“Alvira” Aimee’s 1959 AMC Rambler

Going Back to Go Forward

In reflecting on my original leadership philosophy paper, written back in December of 2011, I can only laugh at my own naivete. At that point in time I was 26 years old, working for what I would consider to be an effective and supportive boss. However, a boss alone does not an organization make. At this stage I was just able to begin seeing true glimpses into the organization I was a part of for what it was, aside from a great boss. At 26 I was green, cocky and arrogant in the way I thought about the world around me. And, probably more so, cocky about my thoughts concerning different people that were in power at the time. Nearly seven years later, I still work in that organization. My then boss has since retired and I’m serving in a different role; so many things have changed, but more importantly I have been able to grow and change. Some of those who I singled out mentally when writing are still in their positions of power, while one specifically has been let go by senior leadership.

At that point in time, my most significant point of reflection from ORGL 500 was learning, and in return being able to verbalize, what true leadership looks like. Furthermore, learning to assert the mental distinction in ascertaining the difference between leadership and positional authority and power; it’s one thing to have a textbook understanding of a concept, and another to begin being able to recognize the differences in the world around you, in the people around you, and in yourself. I believe leaders serve. Leadership is being given the responsibility to be entrusted with people. This comes first and foremost, and all other elements circle around this truth. Learning to properly manage working responsibilities, and then using available resources to further people and the organizations they are a part of are byproducts of effective and valiant leadership.

Therefore, I dislike it when people attempt to blanket include management as part of leadership for simplicity sake. For me, these are two different roless. One of which I wholeheartedly believe to be outdated and authoritative, which is rather counterintuitive to truly effective leadership.  When looking at the Leadership Continuum model, I dislike that the Tells and Sells are even on the spectrum. These are authoritative and destructive forms of management. I believe that leadership starts with genuinely engaging those who you’ve been entrusted with. Consulting should be the bare minimum of where leadership starts. This approach and mentality allows for engagement, alternative thinking, and shows value to those who have been entrusted to their leader. When we are able to confidently and safely share ideas, build consensus, and delegate responsibility to everyone involved, we all win. Ultimately, this allows the individual to take strides, challenge their abilities, and grow as employees in tandem with the organization growing and broadening.

Current Footing

I also believe there is an absolute necessity in comprehensive development for the well-being of a given organization; as employees grow individually, both in skills and maturity, so should their given leadership. We should always be seeking to move more and more to the right of the spectrum. Rather than thinking we are in a certain place and staying there, as stagnancy is a disease to both individual groth as well as organizational growth. In this instance, I am reminded of my current supervisor where I work. If he were to be approached and asked about his own leadership style, he would most like say he practices servant leadership. This concept of servant leadership has become such a buzz word in today’s world.

Everyone wants to give the illusion that they are a servant leader, whether they understand what servant leadership means or not. While this is great ideology, since servant leadership is so far to the right of the spectrum, I don’t believe this in its truest conception can fully be attained by someone if their 40’s; more like in the 70’s, just given the true nature of what it means to attain servant leadership. Rather, I would argue that in the last five years that I’ve worked with him, and more specifically in the last two years I’ve directly reported to him, he has developed from a transactional leader to a transformational leader: He has learned to be adaptive and is constantly growing himself both personally and professionally. As a result of this continual cycle of growth, his leadership style continues to evolve and adapt to the current situation. This is a great thing and something all leadership should strive towards; what may have worked last month may not work today, let alone five years ago. We as people, and specifically those in roles of leadership, must accept the challenge of remaining fluid, despite our desire to become rigid for the sake of ease and predictability.

Where Do I Go From Here

I recently read an article by a Gonzaga Leadership PhD candidate that I just so happen to work with. In his article titled “The Servant Leader in the Library”, Jonathan Potter writes about his experience as a librarian at a fictious university, St. Aloysius University, (also known as Gonzaga). In his reflection, Jonathan writes about the Dean of Libraries whom he worked for. To Jonathan, she was a servant leader, but Jonathan may have been in the minority of this opinion. He goes on to explain that to others who worked for her, she was a tyrant. How could this be? In reading this I am initially drawn to two different conclusions. First, I am initially reminded of the work environment that I am currently in. It makes me reflect on how our own former leader mentioned in the beginning, seemed to align with her style of leadership. Many people in our workplace considered her to be a tyrant, and this adversely affected the working dynamic. Secondly, I am reminded of the book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. For me, it’s all summed up in this quote from Pedagogy: “The Oppressors do not favor promoting the community as a whole, but rather selected leaders”.

When selected leaders are systematically promoted and handpicked over others, there is an innate loyalty that comes with that promotion. That’s what I saw in Jonathan’s reflection and what so closely mirrors what I have seen in those within my organization who have been handpicked. They showed immense loyalty to the person in charge, perhaps even with the sole intention of knowing this was the expectation to move forward in the organization. The trouble with rewarding this, though is that, just as Pedagogy has taught us, those who have been chosen by the oppressor to lead, oppress even more. While I don’t want to put that label on Jonathan, or even assert that is the case for his particular circumstance, I can say that has been historically accurate in my own organization. What I find most concerning is that it holds true, and continues to be the foundation under which people operate, and has become the expectation for people to anticipate.

My organization clings to a few select individuals who regularly and systematical exercise their positional authority.  This notion of positional authority is probably my greatest struggle in my work life currently. I am required to attend monthly “leadership” meetings at work and find that I am surrounded by people who have positional authority. And because these individuals have been allowed to exercise this authority, they expect the focus to be all about them; their ideas and solutions and thoughts should inherently be more valuable and respected by the group. While there is arguably indeed a need to have people in key roles for the sake of keeping things efficient and effective, many are in those roles to simply be in charge. I believe that for organizations to move forward and progress, these types of people must be eradicated, and people who innately seek to be genuinely entrusted with the responsibility of people, must be allowed to grow into leadership roles.

My leadership philosophy directly aligns with my personal purpose statement, or the framework in which I construct my interactions with others around: “To help and inspire others to be all that God has created them to be.” As I grow in my ability to lead, I must help and inspire those around me to continue to grow as well. This takes the focus off of me and my abilities and puts the focus where it needs to be, on those around me. Because of this mentality, I don’t perceive that I have a group of people to manage and control. But rather, I have been entrusted with a group of people that I must uphold the responsibilty to develop, nurture, and grow their talents. It’s my responsibility as their leader to protect them, grow them, and empower them to take risks. Leading in such a way gives them the freedom know that they are safe to both thrive and fail. Because, regardless, I will make myself available to help them get back on their feet if they stumble and to celebrate them every opportunity I have. I can only hope that in the next seven years this becomes second nature and becomes part of my character, from the inside out. That I may look back and see how I have continued to adapt and remain fluid and advocate for those I have been entrusted with.

References

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Potter, J. (2017)  THE SERVANT-LEADER IN THE LIBRARY A Case Study and a Journey Towards Self-Transcendence. SUNY Press, The International Journal of Servant Leadership