Friday, February 04, 2011

At the Root of Many Intergenerational Issues is 'Ageism'

Just my initial sense of things as I am working on the problem statement for this study and the management research questions that will be needed...a real core problem when it comes to intergenerational problems is, in fact, ageism.

I never noticed this sort of thing until I began this study. Now it seems to show up everywhere.

What I am thinking about specifically is how there is prejudice or discrimination in this area that can go both ways--older people can say or do condescending things to younger people and vice versa. And there seems to be no monopoly on this from my observation.

When a Gen X-er (yes, that is considered an "older" person today) tells a Gen Y-er that "I know you're good with computers because all of your age group are good with computers," this is a type of ageism. Actually it puts pressure on the Gen Y-er to deliver, to be this computer savvy person, when he or she may not necessarily be so.

The same happens when a Gen Y-er will make subtle references to some 1960s pop culture concept or persona when describing someone from the Silent Generation. Example: "Man, he's got that Jimi Hendrix thing going on, doesn't he?"

These are not the best examples and I am still working with my thinking in this area, but one thing seems clear at this point: just like discrimination or bigoted comments based on race or gender, these sorts of comments can destroy opportunities to develop close communication between dissimilar groups of people. In a complex organization that needs all sorts of people to work together, such a condition can stymie growth of that organization and, worse, poison the culture so that creativity and innovation wanes.

Monday, January 03, 2011

Getting Started

As noted in the heading, beginning today I am devoting this area exclusively to reflections on thoughts-in-progress about my research work. I am in the organizational management-leadership specialization of Capella University.[...and this is my second Ph.D., by the way; the first was from Bernelli University [formerly Berne] and that degree was in business administration.]

The methodology is likely to be either a case study or research design--with some elements of quantitative to be included (thus, making it more mixed methods than pure qualitative).

I am coming to fully embrace the passion I have for research writing and this second-time-around dissertation experience has really brought it to the fore. I am gradually moving in the direction of becoming a professional research writer and I have learned from experience that the best way I learn is by "talking through" what's happening to me as learning is taking place. I have been doing this to some extent in a private journal notebook and also in the Capella courseroom that allows regular correspondence with my mentor. But the conversations here will be different.

What will be presented on a fairly regular basis is my thinking-in-progress about the topic (A STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE THAT INTERGENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES ARE HAVING ON THE LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATIONAL DIRECTION OF A DETROIT AREA CHURCH) and the research experience itself. Also to be included will be some of the discoveries I make about research and how it all ties together in becoming a professional research writer (i.e. being regularly published in academic publications, presenting at conferences, being successful in book publishing and other media, etc.). [One person I consider a role model in this area is Harvard Professor Michael Porter, a founding theorist of the organizational and business strategy concepts of comparative advantage and Creating Shared Value (CSV).]

My hope is that someone out there who is either going through the dissertation experience, or will be, can benefit from my reflections and observations. Think of this as a variation on the "Julia and Julie" blog only instead of French cuisines and dinner party suggestions, the discussions will be about literature reviews and conceptual frameworks! : )

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Transformational Leaders and Servant Leaders

Leaders in the New Age

Both the transformational leader and the servant leader concept have their origin in the convergence of postmodern studies on the topic of leadership and organizational development. These studies became particularly pronounced in the late 1960s and towards the 1980s and 90s. These times themselves were transformational in that social and economic upheaval was occurring in tandem with the emergence of technologies that connect the geopolitical and commerce cultures in a way unprecedented in human history.

For those who were leading in communities, organizations, and countries during those times, the demands for extraordinary skills to lead in such extraordinary times was great. In the corporate and public sectors in particular leaders were needed to not only inspire people to help them connect with their own innate abilities and to then be empowered to function in leadership capacities themselves, while also secure that the guiding presence of a more capable leader was ever present. In the community sectors and some private organizations, as an increasing blurring of lines was occurring that often brought forth egregious ethical practices, needed there was some framework that could offer leaders a way to reconnect with basic principles of morality and social justice.

It was within these conditions that transformational leadership and servant leadership were born. Both have an historical context, one based on organizational development and the other based on Judeo-Christian principles. The transformational work culture is one in which change is a constant factor but even more the underlying objective in the culture is to engage in a regiment of continual learning that will make all participants excel in the field they are in. This concept was an early fixture in the knowledge centered enterprises that came in to existence in the way of the technology explosion of the early 1990s. In this work culture there was strong emphasis on developing people because they were viewed as the organization’s most valuable assets. By developing them, the fortunes of the organization were assured, it was believed. On the other hand, the conditions that created the culture of servant leadership dates back much further in history. Indeed, these roots are an amalgamation of concepts steeped in religious history and human rights laws that have been forged down through the centuries. In more modern times these concepts have been distilled down to one phrase, “the golden rule,” which essentially espoused to do unto others as one would have others do unto you—or, in another variation, love your neighbor as you love yourself.

The leaders which emerged from these cultures are quite distinct and unique. Yet, like all leadership traits, there is some intersecting and overlap in certain areas. What follows are separate discussions on the distinct and unique qualities each of these leaders has and included will be some contrasting of their qualities and evaluation of them.

Transformational leadership. The concept of transformational leadership has its roots in the respective works of Downton and Burns (as cited in Northouse, 2007, p. 176; Jue 2004). Both wrote about a leader who emerges in an organizational environment having the innate ability to help followers connect with goals and then feel empowered to function independently to achieve them. This leader, they noted, was inspirational and was capable of stirring a strong sense of loyalty and connection to the organization’s mission and objectives. It was also noted that this leader was most effective during negative times when major transitions were underway.
Jue further noted that the work on transformational literature came about during a time of “doom and gloom” in the leadership research field. It was a time that was highlighted by a saturation of emergent theories about leadership but not much rigor or robustness in the results, he offered. Both transformational leadership and charismatic leadership concepts emerged in tandem and with them a new era in leadership study was ushered in (House, 1977, as cited by Jue).

[Charismatic leadership departs slightly from transformational leadership in that the leader is viewed as being exceptional, even superhuman, in moral and intellectual ability (Conger, 1999, as cited in Northouse, p. 177). Additionally, the transactional leader was a derivative of the Burns’ transformational leadership studies. This is someone who advances his or her own agenda by promising something to followers and in exchange the leader gets cooperation or support from the follower. An example of this would be in the providing of a pay increase in exchange for taking on more responsibilities. Burns saw this leadership style to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from transformational leadership but subsequent researchers eventually drew relationships between the two, noting that most transformational leaders will engage in some form of transactional behavior as a matter of routine.]

It should be noted that transformational leadership discussions were coming forth at a time in the knowledge culture when the concept of transformational learning itself was emerging. The basic premise of transformational learning theory is that critical reflection in a carefully directed way can prompt there to be empowered learning experiences that can change and alter, in a favorable way, a person’s perceptions, ideas, and attitudes about the future and his place in the world.

Intrinsically, this what the transformational leader does. But his gift is in being able to do this indirectly. Among the noted traits of the transformational leader, this is someone who leads by example and is highly articulate. This leader inspires confidence in followers because he is firmly connected to the vision and purpose of the organization. And having a strong sense of self assurance, this transfers to being inspirational energy that instills confidence in followers. Ultimately it is the follower who—through the leader’s influence—undergoes a type of transformational learning that enables him or her to see new and better ways to accomplish a goal. This is one of the more particularly powerful elements of the transformational leader’s abilities—to compel individuals to dig down deep and access their own innate abilities, abilities that have been dormant.

In summation, then, the transformational leader is someone who tends to have a clear vision for the organization; and there is a firm sense of direction and of being able to articulate this. This leader is also someone who can get followers to accept a new mission and direction by supplanting previous norms and values with ones more in line with the vision he is shepherding. The transformational leader is able to establish and maintain trust, particularly during times of uncertainty; there is consistency in his behavior. Last, this leader is highly self aware and works continually to let his strengths rule in his decision-making (Northouse, p. 187; Jue, 2004).

While certainly the transformational leader is someone endemic of the conditions of transition which is a hallmark of conditions throughout the world today, this individual is not without having challenges. One area is that because he is someone who brings certain innate skills present to the leadership experience, researchers are divided on the extent to which this leadership style is one that can be taught (a topic that will be discussed at length in the next section). Also, there are some in the research community who have expressed concern that this leader—by his very nature—can draw so much attention to himself that attention toward his impact on followers can sometimes be ignored. This is similar to concerns that have been raised about servant leaders; that is, the attributes of this leader are focused on so much that other areas impacted by such leadership is overlooked. In the servant leader’s case (which is addressed in more detail in the section that follows) it is in the area of customer service that critics say can be compromised while managers direct more attention to meeting the needs of subordinates. In the case of the transformational leader, critics say that not enough has been studied about how these leaders are, in fact, inspired by their followers and thus empowered to be better leaders.

The servant leader. It needs to be clear from the onset of this discussion that the concept of servant leader is derived from the seminal work of Robert Greenleaf (1970, 200?). The author, a retired corporate executive, was motivated to share this concept because he had come to an understanding that all leaders were servants; meaning that everyone who serves in a leadership role does so at the behest of the organization itself or the public or co-workers. Greenleaf believed that a leader’s highest purpose was to seek to empathize with followers and to care for them as he would care for himself. This was also understood to be the case when it came to issues of social justice. He believed that leaders had an obligation to help improve the community they worked and lived in and that they needed to be committed to social causes the advocated in these areas.

To some extent, the servant leader is given to being of an egalitarian mindset in that power shifts to those who are traditionally less empowered. In doing so these individuals are allowed to thrive and fulfill their potential in their respective endeavors. The servant leader is one who directs through an indirect approach—followers are viewed with deep respect and are given an equal voice in situations. For Greenleaf, listening and learning to do so actively and with compassion was an essential skill this leader needed. And it is from a synthesis of these activities that the leader moves forward in decision-making all the while these actions being informed by these higher ideas and principles.
The concept of the servant leader has contributed to a wide and diverse discussion in the leadership literature, some of it supportive and lauding, some questioning the underlying premise. One critical treatise of servant leadership is found in the work of Andersen (2009). The author posits that from a business management perspective, the servant leader’s focus on subordinates rather than on the clients (or customers or, in the public sector, citizens) of the organization ultimately works against organizational goals and objectives. While he acknowledged that there was value in the servant leader concept, Andersen believed that its application in the culture of high demand operation could hurt both leaders and followers in the long run because customer service can be compromised.

Andersen’s work emerged in the wake of a flurry of discussions in the literature about servant leadership. One noted author, Autry (2001) addressed servant leadership—in stark contrast to Andersen—as a value added quality that can only improve an organization’s customer service deliver. Autry believed that those being served are savvy enough to sense or observe developments in the culture of an organization and that servant leadership is something that would be respected. He saw this as a logical next step in the dynamics between employees and employers, one that would be a modern response to the decline of organized labor.

Griffin (2008) drew from the servant leader concept a treatise on its application in the ethics framework of business. His study came in the wake of several highly publicized criminal trials and convictions of Wall Street executives who had been caught defrauding investors. Griffin contended that it was only through the servant model that trust and restoration be established between leaders and subordinates in organizations. Griffin, unlike Autrey or Andersen, considered the servant leader model a critical moral component that was needed in what he believed to be an enormous deficit of values in the business culture. Toor and Ofori (2009) shared in Griffin’s call for addressing ethical issues by using a servant leader model.
Griffin and Toor and Ofori’s works are further contrasted with ancillary writings that have emerged about spirituality and faith in the workplace. These authors identify servant leadership as a framework from which they built their discussion, noting that today’s worker is increasingly embracing the opportunity to have some aspect of spirituality as part of his or her work culture (Lynn, 2009; Marques, 2009; Marques, 2007; Newman, 2009, Nur, 2009; Pawar, 2009).

Contrasting the styles of the transformational and servant leader. To gain insight in to contrasts between the styles of both of these leaders it is appropriate to draw upon basic qualities identified by founders of the theories that identified them to the research world. Burns described the transformational leader as someone who is a visionary and someone deeply passionate about moving the organization in the direction that is consistent with the larger goals and objectives that have been outlined. The servant leader, on the other hand, is—as Greenleaf noted—more immediately concerned about what impact the drive toward meeting organizational goals and objectives is having on subordinates. The transformational leader influences followers to accept new norms and values as he understands them to be consistent with the larger goals to be accomplished. The servant leader does this also and in both instances these leaders are more given to persuade indirectly rather than overtly. Herein there is similarity in both leaders regarding having compassion for followers.

It should be added here as well that Burns and others paid homage to ethics and human development theorist Abraham Maslow in designing the tenets of the transformational leader so, to this extent, there is some level of equality between that leader and the servant leader. Maslow identified a hierarchy of needs that all individuals tend to be bound by and the higher level, self actualization, is one where an individual essentially becomes selfless and wants to help others make it up this hierarchy. Transformational leader theorists believed that this leader is either at the level of self actualization over close to it (Jue, 2004). Both leaders are also much committed to social justice and fairness and are strong advocates of there being high ethical and moral standards in the organizational culture. Additionally, both of these leaders tend to be highly self aware although, while the transformational leader will work toward highlighting his strengths and trying to capitalize on them, the servant leader sees his weaknesses as instruments of learning that can better help understand the weaknesses in others.

Transformational and Servant as Leadership Development Resource


To be able to successfully develop the abilities of transformational and servant leadership in individuals a three-fold structure needs to be designed, a result of synthesizing the attributes that have been discussed. The first would involve mentoring, the second would involve a program of active transparency, and the third would be direct teaching (through both experiential and formal means) the attributes of these leadership styles. The program outline presumes that a leadership assessment instrument such as the MQ will be administered in order to assist participants with understanding where their strengths and weaknesses lie in these leadership styles.


Reverse mentoring: Learning the ways of servant leadership.
Because so much of servant leadership involves empathy and being able to see the world through another’s eyes, a developing leader will benefit from this sort of mentoring. The leader would spend time with a follower functioning in a low impact, unobtrusive way, gradually learning how the day to day world is experienced by the follower. The leader would also be required to be actively involved in a community based or humanitarian effort that works directly with diverse, underprivileged populations. From this experience some of the basic tenets of servant leadership can be directly learned.

Active transparency. In this development program the attributes of the transformational leader are highlighted—but not the favorable side, the negative side. This program would involve engaging in critical study of the negative attributes of transformational leadership with the intent on helping those who have these traits to better understand how to address the negative side, and for those who do not have the trait, to better understand how they can help transformational leaders.


Direct teaching
. Since both of these leadership styles share much in terms of moral and ethical positions, it would be helpful for developing leaders to have a full range classroom experience where the strengths and weakness of both leadership styles are reviewed and also case studies of leadership types are reviewed as well. And as with the transparency program, one goal of this program would be to develop an understanding about the qualities in order to help other leaders who fit in these categories to better perform their tasks and to better serve the organizations and communities they serve.

References will be provided by Friday, February 19, 2010

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

In Wake of USA Today Poll, Obama Administration Would Do Well to Keep an Eye on History

It was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt who officially created the Thanksgiving Day holiday in 1936. During a time when the country—indeed the world—was still grappling with the vestiges of what would come to be known as The Great Depression, Thanksgiving created a time of respite and reconnection to family and friends.

To say nothing of the enormous stimulation to the economy.

So, Thanksgiving, in many respects this year, rivals in significance to that time period when it was first created. Now, as then, there is economic and political turmoil everywhere. And now as then also, a charismatic leader is at the helm of the U.S. and domestic problems and international ones constantly compete for center stage attention.

This has been brought even more immediately to the fore today in the wake of the USA Today poll that reports Americans are losing patience with President Barak Obama’s management of the war in Afghanistan, and with the health care plan that is still moving through Congress. Certainly the president himself is nearing an epoch in his leadership dossier; being able to somehow placate the skeptics about his health care plan while also prosecuting a war that increasingly seems to be one the country cannot afford to walk away from.

I like to think that President Obama, like many of his predecessors, is a student of history and recognizes that what he faces has been faced by others in the Oval Office. And that his response needs to be—as with the others—a measured one that will guide the country safely through these turbulent times. This may mean that, despite the detractors about the war, a troop surge may be the expedient thing to do in Afghanistan. Likewise, his health care bill will likely need to be further revised so that the majority of Americans (many of whom already have health care) do not feel they are being excessively taxed. Obviously this will require some modifying on positions he has taken. But the history of leadership is filled with individuals who went on to be icons because they understood the importance of addressing all the nuanced areas concisely in a time of crisis.

So, on this Thanksgiving holiday I offer particularly focused prayers of encouragement and wisdom in the direction of the president and his administration. They need it—we all need it—now more than ever.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Reflections on Track 3

So, since last SaturdayI have been in Devner, Colorado for the last of my colloquiums for my doctoral program with Capella University—a fully online program, by the way. A colloquium is another word for residency; part of obtaining a Ph.D. requires that the student clock in so many hours involving face- to-face weeklong conferences that offer more indepth engagement of the subject matter being studied. For me it is organizational management with a specialization in leadership. And for those who know me, you know that this is a second Ph.D. for me—my first is from Berneli University, a wonderful international graduate school (but having limited accreditation in the U.S. thus prompting me to get a U.S. accredited Ph.D. for professional purposes).

The third colloquium is identified as Track 3 and truly it is a milestone. Track 3 takes place when the student has either completed all course work or is within three to four courses to completing coursework. The next step after the colloquium is comprehensive exams and then writing the dissertation. Though I have experienced this before, it is different in that my previous school focused a lot more on distance learning (independent study) and then some online activity. Capella is exclusively online and the school is a recognized leader in online education.

I am sharing all of this information here in this entry of The Organic Mechanic because I want to encourage those who will read this to keep pursuing education. There is nothing like learning new things and discovering new ways to apply old concepts. For me, I want to keep applying my learning so that I can make the world a better place—not just my world, but the world at large. Only through education can I do this. I learned quite some time ago that one of the bains of moving on in years is having a tendency to stop learning and to somehow take on a sense of not being able to contribute any longer.

As God has blessed me to be in my 54th year of life now, I can honestly say that throwing off the shackles of such oppressive, limiting thinking has liberated me in a way that I could never imagine.

So this entry is dedicated to my cohort members and instructors at Capella who have been—and continue to be—a most excellent support during this experience.

But most important in this is my wife, Carmela, whose love and support (and being the best [and sexiest!] traveling companion any road warrior could ask for) has kept me focused and on target. I am glad her schedule allowed for her to join me in Denver. There was great weather (60-70 degrees every day!) and some of the tastiest food we’ve had yet. I look forward to returning one day soon…and when I do, it will be as Dr. Dr. McTyre!

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Public Option is a Debate Very Much Needed

The announcement this week from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he is moving forward to introduce legislation offering a government alternative to compete with private health insurers was welcomed news. Before I go further, let’s review (per a summary from USA Today’s October 28, 2009 edition, p. 6A) all three of the public options being considered by Congress:

Robust-includes the original House health care bill; would be available nationally to people—except for workers of large companies that provide coverage. Doctors and hospitals who accept patients in the plan would be paid at the Medicare rate.

Opt Out-this is the option that Sen. Reid is offering. It would allow individual states to opt out by 2014, meaning residents in those states could not enroll. The program would negotiate how much to pay doctors and hospitals for procedures, just as private insurers do.

Opt In-some moderate Democrats, including Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, have said they prefer a public option that would not take effect unless individual states choose to opt in. The idea has been floated in Congress but is not included in any bill.

Trigger-in this situation, a pubic option would be triggered by a state-by-state basis only if certain conditions are met—such as the cost of premiums not falling by a set date. The idea is backed by Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the only Republican who has voted for a Democratic health care plan.

So here’s my thinking…

What’s needed more than anything else right now is a vigorous debate about this topic occuring outside of Washington. One criticism—and a valid one, I think—often touted by the pro and anti side of health care reform is that much of this health care discussion is an “inside the Beltway” one. By pushing the debate out to the states via this very controversial public option, there can finally be a good and candid debate that will let the chips fall where they may.

Understandably, opponents of health care reform from both sides of the aisle are not warm to this idea. For certain it will force a level of transparency about motives and what is actually being presented that has not been present so far. Also, it is likely that by going the route of encouraging states to debate the issue, other issues can become part of that discussion—such as parity for mental health services, something we in Michigan have been fumbling around with for a number of years.

Yes, let’s let the states decide—and let’s do it quickly.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Obama is the Tiger Woods of Politics

Last week, shortly after President Obama was announced to be the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner I was inclined to make this week’s post the focus of this development. I was especially motivated to do this when the brouhaha came forth from the president’s many critics who felt he was not deserving of the award. The rationale was that peace, as of yet, has not come about as a result of his adiminstration’s foreign policies.

That’s a valid point, to be sure. The only flaw with it is that Obama, as with the other two sitting presidents who were awarded the prize—Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson—also did not actually have tangible evidence of lasting peace from their actions. Rather, like Obama, they were recognized by the global community as being tireless workers for peace in their time. And given the other day-to-day challenges a president faces, it takes one of exceptional commitment to the concept of peace to make inroads in this area.

But that is the entry I would have written had I not also been intersected by critical developments occurring in the health reform debate. It appears that, despite the partisan bickering, there will be a health reform bill coming forth by year’s end.

Also, economists are now all pretty much in agreement that the worldwide recession has come to an end.

So I think what needs to be said most about President Obama is that he really does appear to be the man for the job. Irrespective of his skin color, he is someone whose gift is leadership and public policy management. He is the Tiger Woods of politics. And like the president, Tiger Woods had his share of critics and naysayers—that is until people (and particularly potential sponsors in the corporate world) realized the golfer was a true prodigy. Everyone is good at something, and some people are really, really good at something. Tiger Woods fits this bill in golfing and Barak Obama fits this bill in politics and public policy.

Perhaps what the president’s critics need to figure out is how to benefit from his brilliance instead of standing in the way of it.