Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  criteria for effective leadership

    Posted 05-17-2012 11:56

     

    Leadership thinking needs a drastic overhaul

    After having followed the road of research ad nauseam and having failed to come up with something practically useful, (see Mintzberg, 2004; Bennis and O'Toole, 2005) or even settled on a definition, it is time to take a new look – as suggested here, a look at leadership from a practical perspective.

    This does not mean to imply that research has not been useful.  On the contrary, it has pointed at many ways in which leaders can be more effective.  It has, however, failed to consolidate the theories into a workable structure that is reasonably easy to understand and that can provide guidance to leader thinking.  There is not even a commonly accepted definition of who is a leader and hardly any of the ideas that have been offered suggest that everyone who makes 'leadership' decisions, whether in the work or home environment can be considered to be a 'leader'.

     

    Most importantly, there seems to be a lack of awareness that, in the final analysis, it is a leader's quality of decisions where theories point to useful approaches. with respect to all the things we expect from leaders - effective communications, offering appropriate participation in decisions, providing psychological rewards consistently and fairly, helping followers develop their competencies, stimulating cooperation, and others.  It takes extensive knowledge of the theories to cull out relevant points for guidance on these matters, and few leaders have the kind of detailed familiarity with the theories to do that. 

     

    Since most members of this list have such familiarity, I am asking for suggestions on what criteria could be considered? 



  • 2.  criteria for effective leadership

    Posted 05-17-2012 13:02
    One possible place to start would be Mary Uhl-Bien's 2006 article on "Relational leadership theory" in The Leadership Quarterly (v.17, n.6, 654-676) where she integrates an entity perspective with a relational perspective on leadership. And if you couple it with Kenneth Gergen's 2009 book, Relational Being (Oxford), you might have something to work with. The point is the fundamental assumptions and models you start with. Tom Hawk. 
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Erwin Rausch [DidacticRa@AOL.COM]
    Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:56 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: criteria for effective leadership

     

    Leadership thinking needs a drastic overhaul

    After having followed the road of research ad nauseam and having failed to come up with something practically useful, (see Mintzberg, 2004; Bennis and O'Toole, 2005) or even settled on a definition, it is time to take a new look – as suggested here, a look at leadership from a practical perspective.

    This does not mean to imply that research has not been useful.  On the contrary, it has pointed at many ways in which leaders can be more effective.  It has, however, failed to consolidate the theories into a workable structure that is reasonably easy to understand and that can provide guidance to leader thinking.  There is not even a commonly accepted definition of who is a leader and hardly any of the ideas that have been offered suggest that everyone who makes 'leadership' decisions, whether in the work or home environment can be considered to be a 'leader'.

     

    Most importantly, there seems to be a lack of awareness that, in the final analysis, it is a leader's quality of decisions where theories point to useful approaches. with respect to all the things we expect from leaders - effective communications, offering appropriate participation in decisions, providing psychological rewards consistently and fairly, helping followers develop their competencies, stimulating cooperation, and others.  It takes extensive knowledge of the theories to cull out relevant points for guidance on these matters, and few leaders have the kind of detailed familiarity with the theories to do that. 

     

    Since most members of this list have such familiarity, I am asking for suggestions on what criteria could be considered? 



  • 3.  criteria for effective leadership

    Posted 05-17-2012 14:04
    Erwin,
    Great news that you are pursuing this.
    Leaders achieve coherence with others on three aspects, intellectual, emotional and visceral. 
    Leaders have sufficient facets arranged 'just so' to achieve high coherence with a  variety of people who differ in intellectual, emotional and visceral preferences. Think faceted diamond. Quality of decisions (all four kinds, c.f., Col. Boyd's OODA loop) is a major attribute but quality of empathy and evident capability may be equally important.
    Onward,
    Jack
    On May 17, 2012, at 8:56 AM, Erwin Rausch wrote:

     
    Leadership thinking needs a drastic overhaul
    After having followed the road of research ad nauseam and having failed to come up with something practically useful, (see Mintzberg, 2004; Bennis and O'Toole, 2005) or even settled on a definition, it is time to take a new look – as suggested here, a look at leadership from a practical perspective.
    This does not mean to imply that research has not been useful.  On the contrary, it has pointed at many ways in which leaders can be more effective.  It has, however, failed to consolidate the theories into a workable structure that is reasonably easy to understand and that can provide guidance to leader thinking.  There is not even a commonly accepted definition of who is a leader and hardly any of the ideas that have been offered suggest that everyone who makes 'leadership' decisions, whether in the work or home environment can be considered to be a 'leader'.

     

    Most importantly, there seems to be a lack of awareness that, in the final analysis, it is a leader's quality of decisions where theories point to useful approaches. with respect to all the things we expect from leaders - effective communications, offering appropriate participation in decisions, providing psychological rewards consistently and fairly, helping followers develop their competencies, stimulating cooperation, and others.  It takes extensive knowledge of the theories to cull out relevant points for guidance on these matters, and few leaders have the kind of detailed familiarity with the theories to do that. 

     

    Since most members of this list have such familiarity, I am asking for suggestions on what criteria could be considered? 



  • 4.  criteria for effective leadership

    Posted 05-17-2012 14:47

    Erwin,

    You are finding, as I have, that leadership is perhaps too complex, too fluid and too dependent upon other factors to be confined to one theory or even one definition.  The emerging research seems to suggest that leadership is more of a life-long learning process rather than a single construct.

    From this perspective all of the preceding definitions, theories, and practices find application dependent upon the context and situation.  So the end result for leaders and educators of future leaders is to develop the learning process within the leadership context.  Leaders then have a process to draw upon to make informed decisions rooted in theory and practice yet flexible enough to apply in any situation.  I do not know of any empirical research that supports this idea but conceptual work can be found in both the leadership and educational literature.


    On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Erwin Rausch <DidacticRa@aol.com> wrote:

     

    Leadership thinking needs a drastic overhaul

    After having followed the road of research ad nauseam and having failed to come up with something practically useful, (see Mintzberg, 2004; Bennis and O'Toole, 2005) or even settled on a definition, it is time to take a new look – as suggested here, a look at leadership from a practical perspective.

    This does not mean to imply that research has not been useful.  On the contrary, it has pointed at many ways in which leaders can be more effective.  It has, however, failed to consolidate the theories into a workable structure that is reasonably easy to understand and that can provide guidance to leader thinking.  There is not even a commonly accepted definition of who is a leader and hardly any of the ideas that have been offered suggest that everyone who makes 'leadership' decisions, whether in the work or home environment can be considered to be a 'leader'.

     

    Most importantly, there seems to be a lack of awareness that, in the final analysis, it is a leader's quality of decisions where theories point to useful approaches. with respect to all the things we expect from leaders - effective communications, offering appropriate participation in decisions, providing psychological rewards consistently and fairly, helping followers develop their competencies, stimulating cooperation, and others.  It takes extensive knowledge of the theories to cull out relevant points for guidance on these matters, and few leaders have the kind of detailed familiarity with the theories to do that. 

     

    Since most members of this list have such familiarity, I am asking for suggestions on what criteria could be considered? 




    --
    Thomas Bradley
    Assistant Professor
    Assistant Department Head
    Tarleton State University


  • 5.  criteria for effective leadership

    Posted 05-17-2012 19:02
    Ask Mary U-B for a copy of Graen's  LEADERSHIP CHAPTER IN OUP New Handbook of Leadership by Rumsey. New and practical criteria are presented along with supporting validity findings.

    George
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Thomas Hawk <THawk@FROSTBURG.EDU>
    To: MG-ED-DV <MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Sent: Thu, May 17, 2012 6:11 pm
    Subject: Re: criteria for effective leadership

    One possible place to start would be Mary Uhl-Bien's 2006 article on "Relational leadership theory" in The Leadership Quarterly (v.17, n.6, 654-676) where she integrates an entity perspective with a relational perspective on leadership. And if you couple it with Kenneth Gergen's 2009 book, Relational Being (Oxford), you might have something to work with. The point is the fundamental assumptions and models you start with. Tom Hawk. 
    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] on behalf of Erwin Rausch [DidacticRa@AOL.COM]
    Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:56 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: criteria for effective leadership

     
    Leadership thinking needs a drastic overhaul
    After having followed the road of research ad nauseam and having failed to come up with something practically useful, (see Mintzberg, 2004; Bennis and O'Toole, 2005) or even settled on a definition, it is time to take a new look – as suggested here, a look at leadership from a practical perspective.
    This does not mean to imply that research has not been useful.  On the contrary, it has pointed at many ways in which leaders can be more effective.  It has, however, failed to consolidate the theories into a workable structure that is reasonably easy to understand and that can provide guidance to leader thinking.  There is not even a commonly accepted definition of who is a leader and hardly any of the ideas that have been offered suggest that everyone who makes 'leadership' decisions, whether in the work or home environment can be considered to be a 'leader'.
     
    Most importantly, there seems to be a lack of awareness that, in the final analysis, it is a leader's quality of decisions where theories point to useful approaches. with respect to all the things we expect from leaders - effective communications, offering appropriate participation in decisions, providing psychological rewards consistently and fairly, helping followers develop their competencies, stimulating cooperation, and others.  It takes extensive knowledge of the theories to cull out relevant points for guidance on these matters, and few leaders have the kind of detailed familiarity with the theories to do that. 
     
    Since most members of this list have such familiarity, I am asking for suggestions on what criteria could be considered? 


  • 6.  criteria for effective leadership

    Posted 05-18-2012 03:43
    The criteria Edwin, are:
    1. does the leader fit the implicit and explicit prototypes of the followers, for a followercentric definitiion;
    2. does the leader drive successful/sufficient/exceptional performance on aggregate in the eyes of the stakeholders of the organisation in the environment of the organisation.
     
    Hope for the USA? "If something is unsustainable, it will stop."--Herb Stein, an economic adviser to Richard Nixon
    Romie F. Littrell, BA, MBA,PhD, FIAIR, An fánaí fiáin
    AUT Business School N.Z., romie.littrell@aut.ac.nz
    http://www.romielittrellpubs.homestead.com/
    Facilitator, Leadership & Management in Sub-Sahara Africa Conferences
    Contents copyright Romie F. Littrell
    From: Erwin Rausch <DidacticRa@AOL.COM>
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Sent: Friday, 18 May 2012, 3:56
    Subject: criteria for effective leadership

     
    Leadership thinking needs a drastic overhaul
    After having followed the road of research ad nauseam and having failed to come up with something practically useful, (see Mintzberg, 2004; Bennis and O'Toole, 2005) or even settled on a definition, it is time to take a new look – as suggested here, a look at leadership from a practical perspective.
    This does not mean to imply that research has not been useful.  On the contrary, it has pointed at many ways in which leaders can be more effective.  It has, however, failed to consolidate the theories into a workable structure that is reasonably easy to understand and that can provide guidance to leader thinking.  There is not even a commonly accepted definition of who is a leader and hardly any of the ideas that have been offered suggest that everyone who makes 'leadership' decisions, whether in the work or home environment can be considered to be a 'leader'.
     
    Most importantly, there seems to be a lack of awareness that, in the final analysis, it is a leader's quality of decisions where theories point to useful approaches. with respect to all the things we expect from leaders - effective communications, offering appropriate participation in decisions, providing psychological rewards consistently and fairly, helping followers develop their competencies, stimulating cooperation, and others.  It takes extensive knowledge of the theories to cull out relevant points for guidance on these matters, and few leaders have the kind of detailed familiarity with the theories to do that. 
     
    Since most members of this list have such familiarity, I am asking for suggestions on what criteria could be considered?