots of them a lot of focus on the task that's underhand so the situation where we find ourselves or in a crisis situation are we maintenance situation are we a growth situation what's what are we what situation and the relationship between the leader and the lad again these have been used in tons of different organizations as kind of models of leadership and the pro here is it stresses the leader must learn their followers and adjust their style according in some of the cons you can see those outcome again we really haven't determined what's the best style and for the Blake and Mouton it kind of implies that high task high relationship is the best and I've seen some organizations that I've had to work and said you know we're not going to be happy until everybody is in that very highest quadrant then they're on a they're at nine by nine on the scale so as you wear a high task we're really focused and we're really high relationship I don't know as you can sustain that kind of level of effort for a long term without burning out both the followers and and they'll get here so it's again you've got to look at it as a some kind of discussion around how how much do we need to make this work would be key with the exception of the end of some extent with the I appreciate on pursing Blake there's still some ambiguity around the followers development how much you know where does where is the line between the 1 and the 2 and the between the four the other piece here is always been a good argument against situational and contingencies areas doesn't really address it fully addresses fully but when I want but not group leadership if I'm the leader of 500 people is it really but you know possible for me to really understand and get to know every single one of them a good argument I mean I can see that are you but it does look at smaller more the one-on-one so we're going to start getting into some of the things here in a few minutes around you know we started hurting this is transactional versus transformational theories and this is hurting big us into the we started seeing this I don't know mid-60s you know probably production of the San Francisco and we'll 816 with this whole transformational studying thing but what we saw was you know the transactional pieces more of management of people so we started brot management back into it so elements like supervision performance and all these were and we're all brought in but we looked at it in from kind of a continuum we saw it as active and passive role as this transaction between a leader and a follower and there was a lot of studies and a lot of them look at that that relationship this is okay look if you do this I'll give you this so very much a contract around but from a leader standpoint I still had to know what what would make you what was intrinsically motivating you so that I can make sure that as we move together up that continue you are getting what you need and I was getting what I need so again I'm still looking at the concern for the person concern for the for the task but I'm doing it with you know kind of a little bit of you know Rick reward kind of relationship and so there's an exchange and there's actually a fairly reasonable instrument for looking at the leader member exchange that kind of that says well you know how much of this do you need to get how much of that do I need so it's how that and I said well you know that's pretty good but let's talk about engaging and motivating and going back to that whole discussion of vision and how do I get you to buy into this vision so they becomes a common set a common goal that we have and then how do i as a leader start actively and positively transforming you to make you better tomorrow than you were today I actually had a box for a period of time that he said his job was to make us more marketable tomorrow than we were today to make us better individual performers you've been others leaders excited excited as we move forward and to not get upset when other departments would come poach at is apartment because his job was to grow people and make them better and he would see them out through the organization and the organization was better for it and he was constantly turning doing this and I had to kind of I always come back to that when I talk about the transformation was wondering in my mind is very much in that in that role so one of the things that I decide to do with gosh you know what if you have ten different pieces let's put them all together in one big model because why why should we have ten little models when one giant one would be good so they put it on this kind of a leadership continuum if you will but start it off down here you can see at the bottom with kind of the transactional side more the way they fare management-by-exception so if you've ever had a manager who sits around and waits for you to make a mistake and then clobbers you that's kind of where that's coming from or if they don't wait for you to make a mistake but they predict when you're going to and clobber you a headache on that's more of the active role versus the passive role what do you kind of see that can be you know carrot and stick kind of beat you into submission so no leadership at all don't they they're kind of doing this management-by-exception both active passive and then getting into contingent reward theories which is purely you do this and I'll do this you make 100 I'll give you an hour you make 200 I'll give you a dollar so more contingent you reward on that purely transactional tons of good research around those I look at I'm not for some I'm oversimplifying a lot of it but then we start looking at in feeding be more active side of this where the leader has to be a little more active and understanding the followers around him and looking at that again kind of as a continuum it doesn't mean that everybody is going to lace up the top of this ladder but all leaders aren't going to race up the top ladder but looking at the leaders concerned for the followers and acts more like a coach then you know kind of that I'm going to help you be successful you have this project or you're on this role what do you need from me and how can I help you and how do I help guide you it's it's your problem I'm not going to solve it for you but let's work together to solve this problem I can see where we can kind of make you better here we cannot work on those areas and it's really kind of looking at that coach mentality and then the next level as we look at transforming people and making them better is giving people the intellectual stimulation really encourage that creativity right they ask a lot of questions they don't give a lot of answers more Socratic but kind of say a but let's play with this idea do you know what do you think which in many cases will not talk to different groups and to what do you think they like look at me kind of crazy like you're supposed to tell us you guys know more about your job that I ever will so tell me what you think and start playing with ideas and being creative and we move up that inspirational motivation describing the vision helping people get kind of turned on by the idea of doing this and looking through there and the whole area around idolised influence and looking at this as kind of how do we grow people as we kind of get through that so kind of looking at the pros from the transactional side get a good framework shows you know this whole thing how would I do with Lex you transaction why's that a practical intuitively make sense you do this I know I'll be this if you do this God might have been again is a whole thing around written motivation intrinsic extrinsic expectancy Theory all SS incredibly complex stuff and hard to get your brain around so yes make sense on one side hard to make sense on the other side the other piece around that to the transformational side widely researched nicely appealing everyone wants to be better off for the for the for the opportunity and then research has shown that there is some effectiveness around it the other side team again is there's a lot of concepts that are hard that are not clear that are not really clear now vision how do you measure that how do you measure trust how do you measure motivation they're difficult to define everybody's got an idea but we kind of have a hard time trust and faith most kind of concepts gets hard to deal with this one strays back into personality traits of leaders when we're not will not kind of kind of we're not paying attention and then sort of implies with that continuum that there's one best way which not necessarily case so you kind of want to put a bit of a wrap on what's going on now well as we kind of moved into the 21st century we had really good research on a lot of those things all the way up through that full range models transformation run on research lot of studies people look at this a thousand ways from Sunday so as we go past that last piece we started looking at okay what's coming up and right now we've been seeing a lot of research or a lot of writing now don't confuse writing and books and research and theories and probability I always say I can tell how confusing the subject is by going to a bookstore and looking at how many linear feet are devoted to the subject so there's a lot of linear feet of books on leadership and a lot of it's nice philosophical writing and some of the things that we're starting to see come out now or things like this authentic leadership but kind of a result of things like 9/11 the instability role calm in wrong we call these financial scandals stuff like that so people said well gosh you know that was a failures of leadership what's the you know the reciprocal what are the won over that and said you know well people the authenticity of the leader needs to be really focused and you know really putting things like morals and values and transparency or stuff like that so you're starting to see a lot of books and theories and some research there's not a ton of research that you can find on it yet and by I mean a ton like 20 years the other piece you're starting to see is some around spiritual leadership which really looks at values and a sense of calling as it moves into those many of you may have heard of servant leadership that's been one that I've seen that book on many many desks as I've done my industrial tourism and it makes it from a standpoint of it makes sense well it's been there it the you know Greenleaf wrote that book about 40 years ago but it's not until kind of recently that we started seeing some empirical research around how how effective those kind of things those are kind of some of the things we're starting to see research being done adaptive leadership which is a lot of you know hey confrontation of problems and challenges and be creative helping followers work in that area but again we're kind of not there's kind of not been a ton of research on a lot of these clothes hey who doesn't want trustworthy leadership and putting that in focus I think at the pro and then again you see that there's some explicit moral depent that was good puts the leadership puts followers first can argue that and then again has that process component which as a process guy it's really easy for me to kind of see starts begin downside early stages of development research not a lot we haven't started hooking together some of the concepts are pretty vague and there's been some look that says you know that whole idea servant versus leader kind of gets convicted contradictory and confusing so just kind of to put a little bit of a wrap on it things have continued to evolve over time we've shifted the discussion away from the person and into the conceptual roles and then the same thing we've done where we're starting to shift away from leader and manager being the same thing so that we can break that out and make those two distinctly different X's that we can go after and kind of study separately as we go through so you know leader leadership versus role versus position manager excited we're all we've unpacked a lot of those concepts and we'll really start and look and there's really some interesting stuff coming along when we start looking at those new theories and concepts that are coming out but unfortunately the final word is we've been studying this thing for so long that one thing we all agree is there's not really a common definition for what is a leader which means we're going to continue to study it for a little bit longer and with that I'd be glad to open it up because back to you with questions comments emotional outbursts just thank you very much I thought that was very good webinar on the leadership folks line is open please if you any question enter your question into the question section on the right side Penner and Jeff Brooks and I will assist you with your questions and Jeff will answer your questions Deb saw one comment are just starting a leadership that I recently read one article and I thought it was I catching or you know in my mind that the definition of leadership so the way the person has defined it ocbs a leadership is a human activity where trust empowerment and delegation those kind of activity happen even I thought that's pretty good you know definition or the the whatever the the person has described and actually match with your presentation because you kind of cover or point out all those factoids is mostly the human activity right so absolutely and I agree not quite seen that definition and you know you look at those things and I firmly believe it doesn't fit I like that definition I like the one that I threw up there in the book not really fond of that person around obedience not really a big fan of that but the thing that is ok how do I take that definition and operationalize it you know when I look at trust I'm also yeah there's there's I haven't seen and that and I work with some organizational strategic than one way is planning and visioning cultural assessments and one of the things that I've seen was kind of things people say okay we are an organization that that trusts each other and so that's groups to do this little to do this experiment with that said okay if if I'm with somebody who just walked into your organization for the first time I know nothing about your brand new they want and you say that you're an organization that trusts tell me one car the observable examples of behavior that I would see as I wandered around your organization that would tell me yep this is an organization that trusts and once they stop looking at me like ghosts looking at a new date you kind of get this ideas like oh how do I know you know how do I then as a leader what would what would I have to demonstrate behaviorally that says I'm actually operationalizing that an empowerment another one that you go through I love I am fully behind it but it cannot okay define it for any of the three you know so help me help help me as a leader in official organizationally to be able to say yes this is we trust we have a culture of trust and this is what it means and here's how we here's how we describe that that's always an interesting one around getting into those those concepts thank you Jeff um I have one question one of our audience has a question could you give us an example of speak to your leadership one of the things I found interesting I'd it's a little bit of work I did a little bit of research back on that because as an emerging theory spiritual leadership does it necessarily mean from a religious standpoint one of there was an interesting study that was done in see you again with hood up in Waco Texas they looked at some of the concepts around spiritual leadership and looked at it from the standpoint of less about the religious aspect of spirituality but more about the calling and is what we are doing as an organization calling I have a friend of mine who is a VP with a Food Bank up in up in rural Maine and people in his organization and them which you know he helps lead they're very much feel that they have a calling to provide you know these services to people who find themselves in situation maybe or maybe not of their own society but the piece that's the most interesting to me on that concept is around that whole piece of are we here to make a paycheck are we here to be better or we here because we have a calling and if it is that's the case when your culture is that way it makes it easier to just promote and lead people in that determine and the roles and the values and all they come around behind that help as well Jeff might I want to go back to the trust issue one um we've had for many years on our safety surveys a question which is word as employees trust the information the management provides about the company it's a very important question the survey measures the survey correlates with accident rates but it also correlates with management effectiveness in general and I find that question reliable and valid so cognitively I can measure it I could probably measure it behaviorally if I if I know enough about what the company did and I can figure out how to see if but I'm usually willing to trust that if cognitively they say the employees trust it thank you that but I got a question for you and I'll start with a statement we may not be able to find leadership but we know when we see it absolutely name name a couple of people that you think were great leaders who that's always been an interesting conversation that we've had and I've had this since when I first got into the whole concept of leadership study is it depends on your definition yeah if you so excited to find out about your vinification imalent know house I'm more of a new house call us up a process guy and what are the ones in a depends on situation I had had the I don't know if it was a Vantage or a disadvantage of doing some work with a little company called Pikeville right about the time they sent their CEO to jail psycho yeah and the new guy that came in was handed what I lovingly referred to as kind of a crap sandwich and was said okay it's yours and I watched I watched for a short period of time that I was still there doing some work with them he put in some behaviors and he started working on this sense of urgency and started working on the Camilla Potters work on change I started working on you know how what is sense of urgency how do we get people to understand how do we get me in the past what do we what are the bold definitive action why as a guy who needs to get turned this thing around what are the behaviors on you do needs if a series about a series of steps and brought people in very inclusive I always look back and say you know while I hopefully will never find myself in that situation because I will never be given a company to run that even being able to be able to say from that standpoint from a process standpoint these are the things that I need to do and be aware of I need to balance that with how the people feel again so I was always always kind of impressed with that me and that one just jumps to my top of my head right here so but I didn't see add up you know how it worked yes well I am credit while we are waiting for a few more questions I'll just put the link on your chat section that the surveilling please take a moment and complete the survey your feedback is very important for us and that's how we can improve ourself and deliver better and better webinar every month so please take your time can complete the survey meanwhile we are still waiting for some more question I go into my timer is almost 658 so if we only question this is the last call for the question if I don't see any question then I will just say thank you very much for your time today and what we will do is if you attended this webinar for 45 minutes so we'll provide you continuing education credit and we'll also oppose this webinar on our human development and leadership website and you will also have this recording on the human development and received website Brooksby one add anything before we conclude this webinar yes I do I think this would be a fascinating subject for else correction this is these things are really fun to do with a group right I'm not sure how we pull that off but let's talk online let's talk about wine one these days that you owe me a letter we can make it if I was going to say I still owe you a phone call book and I promise I'll get back good well mean like you very much I really I enjoyed it it was gave me a lot of fun I appreciate that users Jeff and Brooks while you are the waiting for each other call I'm connecting to the inner it's almost 7 o'clock and thank you very much for attending jf you did a good job today and we did active ship or help I enjoyed it yes take care and we'll talk to you again sometime in the future ok thank you very much

Channel: ASQ HD&L Division

Views: 2,127

Keywords: Webinar, Leadership

Id: Qg14dMuYiK8

Length: 60min 53sec (3653 seconds)

Published: Thu Jul 20 2017