# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)
Great leaders also know when to move quickly and proceed with the available information, versus when to take more time and gather additional information. When leaders opt to pursue additional information or avenues, they must also know when to stop. While a large amount of data may be desirable in a perfect world, the data gathering process can utilize too much time, and the vast amount of data can also be paralyzing and take attention away from the big picture or key data points.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Graziadio Business Review | Graziadio School of Business and Management | Pepperdine University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When we think of what makes someone a great leader, one characteristic that comes to mind is decisiveness. We do not envision successful leaders standing around appearing unclear and uncertain. Instead, we view them as people who are able to quickly arrive at their decisions and communicate the goals to others.

Leaders often have to make challenging decisions, such as what direction to move their company in; whether to keep an employee, reposition them or let them go; whether or not to share "bad news" with stockholders, and many other such challenges.

Great leaders understand how to balance emotion with reason and make decisions that positively impact themselves, their employees, their customers and stakeholders, and their organizations. Making good decisions in difficult situations is no small feat because these types of decisions involve change, uncertainty, anxiety, stress, and sometimes the unfavorable reactions of others.

Great leaders also know when to move quickly and proceed with the available information, versus when to take more time and gather additional information. When leaders opt to pursue additional information or avenues, they must also know when to stop. While a large amount of data may be desirable in a perfect world, the data gathering process can utilize too much time, and the vast amount of data can also be paralyzing and take attention away from the big picture or key data points.

This article will explore three crucial qualities that great leaders must develop to become great decision-makers: emotional intelligence, the ability to handle uncertainty, and the ability to weigh evidence with intuition. The article concludes with a step-by-step process employing these characteristics to arrive at the best possible decision given the many variables that can and will come into play.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence, the ability to understand and manage your emotions and those of others, is one of the most important qualities a leader must possess. According to the authors of Primal Leadership, a leader's emotions are contagious. This is why resonant leadership is so important-a leader's mood will resonate with others and set the tone for the emotional climate in an organization.[ 1]

Emotional intelligence consists of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Self-awareness is the foundation for all aspects of emotional intelligence. It involves being able to accurately assess yourself. Before you can change, you must be aware of your thoughts, feelings, and actions. Self-management entails the ability to understand and control your emotions, adapt to change, and adopt an optimistic outlook. Social awareness is similar to self-awareness but the focus is external and involves understanding the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others, as well as how to relate to other people. Relationship management is crucial for great leadership and includes qualities such as being influential and inspirational and developing others.

Here we will focus on one of the core components of self-management: emotional self-control. When you have developed this skill, you will recognize your emotions, be influenced by them, but not blinded by them, and be able to calmly and clearly express your decisions to others even when you experience intense emotions within yourself and from others.
Emotional Self-Control and Decision Making
Imagine that you were presented with a critical high-stakes situation with a significant potential downside and you needed to make a decision and take action right away. You would likely have a significant emotional reaction, including feelings such as anxiety, fear, or anger. Unfortunately emotions such as these cloud our ability to make good decisions. When we get into the emotional part of our brain, our innate reaction is to protect ourselves. We get an adrenaline rush or flight-or-fight response, and short-term survival is the immediate goal. As you can imagine, being in this state is not particularly conducive to making strategic, long-term decisions. This is why emotional self-control is so important. Great leaders are aware of their emotional state and are able to manage intense emotions so they can make smart decisions.
Reigning in Emotions for Strategic Decisions
In order to make strategic, long-term decisions, we must know how to bring down the intense emotional reaction so that we can engage a different part of our brains (the prefrontal cortex), which is responsible for looking at the big picture and long-term planning. Paradoxically, the way to do this is to accept and allow whatever emotional reaction we are having and choose to focus on the facts as much as possible.[ 2]

Trying not to experience an emotion is like trying to pull a rollercoaster backwards as it heads down the hill. It takes a lot of effort, which ultimately backfires and we feel worse. Instead, simply jump on board and ride it out. The intensity of the emotions will quickly pass and then you can think logically. The goal, however, is not to take feelings out of the decision-making process. It is simply to keep them from taking over and losing emotional self-control.

Managing Uncertainty and Choices

Why is it so difficult to make decisions? Perhaps it is because the variables and the outcomes are often uncertain. We do not like uncertainty. Uncertainty creates discomfort and analysis paralysis. We try to analyze the situation from every angle to alleviate the sense of uncertainty. These efforts are often futile and waste valuable time and energy because so often we must make decisions in the face of uncertainty.
The Lengths We Go to Avoid Uncertainty
In a 1992 study conducted by cognitive scientists Amos Tversky and Eldar Shafir, college students were asked whether they would purchase a great deal on a trip to Hawaii over their holiday break. They were told that they would receive the grade on their most important exam before they had to decide. Of those who were told that they passed the exam, 57 percent said they'd go for the trip. Interestingly, a similar percentage (54 percent) of those who were told that they failed also said they'd go.

When researchers designed uncertainty into the mix, results changed dramatically. Students were told that they would not receive the exam grade for two days and that they could buy the trip now, pass on it now, or pay $5 to wait for two days until they received their grade. The majority of students (61 percent) said that they would wait. The first part of the study showed that students for the most part wanted to go if they passed or if they failed the exam, but here they were willing to pay to wait and find out their grade.

This study shows the lengths that we will go to avoid uncertainty. Students seemed to think that knowing their grade would help them make a good decision when in reality it would not make a difference in their decisions.

We are often paralyzed by uncertainty and end up basing our decisions on things that aren't even related. Question your attempts to find certainty before making decisions because you may be seeking a false sense of security. Much like the aforementioned method to reign in negative emotions to achieve emotional self-control, acceptance is a crucial starting place. If we are able to accept the uncertainty rather than try to resolve it, we can focus our limited time, energy, and money on making the best decisions in the face of an uncertain outcome.

This does not mean that you should not bother to analyze a situation before making a decision. Various analyses can be helpful in providing the information necessary to make the best decisions in the situation. The key is to know when what you don't know is important, and if so, how to go about gathering the necessary information to resolve the uncertainty. If what you don't know is not important, then the next step is to accept the uncertainty and proceed in spite of it.

If, however, you find yourself getting stuck or investing too much time or other resources in the analyses, ask yourself if the uncertainty that you are attempting to resolve is truly resolveable. If not, it would be best to accept the uncertainty and move on.
Limit Your Choices
One of the decision-making mistakes we commonly make is to give ourselves a lot of options. We figure that if we consider every possible alternative, we will have better choices and make the best decision. Sometimes we do this exhaustive search as a way to resolve uncertainty. We assume that if we go through everything, no stone will be left unturned and there will be no uncertainty. The problem is that we are likely to get overwhelmed and make no decision.

In 2000, Sheena Iyengar of Columbia Business School and Mark Lepper, chairman of Stanford's psychology department, conducted a study in which two tasting displays of gourmet jams were set up in an upscale supermarket. They had 24 jams set up for tasting in one display, and just six jams in the other. They found that more people were attracted to the table with 24, an equal number tasted at both tables, and a huge difference in purchasing resulted: only 3 percent of those who had tasted at the table with 24 jams bought a jar, whereas 30 percent of those who had tasted at the table with six jams bought a jar.[ 4]

This study and various others like it show that when there are more than five or six options, people have a more difficult time deciding and often opt not to make a decision. To help yourself and others effectively and efficiently make decisions, limit your options. Keep options fewer than five and you will find it much easier to make a decision.

Trusting Your Intuition

Excellent leaders often say that they go with their gut to make decisions. They are able to trust themselves and their expertise and not get stuck in the cycle of over-thinking. The more you know about a subject, the more reliable your intuition will be. Make yourself an expert in your field and your intuition will be your best guide.
Intuition Leads to Satisfaction with Decisions
Participants in a study conducted by Timothy D. Wilson and his colleagues at the University of Virginia and the University of Pittsburgh were asked to choose a piece of art to hang in their homes. Half of them were asked to think rationally about their choice, and the other half were instructed to go with their gut. Those who went with their feelings rather than their analysis were happier with their selection. We can rationalize our way into anything, but our first impressions often tell us how we really feel.[ 5]
How to Hear Your Intuition
You may have heard intuition described as a nagging little voice inside you. It typically speaks softly rather than screaming out at you. Unfortunately in our non-stop, busy, technology-filled worlds, it can be easy to not hear our intuition. It is always speaking, but we are often not listening.

Hone your skills at listening to your intuition by building some form of meditative practice into your daily life. It doesn't have to be actual meditation; it can be a few moments of reflection, a warm bath, a walk with your dog, and so on. We are typically so bombarded with information all day (television, radio, Internet, cell phone, Blackberry...) that we miss out on opportunities to notice ourselves thinking and feeling. To hear your intuition you must have some time when you're a human being, not a human doing. Build periods of quiet into your life and you will be surprised at what you hear.
Decide Your Way to Great Decisions
Great decision making takes practice. As you now know, this process requires a certain level of comfort with discomfort. We could play it safe and defer important decisions to others, spend hours and hours analyzing and agonizing over every option, or we could accept the level of risk and go for it. Many people are afraid of making a bad decision or the wrong decision. We can only do our best with the information we have available to us at the time. There is typically not a right or a wrong answer. In the worst-case scenario, however, you select the wrong option. Even if you choose an option that reveals itself to be inferior in the short-term, you will learn that you can handle the outcome and make the best of it. You may even find unexpected opportunities by going down the "wrong" path.

Practice this process using the following steps:

1. Decide whether to take action quickly or gather additional information. If you decide to gather additional information, create parameters to determine what information is essential and when to cease your information-gathering process.

2. Be aware of the emotions that come up as you proceed with your decision. Accept the emotions and allow them to guide you without controlling you.

3. Recognize the uncertainty elements in the situation and decide how much of the uncertainty needs resolution. Know that most situations cannot be calculated with complete certainty and, even though it may be uncomfortable, it is often necessary to accept the uncertainty and proceed.

4. Allow yourself to hear your intuition. Do not over-think important decisions because you may talk yourself into something that goes against your instincts and experience.

5. Seek out opportunities to thoughtfully and proactively make challenging decisions. Recognize that even "negative" outcomes may be better than you expect, and gain confidence in your ability to make great decisions.

Be a leader in your personal life and career by committing to make difficult decisions in a timely manner. The best way you can inspire others to change is by making changes yourself. Practice this process and become a confident leader of yourself and others. Just think of all of the time and energy you will save in the process, and how great you will feel as you remain calm, trust yourself, and make great decisions.

[ 1] Daniel Goleman, Richard E. Boyatzis, and Annie McKee, Primal Leadership,(Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004).

[ 2] Daniel H. Barlow, Anxiety and Its Disorders, Second Edition: The Nature and Treatment of Anxiety and Panic, (New York: The Guilford Press, 2004).

[ 3] Amos Tversky and Eldar Shafir, "The Disjunction Effect in Choice under Uncertainty," Psychological Science, 3 (1992): 205-209.

[ 4] Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper, " When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (2000): 995-1106.

[ 5] Timothy D. Wilson et al., " Introspecting about Reasons Can Reduce Post-Choice Satisfaction," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (1993): 331-339.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Kenneth Ko, PhD, GUEST EDITOR, Associate Dean, Graziadio School of Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Jerry Biberman, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of Scranton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When we think of what makes someone a great leader, one characteristic that comes to mind is decisiveness. We do not envision successful leaders standing around appearing unclear and uncertain. Instead, we view them as people who are able to quickly arrive at their decisions and communicate the goals to others.

# data[].attributes.body
(Week 1)

Authentic leaders are self-actualized individuals who are aware of their strengths, their limitations, and their emotions. They also show their real selves to their followers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is authentic leadership?

It continues to surprise me how many leaders attempt to be one way at work, while their "true" personality emerges outside of work. Once a CEO reminded me, "Leadership is acting." And it surprises me when these same leaders seem shocked or confused when their employees don't trust them, don't like them, and can't really wait to work elsewhere.

Authenticity has been explored throughout history, from Greek philosophers to the work of Shakespeare ("To thy own self be true." -Polonius, Hamlet). Authentic leadership has been explored sporadically as part of modern management science, but found its highest levels of acceptance since Bill George's 2003 book, Authentic Leadership.

But what is authentic leadership?

While different theorists have different slants on the concept, most agree that:

1. Authentic leaders are self-aware and genuine. Authentic leaders are self-actualized individuals who are aware of their strengths, their limitations, and their emotions. They also show their real selves to their followers. They do not act one way in private and another in public; they don't hide their mistakes or weaknesses out of fear of looking weak. They also realize that being self-actualized is an endless journey, never complete.

2. Authentic leaders are mission driven and focused on results. They are able to put the mission and the goals of the organization ahead of their own self-interest. They do the job in pursuit of results, not for their own power, money or ego.

3. Authentic leaders lead with their heart, not just their minds. They are not afraid to show their emotions, their vulnerability and to connect with their employees. This does not mean authentic leaders are "soft." In fact communicating in a direct manner is critical to successful outcomes, but it's done with empathy; directness without empathy is cruel.

4. Authentic leaders focus on the long-term. A key tenet in Bill George's model is the company leaders are focused on long-term shareholder value, not in just beating quarterly estimates. Just as George did as CEO of , and as Bezos has done for years at Amazon, leaders realize that to nurture individuals and to nurture a company requires hard work and patience, but the approach pays large dividends over time.

__________

What are your motivation triggers? Take the "Your Engagement Profile Quiz" to find out.

Check out Kevin Kruse's new book, Employee Engagement 2.0, and discover how to turn apathetic groups into emotionally committed teams.

Kevin Kruse is a NY Times bestselling author and serial entrepreneur. For insider tips and exclusive content, join his newsletter at kevinkruse.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is authentic leadership? It continues to surprise me how many leaders attempt to be one way at work, while their "true" personality emerges outside of work. Once a CEO reminded me, "Leadership is acting." And it surprises me when these same leaders seem shocked or confused when their employees don't [...]

# data[].attributes.body
(Week 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The democratic leadership style is based on mutual respect. It is often combined with participatory leadership because it requires collaboration between leaders and the people they guide.

The democratic/participative leadership style places significant responsibility on leaders and their staff. This is true for all organizations - from private enterprises and government agencies to educational institutions and nonprofit entities.

Read on to discover more about democratic/participative leadership:

It's difficult to imagine democratic leaders accomplishing their goals without direct participation from others. Participation is key to all successful democratic enterprises. This includes:

Attentive constituents in a congressional district

Concerned parents of students at a school

Active members from a nonprofit organization

Engaged employees at a prospering company

What is the definition of democratic/participative leadership?

One of the clearest definitions of democratic leadership comes from John Gastil. His 1994 article, "A Definition and Illustration of Democratic Leadership" for the Human Relations journal remains relevant to private industry and the free market.

Gastil, a professor at Penn State University, has written extensively about jury selection and democratic participation in the deliberations process. His succinct definition of democratic leadership explains that it is conceptually distinct from positions of authority.

Gastil's definition of democratic leadership:

"Distributing responsibility among the membership, empowering group members, and aiding the group's decision-making process."

What is participative leadership?

Edwin A. Locke, a professor emeritus of leadership and motivation at the University of Maryland, offers an expanded definition of democratic leadership by adding participative to the equation.

Participative leadership is "any power-sharing arrangement in which workplace influence is shared among individuals who are otherwise hierarchical unequals" Locke and his colleague David Schweiger explain in "Participation in Decision-Making: One More Look."

The authors warn that leaders should be careful when using the participatory style because it can backfire. If people feel their input is being ignored, the democratic/participative style "can actually lead to lower employee satisfaction and productivity," Locke and his colleague wrote in 1979.

The key to letting subordinates take part in decision-making is to build mature teams with experienced and cooperative people. Democratic/participative teams are not only capable of making good decisions but they also support their group's goals - even when their own suggestions aren't adopted.

History of democratic/participative leadership

The democratic leadership style always involves participative decision-making. It empowers employees to have a strong hand in managing organizations.

Democratic/participative leadership - or the "style with two names" - has become popular in recent decades. It dates to the 1930s and '40s. That's when noted behavioral researcher Kurt Lewin led studies that helped identify the value of the democratic/participative leadership style in organizations.

In "Leadership and Group Life," Lewin and his colleagues Ronald Lippitt and Ralph K. White cite democratic, laissez-faire and autocratic as the three primary leadership styles. Based on interviews with business leaders and employees, Lewin, Lippitt and White concluded that the democratic leadership style was the most popular among subordinates.

Successful democratic leaders differ from autocratic and laissez-faire leaders in two important ways.

Unlike autocrats, democratic leaders expect people who report to them to have in-depth experience and to exhibit self-confidence.

Unlike the laissez-faire style, which delegates authority to experts, democratic leaders are involved in the decision-making process.

Democratic/participative leaders have enormous responsibilities. Organizations that incorporate the democratic style still need strong leaders who know how to avoid the pitfalls that can trip up collaborative teams when they lose their compass.

Case in point: Apple

Apple was a successful company from 1976 to 1985, before it almost failed in the mid-1990s. Then it became enormously successful again - precisely because it faltered.

In other words, Apple had a vision. Apple lost its vision. Apple regained its vision.

That's rare.

In the mid-1990s Gateway, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems and other companies reportedly zeroed in on Apple as an acquisition target. Years later, many of those brands disappeared. Yet Apple survived.

Apple survived because Steve Jobs learned how to adapt. He became a democratic/participative leader. Jobs started out as a charismatic/laissez-faire leader, and Apple soared. Then he became an autocratic leader, and Apple's board of directors requested his resignation.

When he returned to Apple more than 10 years later, Jobs combined several leadership styles and added democratic/participative to his repertoire. He hired other experienced leaders and entrusted them to excel. Jobs encouraged his lead designer Jonathon Ive, and he mentored manufacturing expert Tim Cook, now CEO. He let them make key decisions.

That's why Apple survived.

All successful leaders are self-actualizing people with loads of self-confidence. They take responsibility for their actions, they support their teams, and they don't make excuses for failures.

Among U.S. presidents, there are many examples of men who brought the democratic/participative leadership style to the Oval Office. Most of these presidents exhibited traits that reflected a variety of leadership styles.

U.S. presidents with democratic leadership traits:

George Washington: Unlike commanding troops during the American Revolution, Washington was notably democratic when guiding the U.S. government. He showed early signs of his democratic leadership style by appointing strong leaders to his staff. His decision not to serve a third term exemplified a democratic leader who knows when to pass the torch.

Thomas Jefferson: As president, Jefferson was both an authoritarian and democratic leader. As primary author of the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776, Jefferson left no ambiguity about his devotion to democracy: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." In 1803, he autocratically bypassed Congress to expedite the Louisiana Purchase for $15 million.

Abraham Lincoln: Often considered the epitome of a democratic leader, Lincoln was autocratic in his decisions throughout his presidency. Although his character and principles were democratic in nature, Lincoln was an autocratic leader as president out of necessity. The Civil War demanded decisiveness.

Dwight D. Eisenhower: Far more democratic in his approach to defeating Germany during WWII than his subordinate, Gen. George C. Patton, Eisenhower was a strategist and consensus builder. Eisenhower is an unusual example of a military commander who adopted laissez-faire and democratic/participative leadership styles as commander in chief.

John F. Kennedy: A charismatic leader at heart, Kennedy displayed characteristics of laissez-faire and democratic leadership styles. His spearheading of the Apollo space program is an example of JFK's laissez-faire style. In other cases, he showed autocratic leadership tendencies, such as his quick decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Jimmy Carter: A former naval commander, Carter exemplified both the qualities and pitfalls of the democratic/participative leadership style as president. He surrounded himself with some experienced staff, but he often deferred to inexperienced subordinates when acting authoritatively would have been a better choice.

If there is a lesson to learn from these presidents it's that the best leaders find the right style to suit the needs of a nation or organization, crisis or paradigm shift.

Democratic leadership in business

Business enterprises and other organizations comprise numerous experts, so they are well-suited to the democratic/participative leadership process. Whether it's a CEO or a project manager, democratic leaders can be effective in business if they surround themselves with experienced players.

The participatory style works best with experts who know their jobs and carry out their responsibilities under minimal supervision. This is true for:

Biotech R&D divisions

Housing construction sites

Universities

Information technology companies

Yet in private businesses and government agencies with strict procedures or a high turnover of employees, the autocratic leadership style is often more appropriate. Even within these environments, though, divisions exist that function best under a democratic/participative leadership style.

Examples:

Pharmaceutical industry: Pharmaceutical companies have educated chemists who work well in collaborative teams on development projects. Such companies also require autocratic leaders who supervise subordinates in automated assembly-line operations. They demand procedures and tight tolerances that do not lend themselves to a democratic/participative leadership style.

Hospitals and labs: Hospitals and healthcare testing facilities call for a blend of leadership styles. Hospital administration - from personnel and accounting departments to facilities maintenance and insurance billing - requires autocratic leadership to ensure consistency and accountability. Simultaneously, physicians work collaboratively under democratic/participative leaders. Ditto: nurses, who employ both autocratic and democratic leadership styles to carry out team functions and individual responsibilities.

High-tech firms: The technology industry offers countless examples of companies that are well-suited for the democratic/participative leadership style. Many are startups with engineering and software development teams that work collaboratively under democratic leaders. In successful cases, these firms evolve from laissez-faire startups to democratic-led enterprises to mature autocratic companies.

Companies that reflect democratic leadership principles

Most successful companies evolve, and their leaders display a mix of leadership styles. They have autocratic leaders who run manufacturing, quality control and distribution divisions along with R&D teams spearheaded by democratic/participative leaders.

Examples of companies where democratic/participative leadership works:

Google: Founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page developed their Internet search engine while pursuing their doctorates at Stanford. After obtaining initial financing, they did something unusual. Brin and Page followed the advice of experienced entrepreneurs and hired Eric Schmidt to jump-start their company. Incorporating a blend of autocratic, laissez-faire and democratic leadership styles, the Novell and Sun executive brought experience into Google's dugout. The three immediately began scouting experienced talent to set up democratic/participative teams. Today, Google remains relatively democratic in its approach to product development under CEO Page.

Genentech: A pioneer in the discovery and development of restriction enzymes to develop biological drugs, Genentech was started by Robert Swanson and Herbert Boyer. They faced competition for financial resources and talent when they launched the company in 1976. Recombinant DNA technology was a mystery to all but a few forward-looking biologists and chemists. The key to Genentech's success was instilling democratic/participative leadership values to attract those scientists. Although it's now owned by Roche, Genentech remains on the leading edge by blending democratic R&D with autocratic manufacturing leadership styles.

Mayo Clinic: A nonprofit organization with a reputation as one of the most cutting-edge healthcare research facilities in the world, the Mayo Clinic thrives on democratic/participative leadership values. Founded by Dr. William Mayo and his family, the hospital, healthcare and research facility attracts some of the most brilliant minds in the medical field because it gives them opportunities to work collaboratively among peers on democratic teams. Although the processes required in the medical research industry often call for an extremely autocratic approach, healthcare organizations like the Mayo Clinic cannot succeed without democratic/participative leaders.

Amazon.com: When it launched, Amazon was known for selling books. The company prospered by embracing all three of Lewin's leadership models. It started as a laissez-faire company, with Jeff Bezos as final arbitrator of all key decisions. He recruited a lot of veteran computer programmers from nearby software companies and quickly implemented a democratic/participative leadership model. Today, Amazon sells everything imaginable, including cloud services and big data security storage. Amazon is necessarily autocratic because of its commitment to timely customer service. At its core, however, the company retains its democratic values among C-suite executives, division heads and project directors.

Famous democratic/participative leaders

The democratic/participative leadership style works best in creative businesses, design firms and corporations driven by research and development. The participatory leadership style is also well-suited for educational institutions with collaborative environments.

Examples of leaders who exhibit democratic/participative leadership style:

Indra Nooyi: Nooyi, the CEO and chairman of PepsiCo, has endeared herself to employees. She takes an interest in the personal lives of employees and has a vision of the company's future. Nooyi made news when she sent letters to the parents of direct reports to let them know how proud they should be of their executive adult/children. When one recruit was undecided about joining the company, Forbes magazine reports, Nooyi called the candidate's mom and subsequently landed the executive. She has also made fans of investors with smart divestitures and acquisitions, such as Tropicana, Quaker Oats and Gatorade.

Bill George: George was a senior executive at Honeywell and Litton Industries before joining Medtronic as CEO. Now a professor at Harvard Business School, George says he felt hamstrung by the bureaucratic processes before joining Medtronic. Although he acknowledges the necessity of autocratic procedures in businesses with tight manufacturing controls, George applauds Medtronic's innovative approach to healthcare technologies. Noted for its heart stents and mechanical heart valves, Medtronic would not have thrived under George's tutelage from 1991 to 2001 had he not been devoted to the principles of collaborative research efforts, baked into the democratic/participative leadership style.

Tommy Lasorda: A successful baseball pitcher before coaching, Lasorda bonded with his players. As manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers from 1976 to 1996, Lasorda won two World Series championships, four National League pennants and eight division titles. Considered a player's coach, Lasorda's decision to let Kirk Gibson pinch-hit during the 1988 World Series against the Oakland A's remains one of the most memorable moments in baseball history. Most managers would not have sent an injured batter to the plate against an ace pitcher. Lasorda did so because he trusted his player's judgment and his own instincts. Both are hallmarks of a successful democratic/participative leader in action. Gibson hit a home run and helped the Dodgers win the series.

Ginni Rometty: As CEO of IBM since 2012, Rometty has demonstrated a methodical approach to managing and a democratic/participative leadership style. She has made the tough decisions expected of IBM CEOs, such as selling its profitable but slowing server business and reducing staff. She has also committed resources to IBM's big data efforts. IBM is partnering with healthcare companies, government enterprises and social media firms to leverage its strengths in cognitive computing.

Muhtar Kent: Known as a democratic/participative leader, Kent is CEO and chairman of the board at Coca-Cola. He has a reputation for seeking input from others on key decisions. Kent has an inclusive style that reflects his commitment to diversity. The New York-born executive is as committed to improving managerial processes and manufacturing efficiencies as he is to teamwork. He worked his way up the corporate ladder, in part, by doubling Coca-Cola's bottling operations output. As CEO, Kent built collaborative management teams to address slowing sales growth and tackled challenges from global competitors, reflecting a blend of autocratic and democratic styles.

A major characteristic among democratic/participative leaders is inclusiveness. Democratic leaders seek participation from a wide range of people, including women.

Democratic/participatory leadership quotes

These leaders are known as big innovators and strong collaborators. Many of them blended different leadership styles or evolved to adopt the characteristics of democratic leaders. Here are some quotations that reveal their devotion to democratic and participatory leadership:

Thomas Aquinas: "If the highest aim of a captain were to preserve his ship, he would keep it in port forever."

Jeff Bezos: "I strongly believe that missionaries make better products. They care more. For a missionary, it's not just about the business. There has to be a business, and the business has to make sense. But that's not why you do it. You do it because you have something meaningful that motivates you."

Dwight D. Eisenhower: "Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it."

David Packard: "Take risks. Ask big questions. Don't be afraid to make mistakes. If you don't make mistakes, you're not reaching far enough."

Steve Jobs: "One of the keys to Apple is Apple's an incredibly collaborative company."

Ginny Rometty: "I ask everyone's opinion when they don't speak up. And then, when they have an opinion, I'll ask others to talk about it."

Mahatma Gandhi: "Honest disagreement is a good sign of progress."

Tommy Lasorda: "I believe managing is like holding a dove in your hand. Squeeze too hard and you kill it, not hard enough and it flies away."

William J. Mayo: "Lord, deliver me from the man who never makes a mistake. And also from the man who makes the same mistake twice."

Bill George: "You'd sit in a business meeting and say, 'Is this product good enough to go to patients -- so 100 percent of all patients who get it are going to have their lives improved? If it's not, we're going to have to go back to the drawing board.'"

Thomas Jefferson: "Delay is preferable to error."

Jerry Yang: "Certainly Yahoo wouldn't exist without the sort of environment that Stanford gave us to create it."

Sergey Brin: "Solving big problems is easier than solving little problems."

Tip O'Neill: "It's easier to run for office than to run the office."

Jimmy Carter: "The experience of democracy is like the experience of life itself - always changing, infinite in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all the more valuable for having been tested by adversity."

Democratic leadership case study: Twitter

It should come as no surprise that a company devoted to instantaneously spreading the word about anything and everything in 140 characters or less has a reputation for being collaborative.

Twitter, which has seen fits and starts since its founding nearly a decade ago, has a shared leadership style that starts at the top. Founded by Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams, Biz Stone and Noah Glass, Twitter began life in 2006 as a democratic/participative enterprise.

It remains so today.

Each of Twitter's co-founders had a different vision of what the company should become. That vision ranged from a rebellious underground domain to a kind of brand central station where any company or individual could spread the word about their products and aspirations to thousands of followers.

Dorsey, who has been called "the real core co-founder," never wavered from his vision of Twitter as a text-messaging service that would change the world as we know it - or as the young Dorsey knew it when he started coding Twitter two decades ago.

Dorsey is both a democratic and a laissez-faire leader. A consummate multitasker, his family and peers know him as a utilitarian hipster with fashion sense. He dislikes all waste and cherishes his haircuts. He grew up listening to C-band radio dispatches of emergency personnel responding to crimes and fires, false alarms and deadly events.

Although Dorsey has returned in the role of executive chairman, Twitter remains minimalist and collaborative.

Both Dorsey and Twitter represent the new wave of democratic/participative leadership in business. Like Dorsey, Twitter has taken several years to find its compass.

Twitter's strength?

Brevity is imperative in the new world of social media.

Democratic leadership has many names. They include:

Participative leadership

Shared leadership

Open-book management

Participative decision-making

Democratic management style

The democratic/participative leadership style has some similarities to laissez-faire leadership, but there are also significant differences.

Laissez-faire leaders allow subordinates to decide how to complete their tasks and projects, but not to make organization-wide decisions. Participative leadership not only accepts subordinates' comments, ideas and suggestions, it also encourages their input on decisions and strategies.

Both of these styles depend on the leader having skilled, educated and experienced employees. Using the democratic leadership style with inexperienced personnel is asking for trouble unless the workers have an extraordinary intuition for what needs to be done.

Still, most of the noted democratic/participative leaders throughout history have succeeded because they encouraged their staff to get involved in the discussions about major and minor decisions.

Democratic leaders are highly rational

Noted organizational psychologist Bernard M. Bass studied Lewin's big three leadership styles: laissez-faire, autocratic and democratic. In "The Bass Handbook of Leadership," he pointed out successful leaders typically exhibit many traits from different leadership styles.

Bass, a professor emeritus at Binghamton University and founding director of the Center for Leadership Studies who died in 2007, observed that democratic leaders are factual and rational in their approach to problem-solving and evaluating staff performance. He also observed that democratic leaders "de-emphasized social distance," while autocratic leaders exhibited their higher social stature among subordinates.

Social standing is one of several key distinctions between autocratic and democratic leaders. Although both styles can be effective, autocratic leaders are authoritarian because they often supervise inexperienced subordinates, or they're charged with training experienced people to perform new tasks quickly - such as learning an innovative software program or adopting an updated quality-control process.

By comparison, democratic/participative leaders are:

Egalitarian types who feel comfortable rolling up their sleeves

Team-oriented captains who view experienced staff as peers

Consensus builders who like to mediate disagreements

Flexible explorers who share decision-making with key staff

Peter Drucker on leadership qualities

Peter Drucker, renowned management consultant and best-selling author, wasn't big on labels. But he understood the distinctions among different types of leaders.

In one of his last interviews, Drucker discussed business ethics with Forbes magazine. Drucker's advice for executives, particularly democratic/participative leaders, still rings true.

Democratic leaders are superb multitaskers. As Drucker points out, productive leaders are extraordinarily accomplished because they rely on experts to make suggestions without relinquishing control of the decision-making process.

In 2004, Drucker said:

"Don't take on things you don't believe in and that you yourself are not good at. Learn to say no. Effective leaders match the objective needs of their company with the subjective competencies. As a result, they get an enormous amount of things done fast."

What are the characteristics of democratic leaders?

Democratic/participative leaders share common traits with laissez-faire leaders, such as delegating. The key distinction is their involvement in the decision-making process.

Democratic leaders don't simply hire experts to run divisions or projects and then wait for the results. They insert themselves in the process and stay informed. They often rely heavily on data, but they are not slaves to metrics. They balance the instincts of experienced team leaders with the realities of the marketplace.

They are problem solvers. If there is no demand for a great idea, democratic leaders will often pass on it. They take risks, but they know when to cut their losses. Democratic/participative leaders are:

Egalitarian

Fair-minded

Adaptive

Engaged

Role models

Forward-thinking

Team-oriented

Consensus builders

One of the key selling points about democratic leadership compared to other styles is that it works well throughout an organization.

The autocratic leadership style, by comparison, works within certain departments but not necessarily from the top down. Authoritarian leadership can be stifling and demoralizing if it exists throughout an entire organization.

The democratic/participative style can exist at every level in some companies. This style can work well in an organization that is focused on growth, research and talent acquisition.

Private companies, educational institutions and nonprofit organizations in expansion mode are well-suited for the democratic/participative leadership style because it encourages collaboration. Participatory leadership rewards success and fosters a collegial environment.

Smart, talented people love collegial environments. It's up to democratic/participative leaders to recruit them, encourage them and monitor their progress just enough to ensure productivity.

If there is one caveat to the participatory leadership style it is this: Too much consensus building can lead to stagnation.

At the end of the day, someone has to take responsibility for the decisions.

Successful democratic/participative leaders step up to the plate. They make the final decisions.

The best ones are prepared. They know when they're going to hit one out of the ballpark. They not only trust their teams, but they stay informed about workflow progress on a regular basis.

In theory, the advantages of democratic leadership are obvious to subordinates. Most people prefer to work within a leadership structure that encourages thoughtful discussion and rewards collaborative processes.

In reality, not all organizations lend themselves to the democratic leadership style.

Executives, board members, trustees and investors have expectations centered on productivity. For them, the participative leadership style may seem inappropriate.

In some companies and organizations, where internal processes are highly focused, strictly controlled and often perfected, other leadership styles, like autocratic, are a better fit.

It's up to leaders to determine the best style for working groups within their companies and institutions. Here are some considerations:

Democratic leadership pros

Employees have increased job satisfaction and a sense of empowerment.

Relationships are built on mutual trust between labor and management.

Absenteeism is lower among employees with a stronger commitment to performance.

Productivity increases as a result of a solutions-centric workforce that has input.

Creativity and innovation increase among employees through team collaboration.

Democratic leadership cons

Leaders can become overly dependent on the expertise and experience of subordinates.

Collaboration can consume valuable time getting input from people who aren't in agreement.

Fast, incisive decisions may be difficult or even impossible, resulting in missed deadlines.

Relying on consensus from people who are misinformed or lack accurate data can be costly.

Leaders can become burdened by the challenge of overseeing experts on collaborative teams.

The democratic style requires a special type of leader, but it also requires a special group of participants. Everyone has to be on board with the participatory process. This requires an extremely intuitive and observant leader who acts decisively when conflicts arise among team members.

Participatory leadership traits

Although some democratic leaders are charismatic, many are not. Because they tend to be highly rational, democratic leaders are often even-keeled. They are not prone to sweeping inspirational speeches or motivating staff with a gung-ho style aimed at attaining short-term goals.

Democratic/participative leaders are self-confident, but they're also pragmatic. They surround themselves with like-minded people who set realistic goals and achieve them.

The axiom "train your replacement" may apply best to the democratic leadership style. Effective democratic leaders are so adept that their staff appears to function well without them.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that participatory leaders are easily replaced.

The best democratic/participative leaders are great multitaskers. They are able to handle the challenge of working with experienced people on collaborative teams without losing sight of objectives or deadlines.

Democratic/participative leaders are focused on accomplishing goals. Productivity is the key to adopting this leadership style. To be successful, democratic leaders must have productive teams that meet expectations.

Sources:

" Kurt Lewin: groups, experiential learning and action research"

John Gastil, " A Definition and Illustration of Democratic Leadership"
Have a question or concern about this article? Please contact us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The democratic leadership style is based on mutual respect. It is often combined with participatory leadership because it requires collaboration between leaders and the people they guide. The democratic/participative leadership style places significant responsibility on leaders and their staff. This is true for all organizations - from private enterprises and government agencies to educational institutions and nonprofit entities.

# data[].attributes.body
(Week 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Situational Leadership® Training & Management Model by CLS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Situational Leadership® Model

The Situational Leadership ® Model is a timeless, repeatable framework for leaders to match their behaviors with the performance needs of the individual or group that they are attempting to influence. Situational Leadership ® is based on the relationship between leaders and followers and serves as a framework to analyze each situation based on the Performance Readiness ® Level that a follower exhibits in performing a specific task, function or objective. Then, based on the leader's diagnosis, the necessary amounts of relationship behavior and task behavior are applied and communicated to the follower in order to support their needs and advance development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP® - Situational Leadership® Training & Management Model by CLS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Situational Leadership ® Model is a timeless, repeatable framework for leaders to match their behaviors with the performance needs of the individual or group that they are attempting to influence.

# data[].attributes.body
(Week 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Access the essential membership for Modern Managers

What makes a truly exceptional leader? Chances are we've all encountered them at some point in our careers: those leaders who stand out above the rest. Those who bring out the best in every one of their team members, and who consistently strive for greatness.

Take Molly for example. Everyone respects Molly. She inspires and encourages her team members, while expecting and demonstrating the highest standards. In return, her people are fiercely loyal, and they're highly successful - as individuals, and as a team. In short, Molly is a Transformational Leader.

By contrast, other leaders in the organization report that their people seem disengaged. They experience high staff turnover, and their results are often disappointing. So, what does Molly do that other leaders don't?

To begin with, Molly regularly reminds her team members of the purpose of their work. And she knows that she's a role model for her team, so she acts with integrity in all of her working relationships.

In this article and video, we'll explore what transformational leadership is, and discover what it takes to become a transformational leader.

What Is Transformational Leadership?

Leadership expert James MacGregor Burns introduced the concept of transformational leadership in his 1978 book, "Leadership." He defined transformational leadership as a process where "leaders and their followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation." [1]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Watch this video to learn the definition of Transformational Leadership. Explore the theory behind this leadership style, and discover the characteristics of transformational leaders.

# data[].attributes.body
(Week 1)

# data[].attributes.body
(Week 1)

# data[].attributes.headline
The Importance of Organizational Management for Principal Effectiveness: Evidence from Miami

# data[].attributes.subject
The Importance of Organizational Management for Principal Effectiveness: Evidence from Miami

# data[].attributes.body
(Week 1)

# data[].attributes.body
(Week 2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In some jobs, being in touch with emotions is essential. In others, it seems to be a detriment. And like any skill, being able to read people can be used for good or evil.

Some of the greatest moments in human history were fueled by emotional intelligence. When Martin Luther King, Jr. presented his dream, he chose language that would stir the hearts of his audience. "Instead of honoring this sacred obligation" to liberty, King thundered, "America has given the Negro people a bad check." He promised that a land "sweltering with the heat of oppression" could be "transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice," and envisioned a future in which "on the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."

Delivering this electrifying message required emotional intelligence-the ability to recognize, understand, and manage emotions. Dr. King demonstrated remarkable skill in managing his own emotions and in sparking emotions that moved his audience to action. As his speechwriter Clarence Jones reflected, King delivered "a perfectly balanced outcry of reason and emotion, of anger and hope. His tone of pained indignation matched that note for note."
Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side.
Recognizing the power of emotions, another one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century spent years studying the emotional effects of his body language. Practicing his hand gestures and analyzing images of his movements allowed him to become "an absolutely spellbinding public speaker," says the historian Roger Moorhouse-"it was something he worked very hard on." His name was Adolf Hitler.

Since the 1995 publication of Daniel Goleman's bestseller, emotional intelligence has been touted by leaders, policymakers, and educators as the solution to a wide range of social problems. If we can teach our children to manage emotions, the argument goes, we'll have less bullying and more cooperation. If we can cultivate emotional intelligence among leaders and doctors, we'll have more caring workplaces and more compassionate healthcare. As a result, emotional intelligence is now taught widely in secondary schools, business schools, and medical schools.

Emotional intelligence is important, but the unbridled enthusiasm has obscured a dark side. New evidence shows that when people hone their emotional skills, they become better at manipulating others. When you're good at controlling your own emotions, you can disguise your true feelings. When you know what others are feeling, you can tug at their heartstrings and motivate them to act against their own best interests.

Social scientists have begun to document this dark side of emotional intelligence. In emerging research led by University of Cambridge professor Jochen Menges, when a leader gave an inspiring speech filled with emotion, the audience was less likely to scrutinize the message and remembered less of the content. Ironically, audience members were so moved by the speech that they claimed to recall more of it.

The authors call this the awestruck effect, but it might just as easily be described as the dumbstruck effect. One observer reflected that Hitler's persuasive impact came from his ability to strategically express emotions-he would "tear open his heart"-and these emotions affected his followers to the point that they would "stop thinking critically and just emote."
"Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts."
Leaders who master emotions can rob us of our capacities to reason. If their values are out of step with our own, the results can be devastating. New evidence suggests that when people have self-serving motives, emotional intelligence becomes a weapon for manipulating others. In a study led by the University of Toronto psychologist Stéphane Côté, university employees filled out a survey about their Machiavellian tendencies, and took a test measuring their knowledge about effective strategies for managing emotions. Then, Cote's team assessed how often the employees deliberately undermined their colleagues. The employees who engaged in the most harmful behaviors were Machiavellians with high emotional intelligence. They used their emotional skills to demean and embarrass their peers for personal gain. In one computer company studied by Tel-Aviv University professor Gideon Kunda, a manager admitted to telling a colleague "how excited we all are with what he is doing," but at the same time, "distancing my organization from the project," so "when it blows up," the company's founder would blame the colleague.

Shining a light on this dark side of emotional intelligence is one mission of a research team led by University College London professor Martin Kilduff. According to these experts, emotional intelligence helps people disguise one set of emotions while expressing another for personal gain. Emotionally intelligent people "intentionally shape their emotions to fabricate favorable impressions of themselves," Professor Kilduff's team writes. "The strategic disguise of one's own emotions and the manipulation of others' emotions for strategic ends are behaviors evident not only on Shakespeare's stage but also in the offices and corridors where power and influence are traded."

Of course, people aren't always using emotional intelligence for nefarious ends. More often than not, emotional skills are simply instrumental tools for goal accomplishment. In a study of emotions at the Body Shop, a research team led by Stanford professor Joanne Martin discovered that founder Anita Roddick leveraged emotions to inspire her employees to fundraise for charity. As Roddick explained, "Whenever we wanted to persuade our staff to support a particular project we always tried to break their hearts." However, Roddick also encouraged employees to be strategic in the timing of their emotion expressions. In one case, after noticing that an employee often "breaks down in tears with frustration," Roddick said it was acceptable to cry, but "I told her it has to be used. I said, 'Here, cry at this point in the ... meeting." When viewing Roddick as an exemplar of an emotionally intelligent leader, it becomes clear that there's a fine line between motivation and manipulation. Walking that tightrope is no easy task.
In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. In jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed.
In settings where emotions aren't running high, emotional intelligence may have hidden costs. Recently, psychologists Dana Joseph of the University of Central Florida and Daniel Newman of the University of Illinois comprehensively analyzed every study that has ever examined the link between emotional intelligence and job performance. Across hundreds of studies of thousands of employees in 191 different jobs, emotional intelligence wasn't consistently linked with better performance. In jobs that required extensive attention to emotions, higher emotional intelligence translated into better performance. Salespeople, real-estate agents, call-center representatives, and counselors all excelled at their jobs when they knew how to read and regulate emotions-they were able to deal more effectively with stressful situations and provide service with a smile.

However, in jobs that involved fewer emotional demands, the results reversed. The more emotionally intelligent employees were, the lower their job performance. For mechanics, scientists, and accountants, emotional intelligence was a liability rather than an asset. Although more research is needed to unpack these results, one promising explanation is that these employees were paying attention to emotions when they should have been focusing on their tasks. If your job is to analyze data or repair cars, it can be quite distracting to read the facial expressions, vocal tones, and body languages of the people around you. In suggesting that emotional intelligence is critical in the workplace, perhaps we've put the cart before the horse.

Instead of assuming that emotional intelligence is always useful, we need to think more carefully about where and when it matters. In a recent study at a healthcare company, I asked employees to complete a test about managing and regulating emotions, and then asked managers to evaluate how much time employees spent helping their colleagues and customers. There was no relationship whatsoever between emotional intelligence and helping: Helping is driven by our motivations and values, not by our abilities to understand and manage emotions. However, emotional intelligence was consequential when examining a different behavior: challenging the status quo by speaking up with ideas and suggestions for improvement.

Emotionally intelligent employees spoke up more often and more effectively. When colleagues were treated unjustly, they felt the righteous indignation to speak up, but were able to keep their anger in check and reason with their colleagues. When they went out on a limb to advocate for gender equity, emotional intelligence helped them keep their fear at bay. When they brought ideas for innovation to senior leaders, their ability to express enthusiasm helped them avoid threatening leaders. On a much smaller scale, they were able to follow Martin Luther King Jr.'s lead in rocking the boat while keeping it steady.

More than two decades have passed since psychologists Peter Salovey at Yale and John Mayer at the University of New Hampshire introduced the concept of emotional intelligence in 1990. Why has it taken us so long to develop a more nuanced view? After Daniel Goleman popularized the idea in 1995, many researchers-perhaps awestruck themselves by enthusiasm for the concept of emotional intelligence-proceeded to conduct studies that were fatally flawed. As University of Lausanne professor John Antonakis observed, "practice and voodoo science is running way ahead of rigorous research."

One of the most persistent problems was the use of self-report measures, which asked employees to rate their own emotional abilities on items like "I can tell how people are feeling even if they never tell me" and "I am generally very good at calming someone down when he or she is upset." Abilities cannot be accurately measured with self-reports. As emotion experts Sigal Barsade of Wharton and Donald Gibson of Fairfield University lament, "One might compare this approach to assessing mathematical skills by asking respondents, 'How good are you at solving algebraic equations?' rather than asking the person to actually solve an algebraic equation."

Thanks to more rigorous research methods, there is growing recognition that emotional intelligence-like any skill-can be used for good or evil. So if we're going to teach emotional intelligence in schools and develop it at work, we need to consider the values that go along with it and where it's actually useful. As Professor Kilduff and colleagues put it, it is high time that emotional intelligence is "pried away from its association with desirable moral qualities."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In some jobs, being in touch with emotions is essential. In others, it seems to be a detriment. And like any skill, being able to read people can be used for good or evil. Some of the greatest moments in human history were fueled by emotional intelligence. When Martin Luther King, Jr.

# data[].attributes.body
(Week 2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When most people imagine intelligence, they picture a mathematician solving equations, a novelist writing great works of literature or a philosopher expounding on wise principles.

But brilliance takes many forms, not least of which is the ability to comprehend and manage emotions. Known as emotional intelligence, this trait is often overlooked, yet crucial for success as a business leader.

Here's what having emotional intelligence provides you with:
Acute Awareness
One of the defining features of emotional intelligence is the ability to comprehend the effects of your feelings. This is crucial for making sound, objective decisions when your pride and self-esteem are at stake. All leaders must face situations where their emotions make a decision seem better than it is.

If you previously expressed support for a certain strategy, for example, your pride will be tied up with that strategy, making it harder to recognize if it isn't working. Leaders who have emotional intelligence are more likely to realize when pride and other emotions are influencing their thinking, allowing them to make more rational, impartial choices.
Impact Interpretation
In addition to reigning in your own feelings, emotional intelligence makes it easier to anticipate and respond to others' sentiments. As much as we may want for it to be objective, business is an emotional experience.

Bad news from work can shock or dismay your employees, while good news may make them unreasonably optimistic. Emotional intelligence means you can tell ahead of time how others will react and develop a strategy to keep them grounded.
Mental Health Management
Those with emotional intelligence have an easier time assessing the emotional and psychological state of their employees. This makes it easier to determine if someone is suffering from:

* Anxiety

* Depression

* Grief

* Trauma

* Eating disorders

By recognizing threats to your employees' mental health, you can provide them with the support and professional resources they need to recover. Not only is this good for their health but it promotes a more harmonious, productive workplace.
Cultivated Communication
Leaders with emotional intelligence have an improved ability to gauge others' responses to their words and actions. This makes it easier for you to tell if your employees really understand what you are saying or are confused but unwilling to say so. You can then refine your messages accordingly, developing reliable ways of communicating with everyone who works for you.

Emotional intelligence also makes it easier for you to listen to what other people are saying clearly and without judgment, ensuring that others can always give you the information you need.
Helpful Humor
Never underestimate the value of humor in business. A good joke or clever play on words can cheer up dismayed employees, win over skeptical customers and draw positive attention to your brand. If you have emotional intelligence, it will be easier to tell what people will find funny. You can also determine in which situations humor will be appropriate, finding the proper balance between serious work and lightheartedness.

While intelligence is important, emotional intelligence is a key to success in leadership and in being able to relate to others. When dealing with others, truly try to place yourself in their situation. It will help you choose the best method to solve problems and achieve your goals.

How has emotional intelligence helped you to make sound and informed decisions?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Emotional Intelligence Is Indispensable For Leaders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When most people imagine intelligence, they picture a mathematician solving equations, a novelist writing great works of literature or a philosopher expounding on wise principles. But brilliance takes many forms, not least of which is the ability to comprehend and manage emotions.

# data[].attributes.body
(Week 2)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emotional Inteligence - A Minute With John Maxwell, Free Coaching Video

# data[].attributes.body
(week 4)
"Lean too far to one side, and you win over parents at the risk of alienating teachers and endangering staff morale. Tip too far to the other, and parents are left unsatisfied—and perhaps ready to call the central office for relief."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Conflict between parents and teachers is not uncommon and principals need some essential skills to manage it fairly

A principal's job tests skills that seldom show up in a training program.

Among them: balancing on the tightrope stretched between the needs of teachers and of parents, particularly when the two parties are at odds.

Lean too far to one side, and you win over parents at the risk of alienating teachers and endangering staff morale. Tip too far to the other, and parents are left unsatisfied-and perhaps ready to call the central office for relief.

In an Education Week survey of principals and teachers, both groups of educators agreed that most principals handle parent complaints well.

But principals have more confidence about their performance in this potentially fraught area than teachers do. Ninety-seven percent of principals said they "somewhat" or "completely" agree that principals can be trusted to handle parent complaints "in a fair and even-handed way." In contrast, 64 percent of teachers agreed somewhat or completely with that statement.

While in the minority, a notable percentage of teachers-27 percent-said that they disagreed somewhat or completely that principals handle parent complaints fairly. Meanwhile, only a tiny percentage of principals- 3 percent-said they disagreed with that statement.

In the Middle

So just what are principals doing when it comes to mediating parent and teacher conflicts?

School leaders around the country, in large schools and small, repeated some common themes. One of the first things they do is try to make sure that parents hash out any problems with the teacher first. Often, an aggrieved parent's first stop is at the principal's office, possibly because they want immediate solutions or they fear teacher retaliation against their child, principals say.

"I've always felt that my first responsibility is to my teachers. That means, when a parent comes to me, I say, 'Have you raised this concern with the teachers?' And a lot of times, the answer is no," said Tim Holland, the head of the upper school at Grace Christian Academy, a 750-student K-12 private school in Knoxville, Tenn. Holland said he reminds parents that if the situation were reversed, "I would think you would want the courtesy in having a direct conversation."

Parents "think it's magic, to go directly to my boss and to me," said Dinnah Escanilla, the principal of Ellen Ochoa STEM Academy at Ben Milam Elementary, a public school of about 750 students in Grand Prairie, Texas.

"My first reaction is to listen first, because sometimes that's all they need, someone to listen to them," Escanilla said. Then she asks if the parent has shared the problem with the teachers. "Ninety percent of the time, it's 'No, ma'am.' " Once parents and teachers talk, though, most issues are addressed right away, Escanilla said.

Listening Without Judgment

Principals also stressed the value of hearing parents out, without interruption or defensiveness.

Lori DeFields, the principal of the 650-student Arts Academy at Benjamin Rush in Philadelphia, a high school arts magnet, says she doesn't even like to frame parent concerns as "complaints."

"I look at it as advocating for their child, and they're doing it the best way they know how. I look at it differently, and I ask my staff to look at it differently," she said.

Patricia Zissios, the principal of the 500-student Lyles-Crouch Traditional Academy in Alexandria, Va., says she has to be adept at handling parents from a variety of backgrounds.

The public school, which once served only black students in the days of legal segregation, now has a vibrant racial and economic mix: children whose parents live in subsidized housing or homeless shelters attend school with the children of white-collar professionals, she said. That leads to a mix of "helicopter" parents who expect instant solutions, she said, as well as families who have not traditionally felt respected by school officials and come in "ready for battle."

For both groups, Zissios said, "I give them that audience; I give them the time; I let them go through the entire scenario," she said. And she lets parents know that she understand their concerns.

"It's usually very disarming-especially when parents are yelling," Zissios said.

But principals have to be clear in communicating what their intentions are when they step into a parent-teacher conflict, so that there's not a misunderstanding by any of the involved parties. A principal's efforts to hear a parent out may leave the parent thinking the principal is firmly on their side.

"Your teachers have to feel that the principal has their back. Teaching is stressful enough without having to worry about that as well," said Kathy Martin, a middle-school math teacher at Wainwright Middle School in Lafayette, Ind.

Timothy Fausnaught, who leads the 600-student Lycoming Valley Intermediate School in Williamsport, Pa., said, "I try to give everybody the benefit of the doubt. When you have a parent who is upset with their teacher, eight times out of 10 they're upset just because of what the kid said. There hasn't been that communication back with the teachers." So he tells parents "we love your kids, we care, and we want to help."

But, he added, "I try to never make promises I can't keep."

If there's still conflict, principals say that they try to keep parent-teacher conversations tightly focused on solutions, not aimless griping. And principals also say they aim to keep teachers in the loop, and back them up when warranted.

Doug Enders, the principal of the 380-student Wrightsville Elementary in Wrightsville, Pa., said his district has invested in professional development for school leaders, which has helped him create a structure for potentially contentious meetings. The first goal is to "really come together with a common understanding of what occurred. It just brings down the anxiety level," he said. Enders added he often asks parents and teachers to repeat back their understanding of what is being discussed-just to make sure that everyone is on the same page.

"In all of those meetings, I take the lead. I meet with the teachers to let them know I'm going to do most of the talking on behalf of the school," said Chris Wolski, who leads McIntosh County Academy, a public high school of nearly 400 students in Darien, Ga. "And I make sure the teacher understands we're not going to interrupt that parent until they're done."

And principals also say they try to return to their teachers after meetings, just to make sure the classroom issue is truly resolved. "I ask them, 'How do you feel, do you feel supported, do you not?' " Wolski said.

Leading Change

Sometimes that resolution can mean changing some school policy or practices.

DeDe Lacy, the principal of McLaughlin Strickland Elementary, a 620-student school in Farmers Branch, Texas, said she tells teachers that "I'm always going to stand up for you, unless we're in the wrong. Then I'll take part of the blame."

She mentioned a recent playground incident "that was totally on us. We have to be a little bit better with monitoring." The team didn't like that, she acknowledged, but "we're always looking at how to get better ourselves."

One important piece of advice from principals is to work on creating a positive impression of one's schools, before complaints or concerns even arise. Enders, the elementary principal in Wrightsville, Pa., said he absorbed the advice given in the book Hacking Leadership, written by district superintendents Joe Sanfelippo and Tony Sinanis.

"If you're not creating the narrative for your school, others are going to fill that narrative for you, and you're not going to like it," Enders said. So he makes it his business to show the community the positive elements of his school using all the tools at his disposal, including social media.

"When there is a disagreement or problems, we've earned a little bit of a bank of trust or leniency," Enders said.

But there can be times when you just have to grow a thick skin, said Brian Perry, the principal of Stalker Elementary, a school of about 200 students in Bedford, Ind.

"Unfortunately, when it comes to disagreements between parents and teachers, sometimes there is no middle ground. If you're really trying to do what's best for the kid and for the school, sometimes you're going to make a decision where others are going to be unhappy," he said.

Helping Principals Communicate

Jennifer White, a 2nd-grade teacher at Stephens Elementary in Little Rock, Ark., said she appreciates principals who forcefully stand up for her. And it's also important to be physically present in the school, defusing conflicts before they build, she said.

Principals "set the tone for the school," White said. "If you're slacking as a principal, the teachers will say, 'Why should I care?' "

Principals acknowledge that they get little formal training on handling these situations; they've picked up their skills from watching other school leaders in action, or by tapping the expertise of trusted mentors.

But some organizations help principals develop these crucial skills. The New York City Leadership Academy, which trains aspiring principals, records videos of would-be leaders responding to an angry parent. The "parent" is portrayed by an educational professional associated with the program, but the complaints-concerns about bullying or a child's grade, for example-are all too realistic.

The principals-in-training then review the video, to see if their interactions match up with their intent.

Corinne Vinal, a graduate of the academy's first cohort and now a leadership facilitator, said that her video showed her communication was good, but her body language, like constantly nodding her head, made her words come across like they were fake.

"A principal has to navigate that conversation in a way that's respectful to the parent, listening and at the same time knowing they will have to speak to the teacher alone first, before bringing these people together," Vinal said.

It's not easy work, but it's essential, said Sonia Bu, a coach-facilitator at the New York training academy.

"During your first days of school you articulate your vision and how you're going to deal with breakdowns and conflicts," Bu said. "One particular principal used to say, 'If we are here for students first, I may do things that-at the moment-you may feel that you would not like me to do as an adult. But at the end of the day,' Bu recounted, 'we're both here for the student.'"

Published in Print: October 16, 2019, as Mediator in Chief: Solving Parent-Teacher Conflict

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Principals Can Do When Parents and Teachers Clash

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A principal's job tests skills that seldom show up in a training program. Among them: balancing on the tightrope stretched between the needs of teachers and of parents, particularly when the two parties are at odds. Lean too far to one side, and you win over parents at the risk of alienating teachers and endangering staff morale.

# data[].attributes.body
By smiling, touching, and laughing you can create a more positive environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
4 Steps To Make People Instantly Like You

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Consider this question: Are you a boss or are you a leader? Understanding the differences between bosses vs. leaders will help you become a better manager, business owner, teacher, trainer, coach, parent, even a better spouse.

To start off, when I say "boss," I'm talking about the kind of manager whose leadership strategies are all about command and control.

Bosses want to be seen as the dominant force in the office and business and tend to "manage" their employees through intimidation and fear.

They have a very "top-down" way of doing things and think it's more important to be in control of their team rather than to establish trust and inspiration.

Often, a boss's management style is very rigid. There's no nuance, no ability to see different sides of an issue.

The boss declares, "I'm in charge" and "I've decided this" and "I expect that" - without encouraging any input from their team. It's the boss's way or the highway.

Of course, big decisions need to be made all the time in business, and being decisive is necessary and important.

But when a boss insists on making all the decisions on his or her own, and never asks for ideas or feedback from the team, it makes employees feel undervalued, like they have no useful contributions to make. And that will make them feel discouraged and disconnected from the success of the organization.

Learning the four major differences between the two will make you an even more effective and respected leader.

1. Leaders Inspire

Leaders don't command - they inspire.

Instead of making declarative statements of how things will be done, the leader asks for input and then provides a compelling vision that others are eager to get behind because they see their own ideas and input reflected in it. Leaders then give the team the tools, the confidence, and the support they need to do their best work.

As a result, they end up feeling more ownership and connection to the organization's success.

2. They are Transparent and Open

Leaders are transparent and open. Bosses usually only tell employees things on a "need-to-know" basis. Information is power and bosses, often fueled by their own insecurities, will hoard and keep it to themselves.

They see information as currency, a commodity to be doled out to those who are worthy, and in return for other benefits.

It's a short-sighted strategy and one that often breeds suspicion and distrust.

Transparency is a powerful leadership quality. That's why leaders take a more open and honest approach to their management.

They understand that they don't have all the answers. So they share what information they have and open it up for discussion because they know that sharing information and then seeking feedback and input from others invites new perspectives, new ways of thinking, and new solutions.

Leaders understand that people want to be valued. They want to know that their efforts, insights, and ideas are recognized and appreciated.

Leaders who practice open-book management (meaning that everyone has access to all the financial information- salaries, expenses, and profits) send a signal to their employees that they are an important member of the team, and that their contributions matter.

Not only that - they show that they're open to and willing to consider multiple options and different approaches. What a powerful message to send!

3. Leaders Take Responsibility

Bosses tend to blame others when things go wrong. "It's my staff who failed to get the job done, so it's not my fault that it didn't work out."

On the flip side of that, bosses are also more likely to take credit for work that they didn't do. "If it's my staff that did the good work," they rationalize, "then I deserve the credit for being in charge."

The result of this kind of boss behavior is that it creates a culture of fear and uncertainty, in which employees know that the hammer will fall on them if the expected results are not produced. That's no way to build loyalty, forge a positive work environment, or develop a team.

Leaders are different...

They take responsibility for everything that goes wrong and gives their team all the credit when things go right.

Leaders know that it's their job to make sure the path is clear of obstacles so that the team can be successful. Leaders roll up their sleeves and get to work. They don't just sit in an office, waiting for people to report to them. They make themselves available to solve problems, to offer support, or to jump in to help with the work.

4. Leaders Listen to Their Employees

Leaders listen to their employees and let them know that they're being heard. Leaders care about the opinions and ideas of the people on their team. They encourage their team to express their thoughts without fear of criticism or judgment.

Not only that, leaders know that by listening actively to their team, they will be more likely to recognize patterns that emerge, address unspoken concerns that may exist, and provide the necessary clarity to help their team do their best work.

So, now that you know the difference between a boss and a leader, which one would you say you are? And what can you do to become an even more effective leader - in your office, your business, your profession, or even in your family?

Remember, the way you act and interact with others will determine whether you're seen as a "boss" or a "leader." I promise you that when you focus on being a true leader rather than an authoritarian boss, you will find it so much easier to earn respect and deliver better outcomes for your team and your organization.
Who are some of the leaders you have worked with, and what qualities did they have that made them such a great leader to work with? Take this free leadership quiz to uncover your inner leadership potential.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bosses vs. Leaders: 4 Major Differences (Which are You?) | Jack Canfield

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Consider this question: Are you a boss or are you a leader? Understanding the differences between bosses vs. leaders will help you become a better manager, business owner, teacher, trainer, coach, parent, even a better spouse. To start off, when I say "boss," I'm talking about the kind of manager whose leadership strategies are all about command and control.

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Essential Practices for Communications The Work of Instructional Coaches

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Developing a Growth Mindset with Carol Dweck

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Emotional intelligence (EQ or EI) is the ability to perceive, express, and regulate emotions. Learn the role that emotional intelligence play in relationships and other areas.

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I've been thinking a lot about growth mindset lately and what this means for us coaches.

A few years back we read the book "Mindset" by Carol Dweck with our staff and did some really great learning around it's central message: it's not just our abilities or talent that brings us success - but whether we approach our goals and work with a fixed or growth mindset. If you haven't read the book, here are a few of my favorite excerpts to help give you some more background:

Believing that your qualities are carved in stone - the fixed mindset - creates an urgency to prove yourself over and over. If you have only a certain amount of intelligence, a certain personality, and a certain moral character - well, then you'd better prove that you have a healthy dose of them. It simply wouldn't do to look or feel deficient in these most basic characteristics.

There's another mindset in which these traits are not simply a hand you're dealt and have to live with, always trying to convince yourself and others that you have a royal flush when you're secretly worried it's a pair of tens. In this mindset, the hand you're dealt is just the starting point for development. This growth mindset is based on the belief that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts. Although people may differ in every which way - in their initial talents and aptitudes, interests, or temperaments - everyone can change and grow through application and experience.

As you begin to understand the fixed and growth mindsets, you will see exactly how one thing leads to another-how a belief that your qualities are carved in stone leads to a host of thoughts and actions, and how a belief that your qualities can be cultivated leads to a host of different thoughts and actions, taking you down an entirely different road.

At the time of reading the book, I was totally pumped up and inspired to work on my own growth mindset, but I haven't honestly thought about it for a long time. Then last week I happened to hear a really terrific podcast with Carol Dweck as the guest, and I got to thinking about it all over again.

After listening to the podcast that morning and heading into school, I found myself much more aware of different fixed vs. growth mindset thoughts that came up in my head that day. And when the fixed thoughts came up, I was bugged with myself, because "Hey! I'm a coach! I should be radiating a growth mindset!!"

But the truth is, I'm not always growth mindset perfect. I get down on myself and can be hard on myself. I can sometimes be harsh in my judgment of teachers qualities and abilities.

Now do I need to be perfect? Maybe not. But I can certainly be more aware, and take steps to get better.

So what's a helpful first step in this growth mindset building process? How about changing your thoughts and words. Check out the infographic below for ideas on what this might sound like.

And how about some specific ideas for how to foster a growth mindset at your school and in your coaching?

Read the book "Mindset" as a staff and facilitate discussion circles.

Embrace the idea and word "YET"

Develop and use growth mindset statements with staff consistently as part of school culture.

Make the connection between "process" and "achievement" in your feedback.

Incorporate growth mindset activities for PD icebreakers.

Emphasize learning as a process.

Create a growth mindset language wall in the PD room - help teachers recognize when they are having a fixed or growth mindset

Highlight mistakes as an opportunity for learning.

Work with teachers to develop a bank of language for feedback that can foster a growth mindset in students.

Read "How Children Succeed" with staff, and watch the Angela Duckworth Tedx video.

YOUR TURN

In the comments below, I'd love to hear:

What are YOUR hidden fixed mindset thoughts? How can you adjust this to a growth mindset?

What's one thing you can do to foster a growth mindset at your school?

Thanks for spending some time with me. Happy Friday and I"ll talk to you soon!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Growth Mindset - What Does this Mean for Coaches?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I've been thinking a lot about growth mindset lately and what this means for us coaches. A few years back we read the book "Mindset" by Carol Dweck with our staff and did some really great learning around it's central message: it's not just our abilities or talent that brings us success - but whether we approach our goals and work with a fixed or growth mindset.

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
3. Understand what others expect of you. What does your principal (or supervisor) expect you to do and accomplish? What do teachers expect of you? What are your goals as a coach? Who sets those? How do your goals support your school's goals?

4. Your job isn't to know everything. You don't have to know everything about teaching or a specific content or curriculum. You don't have to be an expert.

5. Your job is to facilitate an adult's learning process. Our job is not to drive their thinking or direct it, or to make them do something.

6. You need to know about adult learning. You will also need to know how to put that knowledge into practice. You need to know what it looks like in a coaching conversation to work from a place of knowledge of adult learning.

7. In order to facilitate someone else's learning, they need to trust you. In the first months, build relationships and cultivate trust. You can't coach without trust.

8. Create a safe space for risk taking and learning. Strive to be an expert in this area. How do you do this? Start by reflecting on your own experience and needs. What makes you feel safe to take risks?

9. Listening is the foundational skill set of a coach. Learn different ways to listen, practice listening, and when in doubt, just listen.

10. Make sure the teacher you are supporting is doing the talking. Talk for less than a third of the time in a coaching session. Trust that by giving her time to talk and be heard -- and perhaps a thought-provoking question -- she will get what she needs from the conversation.

11. Listen for what matters. What do they care about deeply? What are their core values? What are their dreams, hopes, and aspirations?

12. Find the joy in coaching. When you wonder if you should return to the classroom -- when you miss the joy in teaching kids, when you stumble as a new coach -- set your sights on spotting the joy in coaching. It's there.

13. Let those who you support do the work. After you master the vast and complex skill set of coaching, coaching can feel easy; let the person you support do the work.

14. Mastery takes a lot of practice. Remember that mastery may take 10,000 hours of practice, and practice with feedback. Find colleagues with whom you can practice coaching skills and practice and practice.

15. Have coaching conversations that matter. Ensure that the conversation means something. People show up for conversations that matter. Teachers are not resistant in conversations that matter.

16. Have conversations about students. These are conversations that matter. Use student work, anecdotes, observations, and videos of students to ground the conversation in the needs of our young people.

17. Don't get too busy. Don't take on too many projects, responsibilities, or tasks. You need time to think, plan, reflect, and learn about coaching. Resist the temptation to do more as a way of compensating for not knowing what you're doing as a coach. If you're a coach, learn about coaching, and do it.

18. Be patient. There's a lot of change that needs to happen in our schools, and it's going to take time. You can make every conversation count. Imagine each coaching conversation as a baby tree you plant. You may not be around to sit in the tree's shade, but you can get it started. The poet Rumi wrote, "Patience does not mean to passively endure. It means to be farsighted enough to trust the end result of a process." Trust the process.

19. Be curious. Be insatiably, humbly curious. Learn to ask nonjudgmental questions that create expansion in someone else's thinking and imagination. Learn to ask nonjudgmental questions about assumptions, biases, interpretation, and opinion. Know that you will learn a tremendous amount as an instructional coach about things you don't yet know that you don't know. Be curious.

20. Be compassionate. Have compassion for those you are supporting. Have compassion for students. Have compassion with yourself. From compassion comes the conversations we need to transform our schools.

What are your thoughts and ideas on this blog post? Please share in the comments section below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
3. Understand what others expect of you. What does your principal (or supervisor) expect you to do and accomplish? What do teachers expect of you? What are your goals as a coach? Who sets those? How do your goals support your school's goals? 4. Your job isn't to know everything.

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Organizational leadership is a management approach in which leaders help set strategic goals for the organization while motivating individuals within the group to successfully carry out assignments in service to those goals.
The company CEO, army general, political party leader, school superintendent, department head, team coach - these are but a few examples representing the two fundamental components of organizational leadership. First, there is the organization, which can be defined as "a group of people organized for some end or work." Then, there is the leader, the person responsible for directing or guiding that group.

According to Jessica Dihn and her co-authors in a 2013 article for "The Leadership Quarterly," the role of the leader is "to structure the way that the inputs of others are combined to produce organizational outputs." But what distinguishes an organizational leader (OL) from, say, a functional manager or an executive with other leadership qualities?

The key difference is that organization leaders combine business understanding with their roles as "future visionaries and forward-thinkers who lead broad initiatives using integrity and ethics," according to Dr. Linda Ellington, faculty lead for organizational leadership at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU). Organizational leadership, then, is a management approach in which leaders help set strategic goals for the organization while motivating individuals within the group to successfully carry out assignments in service to those goals.

"You have to be people-oriented," said Dr. Lowell (Chris) Matthews, associate professor of organizational leadership at SNHU. "Organizational leadership is about leading and managing individuals toward achieving a strategic organizational goal. So, an OL is a change-agent, someone who sees the big picture but also understands the processes or steps to making change happen."

Learning Organizational Leadership Skills and Mindsets

"If your goal is to influence people and impact the organization at the highest level possible, then you want to learn about organizational leadership," said Deborah Gogliettino, faculty lead for human resources at SNHU.

It's one thing to learn about a subject. But can the key skills and mindsets of organizational leadership be learned? According to Ellington, these include:

Problem-solving and decision-making

Communicating (especially listening) effectively

Relationship- and team-building (including developing leadership potential in others)

Identifying future innovations and opportunities

Understanding your business environment and operations

Using integrity and ethics

Thinking strategically, system-wide, and holistically

Spreading the organization's vision, and inspiring others to share in that vision

"People are not empty vessels," Ellington said. "They have unique experiences, talents and knowledge." And if they have the drive, commitment and passion to learn about organizational leadership, "we can teach them those OL skills and mindsets while also sprinkling in the business understanding," she said.

Of course, some people learn organizational leadership skills through real-world experiences. Yet the benefit of an education, either at the undergraduate or graduate level, is the chance to study theories about motivation, strategy and leadership, and then put those theories into practice without the same level of risk.

"After all, the practice is when you make mistakes - and we all make mistakes." said Ellington. "The difference is that in an education setting, no one is going to get fired or lose their company or go into debt. We provide a safe sandbox or playground for our students to try simulations and develop confidence in their abilities."

Ideally, theory and practice go hand in hand. "The analogy that I use for my students is that of a medical doctor who goes to medical school and obtains their degree," said Matthews. "They know the theory, but until they start practicing medicine with patients, the theory only gets you so far." Conversely, of course, patients generally want a doctor who also has the theoretical training, not just medical knowledge that comes from learning "by doing."

Organizational Leadership Jobs and Careers

"A person with a degree in organizational leadership can be expected to fill a management or leadership role in an organization that has to constantly be prepared for change," said Matthews. "These roles may be in human resources or more supervisory positions that are industry-specific. The good thing about OL is that it's needed for all types of organizations."

These include organizations, businesses, and enterprises in the:

Public and private sectors

For-profit and not-for-profit realms

Centralized and decentralized institutions

New start-ups and global conglomerates

As a result, it's possible for organizational leaders "to work in places that fit who they are in terms of their core values," said Gogliettino.

The other potential benefit of work in this field is with regard to compensation. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the "median annual wage for management occupations was $102,590 in May 2017, which was the highest wage of all the major occupational groups."

While some jobs have "organizational leader" in the title, more often than not, OL isn't the title on your employee ID, according to Ellington. Instead, she said, "it's the mindset, the talent, the love of people, and the courage and desire to drive and influence change. An OL has the ability to look wider and deeper, and to bring an advanced skill set to company's decision-making and strategic thinking."

"The OL is that person who is going to be in a position of influence," Gogliettino said. "That can be an HR person or someone in benefits, it could be an administrator for a not-for-profit or a small business owner. There are lots of titles for which a person could be the OL. The real question is: Does this job or position help the organization move forward?"

Looking ahead, Gogliettino said the job and career prospects in organizational leadership are "constant and long-term. There is always going to be a need for skilled organizational leaders - today, tomorrow, and afterward. Organizations will always embrace someone who can bring a vision, especially one of growth and sustainability. That's a trend I don't ever see going away."
Susan Bogle is a marketing and student recruitment specialist in higher education. Follow her on Twitter @Suze1776 or connect on LinkedIn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Organizational leadership is a management approach in which leaders help set strategic goals for the organization while motivating individuals within the group to successfully carry out assignments in service to those goals. The company CEO, army general, political party leader, school superintendent, department head, team coach - these are but a few examples representing the two fundamental components of organizational leadership.

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NOTE: For this book review, I intentionally and excessively quoted the author throughout the post. I do this for two reasons: (1) I prefer to have the author's words speak for themselves rather than me interpreting, generalizing, or inadvertently misinterpreting the intent, and (2) It helps you, the readers, see the quality of the author's work/writing.

I never thought I would be reading and reviewing a book by Jon Gordon. The simple reason is that I'm not a fan of books written in a fable format. In fact, I try to avoid them as I find them especially painful to read. If I wanted a fable, I would much rather read one from Aesop or the Bible. Many of Gordon's previous books were written in a "business fable" format (e.g., The Energy Bus is a story about George who is forced to take the bus because of a flat tire and learns 10 secrets for approaching life and work; The No Complaining Rule is a story about Hope, head of Human Resources, charged with finding a solution to overcome the biggest challenge in her company's history; and Training Camp is a story of Martin Jones, an un-drafted rookie trying to make it to the bright lights and big money of the NFL).

Gordon's latest book, The Power of Positive Leadership, is not written in a fable format so I decided to review it. In this book, Gordon shares the lessons he's learned about positive leadership and provides a positive leadership framework.

"Positive leadership is not about fake positivity. It is the real stuff that makes great leaders great . . . Throughout history we see it's the optimists, the believers, the dreamers, the doers, and the positive leaders who change the world" (Gordon, 2017, p. 9).

Gordon says he has two goals for the book: (1) "to explain how and why positive leaders make a difference" and (2) "to provide a simple framework filled with practical ideas that will help anyone become a positive leader" (Gordon, 2017, p. 5).

"Being a positive leader doesn't just make you better; it makes everyone around you better" (Gordon, 2017, p. 1).
The Power of Positive Leadership Framework: 1. Positive Leaders Drive Positive Cultures
Southwest Airlines arrived at the decision to not charge baggage fees because charging would not reflect their culture and their goal of providing friendly, reliable, and low-cost air travel.

"As a positive leader, you can't just show the way and talk about the way. You must also lead the way. You must live your culture and know that it is an extension of who you are as a leader" (Gordon, 2017, p. 21)

"When you create a culture worth fighting for and invest in your people to the degree that they want to fight for your culture and for each other, your organization will have grit and strength to overcome the challenges you face and become an unstoppable and positive force" (Gordon, 2017, p. 27).
2. Positive Leaders Create and Share a Positive Vision
"A positive leader sees what's possible and then takes the next steps to rally and unite people to create it. Every invention, project, creation, and transformation starts with an idea, an imagination, and a vision of what's possible" (Gordon, 2017, p. 31-32).

"Positive leaders tap into the power of a vision and find a way forward" (Gordon, 2017, p. 31). To rally people to follow them, positive leaders have to be able to "articulate and communicate [their] vision in a simple, clear, bold, and compelling way" (Gordon, 2017, p. 32).

"The vision a positive leader creates and shares serves as a North Star that points and moves everyone in an organization in the right direction. The leader must continually point to this North Star and remind everyone that this is where we are going" (Gordon, 2017, p. 33).

"A leader who shares a vision and a way forward is a dealer in hope, a believer in the impossible, a champion of what's possible, and a coach who guides and inspires a team to keep improving, and keep moving forward" (Gordon, 2017, p. 33).

A positive leader needs to carry a telescope and a microscope. The telescope helps the leader and his team keep their eyes on the North Star (the vision) and the big picture. The microscope helps the leader to zoom in and focus on what needs to be accomplished in the short-term to realize the vision in the telescope.

"If you only have a telescope, then you'll be thinking about your vision all the time and dreaming about the future but not taking the necessary steps to realize it. If you only have a microscope, then you'll be working hard every day but set-backs and challenges will likely frustrate and discourage you because you'll lose sight of the big picture" (Gordon, 2017, p. 34).
3. Positive Leaders Lead with Optimism, Positivity, and Belief
"Optimism, positivity, and belief are the fuel that positive leaders need to keep moving forward and drive results" (Gordon, 2017, p. 47).

"If you don't have optimism and belief, you can't share it. If you don't have it, you can't transform your team and organization with it. It starts first and foremost with you" (Gordon, 2017, p. 51).

"Every moment and every situation presents to us an opportunity to see and experience the positive or the negative. Each day we can feed the positive dog or the negative dog inside of us, and whichever one we feed, grows. So feed the positive dog" (Gordon, 2017, p. 52).
4. Positive Leaders Confront, Transform, and Remove Negativity
"Positive leadership is not just about feeding the positive, but also about weeding out the negative" (Gordon, 2017, p. 71).

"One of the biggest mistakes leaders make is that they ignore the negativity within their team and organization. They allow it to breed and grow, and it eventually sabotages the team and organization. You must address the negativity. Confront it, transform it, or remove it" (Gordon, 2017, p. 71).
5. Positive Leaders Create United and Connected Teams
"Positive leaders unite instead of divide. They are able to get everyone on the bus and moving in the right direction. They are able to create unity, which is the difference between a great team and an average team. The more united and connected a team and organization is, the more they are able to accomplish together" (Gordon, 2017, p. 87).

"A team and organization that's not connected at the top crumbles at the bottom" (Gordon, 2017, p. 88).

"You may not have the most talented people on your team, but if you are a connected team, you will outperform many talented teams who lack a close bond" (Gordon, 2017, p. 92).
6. Positive Leaders Build Great Relationships and Teams
"Positive leaders care about the people they lead. They care about their team and organization. . .Because they care, they do more, give more, encourage more, help more, guide more, mentor more, develop more, build more, and ultimately, accomplish more" (Gordon, 2017, p. 128).

Gordon shared a powerful story about his late mom making a sandwich for him even though she was tired and, unbeknownst to him, was battling cancer.

"Looking back I realize that she wasn't just making me a sandwich. She was showing me what selfless love and positive leadership are all about. At her funeral, many of her real estate clients and colleagues came up to me and shared countless stories of all the selfless acts of love my mom did for them as well" (Gordon, 2017, p. 133-134).

"We often think that great leadership is about big visions, big goals, big actions, and big success. But I learned from my mom that real positive leadership is about serving others by doing the little things with a big dose of selfless love" (Gordon, 2017, p. 134).
7. Positive Leaders Pursue Excellence
Positive leaders are always searching for ways to make things and the future better. They're constantly "striving to improve themselves, their teams, their organizations, and the world" (Gordon, 2017, p. 137).
8. Positive Leaders Lead with Purpose
"Every great organization must have a greater purpose for why they exist and every positive leader must be driven by purpose to lead others and make a greater impact" (Gordon, 2017, p. 151).

"Hard work doesn't make us tired. A lack of purpose is what makes us tired. We don't get burned out because of what we do. We get burned out because we forget why we do it" (Gordon, 2017, p. 152).
9. Positive Leaders Have Grit
Angela Duckworth's research on grit: Grit is the ability to work for a long period of time towards a goal. It means to persevere, overcome, and continue moving forward in the face of adversity.

"Positive leaders have grit and find a way to navigate the roadblocks or run through them to move closer to their vision and goal" (Gordon, 2017, p. 169).

"When we look at successful companies and organizations, we see their current success and prominence but what we don't see is the leadership and grit that powered them through all the failure and moments of doubt, heartache, fear, and pain" (Gordon, 2017, p. 169).

"Whether you are attempting to turn around a company, grow a start-up, build a winning team, or move a successful organization to the next level, you can expect it to take time and perseverance" (Gordon, 2017, p. 170).
DISLIKE:
What I do not like about this book is the tiring references to Gordon's previous books, in particular The Energy Bus - referenced on 13 pages!

The Energy Bus - referenced 13 times; pp. 4, 15, 16, 17, 41, 42, 71, 72, 73, 80, 83, 84, 183.
The No Complaining Rule - referenced 3 times; pp. 79, 80, 81
The Shark and the Goldfish - referenced 1 time; pp. 57
The Seed - referenced 1 time; pp. 153
The Positive Dog - referenced 1 time; pp. 51
You Win In The Locker Room First - referenced 2 times; pp. 25, 108

If you found what I have just done to be annoying, imagine how I felt having to see the same book titles and words or phrases (e.g., positive dog, energy bus, shark, goldfish) mentioned ad nauseam. At times, I felt as if I were reading an advertisement about one of his other books.

Takeaway: I really wanted to like The Power of Positive Leadership book. I tried to read it with an open mind and I gave the book multiple opportunities to stay on my 'like' column while I was reading it. In the end, I found The Power of Positive Leadership to be an OK book. It's a quick read, probably because it was so repetitive. What's more, for my taste, there were just too many references to Gordon's other books, especially The Energy Bus. If you are a fan of Jon Gordon and are familiar with his other books, then you might like The Power of Positive Leadership. There were some good stories and examples in this book. However, reading The Power of Positive Leadership is like attending a long-drawn-out pep rally. Indeed, Gordon shared lots and lots of stories about the sport coaches and athletic directors (basketball, football, baseball) he has worked with. I like the first 15-20 minutes of a pep rally, but if the pep rally goes on for too long and repeats the same materials then you have lost me. Regrettably-and yes I see the irony in giving a negative review about a book on positive leadership that I received for free-I just didn't find enough in The Power of Positive Leadership book to warrant my recommendation.

Written By: Steve Nguyen, Ph.D.
Leadership + Talent Development Advisor

Reference

Gordon, J. (2017). The Power of Positive Leadership. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Disclosure: I received The Power of Positive Leadership as a complimentary gift, but my book review was written as though I had purchased it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Book Review: The Power of Positive Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NOTE: For this book review, I intentionally and excessively quoted the author throughout the post. I do this for two reasons: (1) I prefer to have the author's words speak for themselves rather than me interpreting, generalizing, or inadvertently misinterpreting the intent, and (2) It helps you, the readers, see the quality of the author's...

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Stephen Covey, who passed away Monday three months after a bicycle accident, was brilliant.

One of his best-selling books, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, taught us seven simple habits that apply to life, leadership, and love. He taught us to be highly effective. And he educated us on how to lead ourselves.

How do you apply his lessons to leading others? Here are seven ways to be a more highly effective leader, as taught by Dr. Stephen Covey.

1. Value the important over the urgent. Running around like your hair is on fire keeps you focused on running and not completing what is most important. Do your best to avoid the 'crazy busy' mentality.

2. Focus on what matters most. People produce profit but they don't show up on the P and L. They do, however, show up in your customer comments, office morale, and ongoing motivation. Thus, it's people that matter most and make all the other things leaders focus on, necessary.

3. Seek first to understand those you lead. We all have different personalities and preferences, much like what is outlined in my book Make Difficult People Disappear. It's one thing to know we're different but quite another to seek to understand the differences in others. If you seek to recognize the differences, no one will be difficult. They will just be different. And that's certainly acceptable.

4. Sharpen the saw. What are you doing daily to develop your character, confidence, skills, or relationships with those you lead? Are you doing things to support their efforts for growth or are you asking people to work long hours without recognizing their needs and desires to learn grow professionally and personally. The blades can be sharpened through classes and trainings. If that is ignored, it will be difficult to get the job done.

5. Begin with the end in mind. We know there is value in setting and having goals, but the greater value is in leading those goals to fruition. The team can't help you drive toward those goals unless you share not only the target, but the resources, authority, skills, tools, and expectations for the journey. Begin with the end in mind means setting the team up for success from the start.

6. Remember 'Someday' is not a date on the calendar. Leaders who overload and procrastinate often say they'll get to a task "someday." Leaders who live through their jobs with no life in sight may think they can focus on family "someday." But that day does not have a place on the calendar and never arrives. It simply doesn't exist. Be a model for the work-life balance or well-being you wish to see in those you lead. Do what you desire now before you find yourself looking for "someday."

7. Be proactive. Think ahead when it comes to customer's needs. Think ahead when it comes to needs of the team. Think ahead when it comes to changes in the market and shifting industry trends. Your success as a leader depends on you celebrating what's been done well, staying present to what the team is doing now, and looking ahead to what you'll need to lead far into the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Habits for Leadership Success From Dr. Stephen Covey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Stephen Covey, who passed away Monday three months after a bicycle accident, was brilliant. One of his best-selling books, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, taught us seven simple habits that apply to life, leadership, and love. He taught us to be highly effective.

# data[].attributes.body
(week 7)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Leadership Skills That Will Have You Solving Problems Like a Pro

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you react to a business problem you've never encountered before? The way you do it impacts your team, and your company's future. The road to success, just like life, is paved with obstacles and difficulties. All truly successful entrepreneurs had just as many problems as successes.

# data[].attributes.body
Eye contact breeds trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Science of People with Vanessa Van Edwards