leadership philosophy cartwright final

Running head: LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 1

Final Reflection and Leadership Philosophy

Matthew Cartwright

Loyola University Chicago

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 2

For most of my life, I equated power and authority with leadership. Since I did not hold a

leadership position as an undergraduate and was generally not involved on campus, it was not

until I entered the corporate world when my view of leadership began to evolve. I credit

working on various teams, engaging with diverse individuals and organizations, and holding

numerous positions for helping me to shift my understanding of leadership from being power-

oriented to inclusive, team-based, and purposeful. I did not form this augmented perspective,

however, as an attempt to model the behavior of my peers or supervisors; it was a reaction to

their apparent leadership philosophies that were rooted in position, authority, and self-

advancement. As a response to what I witnessed, I began formulating what leadership meant to

me.

Today, I have further refined my leadership philosophy after having been exposed to

leadership conceptualizations that provide the language to support my beliefs of what real

leadership is: a multi-dimensional process that works to achieve a higher purpose. Since my

leadership perspective has advanced over time, I think it prudent to first describe my early

understandings of leadership, how they became more progressive, and what stimulated a shift in

thinking. Then, I will outline my current leadership philosophy, followed by a reflection of how

I might practice it in the future.

Shifting Perspectives

Throughout my life, the terms leadership and leader were synonymous. Being a leader

was not something just anyone could do; it was not something I could do. People were born to

lead and possessed innate competencies that others did not (Northouse, 2013). Leaders were the

individuals who were voted into positions because of their inherent abilities, granting them

formal authority and power (Heifetz, 2010). In essence, the trait approach dominated my


leadership worldview, which Ayman and Korabik (2010) aptly summarized as “a layperson’s

understanding of leadership” (p. 161). Good leadership was reflected in leaders’ characteristics,

not in their interactions with others, namely followers. I associated masculinity, confidence, and

extraversion, leadership traits identified by Lord DeVader and Alliger (1986) and Zaccaro,

Kemp, and Bader (2004; as cited in Northouse, 2013), with an effective leader. However, over

time I saw the qualities associated with leadership as relatively subjective and in need of a

contextual overlay.

As I entered the professional world, my frame of reference shifted from the authority-

driven and trait-oriented impression I held of leadership. To be clear, authority, power, and

position dominated the culture of the organization. Hierarchy ruled and credibility as a leader

hinged upon the title associated with a position. Nevertheless, the environment served as a

catalyst to reframe my perspective of leadership from positional and trait-based to a process that

involves all vested parties, which is a viewpoint I continue to employ today.

In my professional positions, I encountered and engaged with more traditional

approaches and theories of leadership – style, situational, path-goal, and leader-member

exchange. Though the approaches and theories were described independently by Northouse

(2013), I observed tenets of each in action simultaneously during my most recent corporate

positions. Notably, leadership was often correlated with management, requiring leaders to enact

stylistic and situational approaches to achieve results. Leaders were required to adapt their

management style to meet the demands of various situations and the needs of a variety of

individuals who each possessed distinct working styles (Northouse, 2013). Similarly, the

utilization of elements from path-goal theory was omnipresent. To achieve the goal of


productivity, leaders continuously modified their management approach to address the

motivational needs of employees (Northouse, 2013).

Finally, in-/out-groups found in the leader-member exchange theory served as an ongoing

categorization mechanism across the companies. Those employees who aided leaders in

achieving high productivity effectively were often found in the in-group. Unfortunately, in-

groups were used in the most basic form, with leaders creating individual dyadic relationships.

Leaders did not create high-quality interactions with all employees or other partners within the

organization (Northouse, 2013). Further, they did not promote the development of dyadic

relationships amongst employees; I found that the most successful team members were the ones

who were able to create dyadic exchanges with all parties with whom they engaged. Frankly, I

connected success with being part of the in-group as it knowingly resulted in a promotion and

recognized leadership. However, entering the in-group and maintaining the status required

incredible amounts of dedicated attention, which I found to be tiring.

I understood, ultimately, that title did not represent leadership competence.

Unfortunately, I experienced many toxic leaders who did not involve others in the advancement

of the team but in fact were focused on exploiting people’s desire to belong. Eventually, I

recognized that I was continuously finding myself in the same toxic situations, likely trying to

prove to myself I was capable of overcoming the circumstances (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).

Despite being ingrained in toxic leadership practice, I started to challenge poor leaders’ power

and to question the legitimacy of the framework in which we were operating, finding it to be

self-serving. Though I appreciated productivity and setting goals, I formulated a new personal

philosophy of leadership that centered on working collaboratively toward a greater, common

good.


A Refined Perspective

Working toward a greater good was an abstract notion that I found difficult to

immediately put into action. I wondered what it really meant to me and how it would be

incorporated into my leadership practice. In time, I determined that the greater good in my work

was creating a cohesive team environment that supported and empowered each team member to

be successful. Further, I knew that vision, ethical behavior, motivation, and effecting change

were essential ingredients to achieving success. Notably, my leadership beliefs challenged the

conventional-leader behavior occurring within my organization

Synthesizing Three Models

Though the abovementioned notion of leadership guided me through my leadership

positions, I did not possess clear articulation of it; naturally, I encountered resistance, making it

difficult to practice my atypical philosophy. However, this semester’s course content has

assisted me in naming my leadership values and confirming the validity of my views. In

retrospect, my prior idea of leadership integrated behaviors indicative of team and

transformational leadership (e.g., empowering, motivating, and advocating; Northouse, 2013).

Further, my desire to work collectively to create positive change resembled components of the

social change model (SCM; Cliente, 2009). These models contain useful elements that can be

combined to create a multidimensional leadership approach that effectively represents my

philosophy, and which also makes the theories more nuanced and actionable.

I gravitate toward team leadership given its emphasis on interdependency and the sharing

of goals (Northouse, 2013). Though the team model focuses attention to the leader’s role, I find

particular utility in its emphasis on helping the group to be effective. However, I diverge from

the model because I view all participants as responsible for team effectiveness, not just a


designated leader. To emulate my view of leadership as a collective process, all members should

actively engage in assessing the team and determining what actions, if any, should be taken.

Further, as a cohesive unit, all members must set standards of excellence, manage intergroup

conflict, model ethical behavior, network across and beyond the organization, and advocate for

the team (Northouse, 2013). I recognize that fostering a unified commitment to success takes

effort. I also acknowledge that not all group members will have had equal preparation to

contribute to the leadership process. However, according to Larson and LaFasto (1989), my

inclusive process could aid in developing a collective identity that facilitates shared

responsibility (as cited in Northouse, 2013). Arguably, accountability within the group

leadership process could prompt more prepared individuals to coach others and cultivate their

abilities to contribute. Of course, members’ developmental readiness will need to be considered

so they are provided appropriate learning opportunities that advance their preparedness versus

dissuade it (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009).

Similar to the model of team leadership, transformational leadership centers on the

leader’s actions. However, I see the model’s concentration on motivating, empowering, and

inspiring people “to accomplish more than what is usually expected of them” as a means to

further construct a team setting (Northouse, 2013, p. 185). Akin to my views of team leadership,

I believe all groups members should be vested in the transformational process, even if at varying

degrees. Transformational leadership posits that solid values, as well as the ability to

communicate a clear vision and establish trust, are essential to motivating others to succeed

(Northouse, 2013). I consider these fundamental characteristics of all group members, not just a

team leader. All parties should contribute to a collective vision and be responsible for creating

trust with one another. Moreover, the entire team should employ Kouzes and Posner’s (2007)


exemplary leadership practices. All should model ethical values and behaviors, enable each

other to act, and challenge the status quo, thereby creating change at micro (team) and macro

(organizational) levels. However, to further emphasize achieving change, creating community,

and promoting collaboration, my philosophy incorporates important parts of the SCM, which

will be identified below.

The SCM serves as a connective tissue in my view of leadership. The model advocates

for creating positive change by means of collaboration and the sharing of values, parallel to the

aforementioned tenets of team and transformational leadership (Cliente, 2009). Importantly,

however, the model adds additional complexity to my leadership framework by specifically

defining leadership as a process that engages all participants in effecting change. Unlike team or

transformational leadership, SCM does not emphasize positional leaders (Cliente, 2009). At its

center, SCM involves the values of group, individual, and community that interact to reach

change (Cliente, 2009; Wagner, 2009), all of which form core elements of my leadership

philosophy. Additionally, the application of SCM is known as socially responsible leadership

(SRL). SRL reinforces the element of community by asserting that the wellbeing of participants

throughout the change process is an important concern (Wagner, 2009). Therefore, SCM

operates as a bonding agent that reinforces key aspects of team and transformational leadership,

while also highlighting the importance of involving all participants in order to realize change.

Overlaying Social Identity and Justice

Though collective in nature, using only three philosophies to support my vision of

leadership is insufficient. With community, collaboration, and positive change at its core, the

philosophy requires a deeper recognition of the diverse constituents involved in the process.

Firstly, it is critical to remain cognizant that systems of power and oppression persist in society.


As a result, individuals from underrepresented groups have often not had their perspectives and

approaches to leadership valued in a society dominated by male, White, and Western cultural

norms (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Eagly & Chin, 2010; Kidwell, Willis, Jones-Saumty, & Bigfoot,

2007; Ospina & Foldy, 2009).

Secondly, in order to cultivate a cohesive group, any discontinuity within the group must

be addressed. A unified vision and set of values require that the perspectives of all races,

ethnicities, genders, socioeconomic levels, and sexual orientations, to name a few, present in a

group are recognized and integrated accordingly. However, members never hold a single

identity. Therefore to further reflect the richness of members’ worldviews, the intersection of

their multiple identities and how they uniquely combine to create social realities must be

considered (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010). More importantly, as I engage with others in the

leadership process, my identity serves as an interceding factor. Though aspects of my identity

are oppressed in society, my White and male identities afford me certain privileges that I need to

consider as I engage with diverse others.

Finally, I think it is critical to acknowledge that systemic exclusion of certain groups of

people presents challenges when one attempts to incorporate all perspectives in a

multidimensional leadership process. Therefore, all members must be dedicated to affirming

members’ unique perspectives and enabling their leadership self-efficacy (i.e., their belief in

their abilities to lead). Day and Harrison (2007) asserted that effective leadership in groups

cannot occur without an effective leader, which requires that leaders develop appropriate self-

efficacy (as cited in Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Therefore, it is necessary that all

individuals are cognizant of the importance of group diversity, especially since all participants

are expected to contribute to the leadership process. Being dedicated to positive social change


involves a commitment to shifting perceptions about who can contribute to the leadership

process and what perspectives are valued. In essence, I believe that participants are responsible

for empowering all perspectives and for advocating for social justice inside the group and within

the organization.

Practicing the Perspective

One consideration for putting theory into practice is the importance of ethics. For

example, pseudotransformational leaders, those who utilize charisma and motivation of others to

a negative and self-serving end, represent the antithesis of ethical leadership (Northouse, 2013).

I believe what leaders (i.e., all participants in the process) represent and how they conduct

themselves are essential considerations when measuring ethical leadership (Northouse, 2013).

Heifetz (1994) noted that since myriad values should be considered simultaneously, conflict

between conceptions of what is moral may emerge quickly in a dynamic setting with various

social cultures present (as cited in Northouse, 2013). As mentioned, including transformational

leadership allows my leadership perspective to help participants shift to higher standards of

ethical accountability. Moreover, my philosophy is centered on collective efforts to create

change, thereby also reflecting the five ethical principles of leadership: respect others, serve

others, show justice, manifest honesty, and build community (Northouse, 2013). All of these

practices are essential in motivating a community toward achieving a greater good. As

previously mentioned, this behavior is illustrative of a leader performing elements of all three

models, which are founded on community and teamwork.

A second important consideration for practicing an inclusive leadership philosophy is

critical self-reflection. Preskill and Brookfield’s (2009) described critical reflection as

ruminating in and on one’s leadership practice. For my practice, I think it is pivotal to


understand how I contribute to the leadership process and how I enable others to contribute.

Additionally, it is important for team members to use their critical reflection to “alter their

practice in light of new information regarding the dynamics of power” (Preskill & Brookfield,

2009, p. 44). As members modify their behaviors, they might mitigate the negative influences

power has on effective practice of inclusive leadership (e.g., reinforcing positional authority).

Adjusting how I participate in the process to ensure that power is equally distributed and used

positively to achieve a common goal would reflect the informed leadership actions noted in

Preskill and Brookfield. Additionally, it is necessary to be mindful of how leadership

participants’ identities may influence how they interact with power. As previously mentioned,

many identity groups have been kept from engaging in leadership due to systems of power and

oppression. Therefore, critical reflection must involve acknowledging how power has

historically been concentrated in the few and has been used to limit justice and to deter

community (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009). As I practice and advocate for my inclusive

philosophy of leadership, encouraging critical reflection by all involved will be a key component

of the process to ensure that all perspectives are considered.

Conclusion

Ultimately, my view of leadership is a multidimensional and inclusive framework that

advocates for community, collaboration, and change. It employs practical behaviors and actions

(e.g., modeling the way) from three models, thereby providing utility in practice. The difficulty

in applying theory to practice, however, is apparent when attempting to identify precisely how

my leadership perspective will work. I believe, though, that the synthesized nature of my

perspective provides a flexible way of thinking that can be utilized across various group

situations. It is the adaptability of my philosophy that attracts me to it and leaves me confident


that it can be applied successfully. More importantly, overlaying critical self-understanding and

social perspectives elevates my philosophy and allows me to consider how my actions and

identities interact with how I engage diverse others in the leadership process. As shared, my

philosophy has evolved over time to represent a more inclusive leadership perspective. I expect

it to continue to change as I acquire new knowledge and experiences, thereby reinforcing the

flexible, multidimensional nature of my leadership practice.


References

Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Why gender and culture matter. American Psychologist, 65,

157-170.

Cilente, K. (2009). An overview of the social change model of leadership development. In S. R.

Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world:

Understanding the social change model of leadership development (pp. 43- 78). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader

development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become

leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American

Psychologist, 65, 216-224.

Kidwell, C. S., Willis, D. J., Jones-Saumty, D., & Bigfoot, D. S. (2007). Feminist leadership

among American Indian women. In J. L. Chin, B. Lott, J. K. Rice, & J. Sanchez-Hucles

(Eds.), Women and leadership: Transforming visions and diverse voices. Malden, MA:

Blackwell Publishing.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and

corrupt politicians and how we can survive them. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.


Machida, M., & Schaubroek, J. (2011). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in leadership

development. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 459-468.

Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ospina, S., & Foldy, E. (2009). A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature:

Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadership. Leadership

Quarterly, 20, 876-896.

Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S. D. (2009). Learning as a way of leading: Lessons from the struggle

for social justice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sanchez-Hucles, J., & Sanchez, P. (2007). From margin to center: The voices of diverse feminist

leaders. In J. L. Chin, B. Lott, J. K. Rice, & J. Sanchez-Hucles (Eds.), Women and

leadership: Transforming visions and diverse voices. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Wagner, W. (2009). What is social change? In S. R. Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.),

Leadership for a better world: Understanding the social change model of leadership

development (pp. 7- 42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

leadership philosophy cartwright final

Documents