Mission & Vision (Blog 8)

Mission & Vision

            Last week in class we discussed what a personal mission and vision statement was. We started off class by viewing various mission and vision statements of top brand Airlines such as Southwest and then we looked at a few chain fast food mission and visions, McDonalds. We concluded class by creating our own mission and vision, along with hearing our teacher’s and TA’s personal statements.

Mission Statement

            A personal mission statement is basically the reflection of your personal purpose and core values for your life. Mission statements are important because they provide an individual or business with a place to reference around the values made in their mission statement when decision-making is needed. It also provides clarification for what is important to that person. In an organization setting, the mission statement allows the followers or group members a foundation in what is expected or what they movement and purpose the organization is all about. I can relate to two mission statements from campus organizations I am involved with:

CRU at UA Mission Statement:

“Follow Jesus, love people & seek the good of the U of A.”

Arizona Blue Chip Program Mission Statement:

“To build leaders who make a difference!”

Through CRU I am living our mission statement by participating in my community group meetings every Tuesday and Weekly Meetings every Wednesday. I am also applying to be a leader in CRU for the 2011-2012 academic year.  I love through the Blue Chip Mission as I continue to learn and grow through Phase 1 and continue to strive for leadership as I continue through to phase two.

My Personal Mission Statement:

“To not dwell in the here & now

but strive for a brighter future….

Learning from my mistakes,

            and growing from them. “

Vision Statement

            A personal vision statement is having a future picture of an organization or cause, having a vision is having the end in sight. A great example for why a vision statement is important was given in our Blue Print on page 107. It states: “A leader’s challenge is to stay focused on the future while allowing the plan to be flexible enough for change to occur.”  I can relate to the vision of CRU, which is basically to provide an opportunity for non-believers to hear and gather in fellowship around the word of Jesus Christ. I am living the vision of expanding across the U of A by applying to become a leader and always willingly sharing my experience with new members of CRU as well as with people who have never been associated with CRU.

My Personal Vision Statement:

I envision a world in which is loving and accepting of all living organisms.  What I will contribute to move us toward the world I envision is dedication to my studies and world around me. Through obtaining my degree in Environmental Science and Policy I will be another step closer to my overall vision, dedicating my life’s work to informing and making aware the issues that face our planet.

            In conclusion, the importance of a clear vision and mission statement informs many people what an organization or individual is passionate about and what goal they are trying to initiate. 

Toxic Leadership (Blog 7)

     Two weeks ago today, we discussed Toxic Leadership in class. The general driving force for toxic leaders is their intentional desire to injure others or enhance themselves at others expenses. They engage themselves in careless and reckless actions that will inevitably cause negative effects, suffering and even destruction. There are eighteen different types of Toxic Leaders, all with different approaches to self-gain or edification. I intend to give you a quick look at each of the eighteen types of Toxic Leaders and then provide insight on why we stay with and how to deal with Toxic Leaders. 

1)   The Absentee Leader

2)   The Incompetent Leader

3)   The Co-Dependent Leader

4)   The Passive-Aggressive Leader

5)   The Busybody Leader

6)   The Paranoid Leader

7)   The Rigid Leader

8)   The Controller Leader

9)   The Compulsive Leader

10)  The Intemperate Leader

11)  The Enforcer Leader

12)  The Narcissistic Leader

13)  The Callous Leader

14)  The Street Fighter Leader

15)  The Corrupt Leader

16)  The Insular Leader

17)  The Bully Leader

18)  The Evil Leader

     There are several terms (underlined bellow) that encompass toxic leadership, they range from incompetence to deception. Someone who is Incompetent has a lack of skill, capability and aptitude needed to complete a function. Malfunctioning occurs when leaders are focused more on their own insecurities, resulting in a Maladjusted or fear of not being good fit to leadership. These leaders tend to become Malcontent, angry and annoyed, portraying Inadequacies such as self-doubt and self-pity. Adding all this negative influences tends to bring Arrogance, Irresponsibility and Cowardice, not recognizing their week points. They begin to see no need to do thing right and feel that they are the best. This leads them to express Selfish Values, ITS ALL ABOUT ME, and an Ego that say they are just into themselves.  With all that negativity and prideful leading they are turned into Avarice and Greed, becoming very self-centered and gearing their methods towards money. Their Lack of Integrity starts to take a downward spiral through the Deception they convey. Then it all begins to become ugly and full of hate. These leaders may become to display Malevolent, Malicious and Malfeasance actions. Harm may begin to be evoked, they wish misfortune on others and just display illegal and unprofessional behaviors.

         All the above underlined words are ways to describe a toxic leader. So why do we stay with one? Our blue print outline suggests that there may be an internal or external reason for dealing with toxic leaders. The internal reasons include psychological, pragmatic and existential aspects for staying while the external reasons include uncertainty, unfinished business or psychosocial. So this leads into how one may deal with a toxic leader, there are three choices outline. The follower could choose to leave, choose to stay and do nothing or speak out and hope for proximity or information.

         Relating toxic leadership to my current everyday life is a rather tricky task. I feel that my INDV teacher has a toxic approach to leading our class. He is often late and doesn’t generally care to be in the classroom. This is made apparent because he rushes through things and fails to aide us when we are struggling. Another toxic leader would be my Mentor, who fails to email me back so we can meet. 

Followership (Blog 6)

Followership

            Last week in class we discussed another concept of leadership, one that plays a viable role in leadership itself.  Followership, as defined in our blue book, is the capacity or willingness to follow a leader. There are many types of followers that were discussed in class that I would like to reflect on in this blog. Another side to followers that will be touched in this blog as well includes some general guidelines to becoming an effective follower. The theory that is applied to this topic of followership is LMX: Leader-Member Exchange Theory.

            As I mentioned above there are many types of followers. Each type of follower comes with its benefits and overwhelming aspects. It is great t have such a diverse range of followers, making the group interesting.  They include:

-Isolates: These are the followers that do not care about their leaders, are unaware, detached and do nothing.

-Bystanders: These are the people who go with the flow, usually when it is in their self-interest, disengaged, aware but does nothing.

-Participants: Followers in this category invest a little to make an impact, care somewhat, free agent

-Activists: These are the followers that are eager, energetic, engaged and feel strongly one way or another about leaders and talk accordingly.  

-Diehards: The followers in this group are deeply devoted to their leaders or may want to oust their leaders, all encompassing commitment.

Relating the above types of follows to my everyday life is a moderately easy task. I am very lucky to say that I have benefited greatly from leading as well as following. An example of the type of follower I am can be concluded from when I play team sports or have fun at the rec. I am a diehard when it comes to being a part of the team, I love to have full inclusion and I love being committed to the team; I work hard and never give up, this proves my devotion to staying in shape and aiding my team to win.

            Taken from the handout given in class, the following is a short guideline on becoming an effective follower.

·      Offer support to the leader

·      Take initiative

·      Play counseling and couching roles to the leader when appropriate

·      Raise issues and/or concerns when necessary

·      Seek and encourage honest feedback from the leader

·      Clarify your role and expectation

·      Show appreciation

·      Keep the leader informed

·      Resist inappropriate influence of a leader

In my own opinion, these are very specific and understandable guidelines that can create a very effective follower, one who believes in their leader and what they are working towards to make change. Relating this to my life, I feel that I have displayed several of these characteristic at work when I take the initiative to do more than what is asked of me and when I show my appreciation towards my boss.

            The LMX theory helps explain what qualities or type of relationship should be established between leaders and their followers. Thus informing us that leaders do not need to interfere with the distribution of resources, time, energy and attention of their followers. If this theory is implemented right, many followers can grow to become powerful leaders. 

Process Theory of Leadership (Blog 5)

Caleb Lund

Last week in class we discussed the Process Theory of leadership, also known as the Reciprocal Theory. The Process Theory of leadership is based around the Social Change Model of Leadership, Relational Leadership Model, Transformational Leadership and the Servant Leadership Theory. In class we spent a great time evaluating both models of this style in leadership. This leadership theory has been around since the nineteen seventies and continues to be used to the present day.

As we start to look through the Social Change Model of leadership we can infer that leadership, in this since, is a process by which individuals and groups work toward the common goal of improving the quality of life for all. They intend to do this by developing and promoting seven basic values. These seven values include:

Individual

            -Consciousness of Self: This is where the individual is aware of the values, emotions, attitudes, and beliefs that drive them to action.

            -Congruence: The concept of thinking, feeling, and behaving with consistency, genuineness, honesty and authenticity.

            -Commitment: Said to be the drive of leaders, linking them to values and respect from others.

Group

            -Collaboration: This is the primary means of empowering others through trust.

            -Common Purpose: Is to work with shared aims and values.

            -Controversy with Civility: This sheds life on differences in viewpoints and the importance of accepting them civilly.

Community

            -Citizenship: This is the description of the self respectively connected with the environment and community. Involves individual rights and responsibilities.

This is an inclusive view to leadership, rather than a process. This form of leadership promotes values of equity, social justice, self-knowledge, personal empowerment, citizenship and service. These are all aspects that relate to my everyday life, as I volunteer or engage in helping others around me.

            The next model of leadership discussed was the Relational Leadership Model, which involves a process. This process illustrates the purpose as being the center, with concepts of inclusion, empowerment and ethics to surround this purpose. A good way to sum this up is with the following statement, “A relational and ethical process of people together attempting to accomplish positive change.” Overviews of the five concepts within this model of leadership are:

1.   Inclusive- a sense of we, diverse points

2.   Empowering- of others through personal interactions

3.   Ethical- makes moral decisions

4.   Purposeful- establish a shared vision, commitment

5.   Process- the way the group establishes itself.

Along with these principals are the following three dimensions:

·      Knowing: Having knowledge and understanding of the principal. (Education, Information, Experience)

·      Being: Having attitudes and beliefs related to the principal. (Who you are, Aspiration)

·      Doing: Acting in accordance with the principal. (Skills, Action, Techniques)

I feel that I can apply this model of leadership, based on the above dimensions, to my everyday school based career. My main focus, goal or principal is to succeed in school and do well.

            Each of the theories we have interpreted in class thus far can evoke pros and cons in any given situation where leadership is being implemented or applied. As we can gather from previous blog posts, it is determined on the effort and ability the leader uses to engage these methods of leadership. There is no set guide to leadership, just many helpful choices to draw and learn from.

Behavioral & Situational Theories of Leadership (Blog 4)

Caleb Lund

Section 4

Behavioral & Situational Theories

     Last week in my class (HED 201), Foundations of Leadership, we covered the Behavioral and Situational Theories of leadership. These two theories bare many similarities, along with their differences. In my opinion, either approach could be used together in a situation, or alone in an instance for which they are best suited. For example, depending on the group or project you are trying to lead may help you determine which approach you would receive more success from using, or open the door to using both approaches. Lets talk a walk through each approach to leadership.

     Starting with the Behavioral approach to leadership, we learn that someone implementing this style of leadership is gearing their abilities around the concept of, “leadership can be learned.” This theory outlines the use of learned behaviors that are not predisposed qualities or traits associated with good leadership. Two examples following the behavioral theory of leadership are indicators and inventories. This is in cooperation with self-scoring and validating reliable assessments; using difficult open-ended questions can do this. Three types of skills are associated with this theory of leadership when you take a traditional school of thought view. These skills are Technical Skills, Human Skills and Conceptual Skills. This thought process expresses that some behaviors or skills are more appealing for effective leadership, reveling the differences between leaders and non-leaders. Based on the school of thought there is not just one set of skills or behaviors for effective leadership, a variety can produce positive outcomes as well.

     As someone is using the Situational Theory approach to leadership they first should consider the following steps:

     -Determining the nature of the given situation.

     -Determining the competency level of their subordinates.

     -Selecting a style that will match your need.

This theory sheds light on the input of different situations and how they may demand different forms of leadership. Another side to this theory is the concept of how an effective leader can adapt their styles due to the demands made from different situations. There are two dimensions that are playing a role in this approach to leadership. They are the directive concept of Tasks and the supportive side of Relationships. These dimensions play a viable set-up for the four different categories associated in the Situation Theory approach. These categories include:

1)  Directing- With this category you are defining the roles of the members as you delegate their tasks, closely supervising them while you make the decisions and solve the problems.

2)  Coaching- As your provide a great portion of direction drawn from your own ides, you engage by listening and considering each members feelings, ideas or suggestions.

3)  Supporting- You facilitate problem solving and decision-making along with recognizing and actively listening to your members.

4)  Delegating- This is the time you sit back and watch. You delegate the tasks amongst your member with minimal input as they carry out their duties.

In conclusion, two ways that these theories are implemented in my everyday life are in instances for school and amongst friends. In-group projects we use the situational approach and decide how we want to delegate or coach our way through. Around my friends I may use my behavioral side to leadership in my Human and Conceptual skills, communicating.

Great Man & Trait Theories (Blog 3)

Based on the Leadership Theory Timeline we can draw incite on what is believed the chronological order of leadership theories. The two that I am going to discuss are the Great Man and Trait Theories. Lets first start off by understanding the concept of a theory. A theory is generally an idea that cannot be tested against; something unable to be proven right or wrong; a statement that tries to explain why something is happening. Together as a class we drew those assumptions to define theory. Before we plunge into these two specific theories, I feel it is necessary to illustrate the Leadership Theory Timeline bellow:

1776-1900's ---- Great Man Theory 

1907-1948 ---- Trait Theory 

1950's-1960's ---- Behavioral Theory

1950's-1980's ---- Situational Theory

1970's-PRESENT ---- Process/Reciprocal Theory

     As you can see the two theories we are going to discuss happen to be the oldest in relation to the theory timeline. In the Great Man Theory era, this was the time leaders were born. They were not made, they did not learn how to lead, and they simply were born into the role. This was done thanks to family lineage or royalty. Looking at this theory with a traditional school of thought concept such as saying these leaders were wealthy, royalty or political leaders may arise. A main focus of this era was intermarriage, keeping the bloodline going, joining other kingdoms together for a bigger and better empire. Then you can also approach this theory with a modern school thought saying great leaders are heroic and emerge during a great need. 

     With the Trait Theory it is said there are certain traits of a leader: Those with the certain traits are predisposed to being a leader. These certain traits may include; hair or eye color, weight or even height. So this theory is based more on an image of what constitutes a great leader, in that time period. Using a traditional school of thought we infer someone who posses the trait theory with characteristics such as:

Intelligence

Self Confidence

Determination

Integrity

Sociability

     Relating this to my life, I feel society portrays images of a modern day great leader as charismatic, wanting change and a willingness to want to work with others. These are all very good traits that a leader should posses. Together as a class we decided on two modern day leaders, Ghandi and Nelson Mandela, who lead on the following: 

-Standing up for what they believed in

-Joining the masses

-Wanting change through peace

-Willingness to work with others

-Non-conformers

-Sacrifice for beliefs

-Stable under pressure

     With either approach there is no right or wrong conclusion to these theories. They both posses information on what constitutes the characteristics or traits of a great leader. What a leader chooses to learn from these theories and apply to their own ability to lead is entirely up to them. I will argue the fact that traits cannot be learned, but would never stand beside the belief of basing a leader on appearance. 

History of Leadership (Blog 2)

       When we look into the past to find answers to things that have happened already or are happening now, we can refer to this as history or history in the making. History provides us with an enormous wealth of factual knowledge and a basis to make claims and inferences when something may or may not of occurred. However, some things in history cannot be given clear and precise dates, leadership being one of them. To this day, its remains unknown of the exact time when the word and concept of leadership was first rationalized and created.  Leadership is known in several if not all societies, from the past and present.

In history we can learn that there were five Eras of Leadership; Tribal, Pre-Classical, Classical, Progressive and Post-Progressive. Using leadership in a Tribal approach would involve the role of a skilled expert, one who is task oriented and full of brutal strength. Tribal leaders are elected based on their agility, size and strength; failure to follow these leaders may result in death. In a pre-classical sense, this was the time of kings and queens who feared death and were concerned with spirituality. This time also involved male dominance, were followers continued to follow because of fear. Moving into the classical era we learn that division of labor is occurring, laborers are inefficient and not indispensible. Chaos is known for the downfall of this policy-driven organization. In the progressive era total quality management was a driven force and this was known as the change game. The best part of this era is the fact that everyone has a value and is worth something. Post-progressive is the era modeled after social change. Follower’s needs are met and a new democratic agenda is set.

Along with learning about these Era’s of Leadership, we can also gather incite on how this factors into our everyday life. The experiences I have encountered through leadership over the past five years have become phenomenal.  Relating my experiences with these concepts, or era’s of leadership is not easy to do, but it can be done. Taking the task oriented concept from a tribal leader and comparing it with the experience I gained from working in the Sky View office, filing paperwork, typing documents and continually performing task after task, to me shows this type of leadership in a sense of duty. Another prime example of my conceptions in leadership as student body president of Antelope Union High School can be examined with that of a more Post-Progressive era. This comparison can be made because in this era we know that the follower’s needs are being met, and an equal partnership in leadership is established. You may ask, well how did you demonstrate or experience this? Simple, I was leading my officer team, who all equally had the opportunity to make suggestions and generate change. No only was I the figurehead for them, but also the student body as a whole. Each of my officers were delegated their own tasks and put in charge of many events and functions, demonstrating a partnership in leadership. So to conclude, we can infer that there are many differences in each era, but the general concept of leadership is intertwined in each.

Leadership Theory Timeline (Blog 1)

      Based on the Leadership Theory Timeline we can draw incite on what is believed the chronological order of leadership theories. The two that I am going to discuss are the Great Man and Trait Theories. Lets first start off by understanding the concept of a theory. A theory is generally an idea that cannot be tested against; something unable to be proven right or wrong; a statement that tries to explain why something is happening. Together as a class we drew those assumptions to define theory. Before we plunge into these two specific theories, I feel it is necessary to illustrate the Leadership Theory Timeline bellow:

1776-1900's ---- Great Man Theory 

1907-1948 ---- Trait Theory 

1950's-1960's ---- Behavioral Theory

1950's-1980's ---- Situational Theory

1970's-PRESENT ---- Process/Reciprocal Theory

     As you can see the two theories we are going to discuss happen to be the oldest in relation to the theory timeline. In the Great Man Theory era, this was the time leaders were born. They were not made, they did not learn how to lead, and they simply were born into the role. This was done thanks to family lineage or royalty. Looking at this theory with a traditional school of thought concept, such as saying these leaders were wealthy, royalty or political leaders may arise. A main focus of this era was intermarriage, keeping the bloodline going, joining other kingdoms together for a bigger and better empire.