# data[].attributes.body
Images from Edutopia Instagram

# data[].attributes.body
The more you know....

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Global Emotional Intelligence Test uses 40 questions which are derived from, the Global instrument, which contains 158 items. These are based on Goleman's four quadrant Emotional Intelligence Competency Model (2002). Click EI Capability Assessment here for more details. Short EI quizzes such as this are meant to be fun, and to give you a guide to which EI areas you are doing well in and those which perhaps you need to focus on for development.

This Test, is a forced-choice psychological test which requires you to choose Instructions for the FREE EI Test one statement in each pair of statements that describes you best. For each pair of statements, select the statement that best applies to you. Do not over-analyse the questions, or try to think of "exceptions to the rule." Be spontaneous and choose the statement that comes closest to the way you are.

Occasionally there will be questions that ask you to make a close call between two choices. This is because the Test is trying to distinguish between specific areas. If a question is very close and you can't decide which statement applies to you best, you can come back to it after you have completed the other questions.

The Test usually takes about 10 minutes to complete. At the end of the test, click on the Score Test button, and wait for the computer to generate an EI profile of your scores. If you have answered honestly and accurately, your scores will reflect your capability level within each of the EI quadrants.

We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the results of this Test - only that it can help you begin your journey of self-development!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emotional Intelligence Test - Global Leadership Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free emotional intelligence test developed by Global Leadership Foundation

# data[].attributes.body
I am not in upper administration, but I feel like this worth reading.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summers used to be a quiet time on American campuses, but there's no off-season anymore. Higher education institutions now regularly face financial difficulties, student and faculty demands, industry disruption, and other challenges that can attract negative public attention. The spotlight on colleges and universities makes it necessary for presidents, board chairs and other trustees to spend time in the early weeks of August thinking about how to best prepare for potential crises that may arise in the fast-approaching new academic year.

Here are some tips for those college and university leaders based on my decades of providing strategic and crisis media relations support to institutions, as well as on my own experience as a higher education trustee.

As a board chair, your first assignment should be a review of the probable issues your college or university will face in the immediate future, as well as what might occur two to three years out. Advance planning is a vital component of any crisis-communications strategy. Think about how effective governors and mayors plan for potential disasters. The same can be done on campuses, and it will allow your institution to respond faster and have fewer unforced errors when a challenge does, in fact, occur.

Ultimately, a board chair, along with executive committee members, should run through a series of questions with the campus leadership, such as:

How well is the college or university prepared to effectively address its key challenges?

Has a team been identified to be on point before, during and after a crisis?

In what specific ways can the board be most helpful?

Another important step in preparing for the upcoming months is to identify outside legal counsel and line up a firm well before the institution faces a crisis. Carefully consider who has the most expertise in Title IX issues, for example, or in negotiating an unexpected leadership transition. Too often, I have worked with colleges and universities that rely on a local firm or a friend of a board member when other legal counsel would have been a far better choice.

Other tips:

All board members should be familiar with the cultural background of their institution and the issues it has faced over time. How have challenging issues been addressed in the past? Was the approach successful or unsuccessful? It may be that the board must focus on helping the president change the culture in addition to handling whatever risks the institution may face.

In recent years, for example, some institutions have been caught flat-footed when responding to questions about past connections to slavery or to controversial donors. Boards should start with a simple review of the institution's history. Also, they should know whether any buildings, conference rooms or classrooms have problematic names associated with them. What's the institution's policy for naming rights? Should it be modified? Should any current names be removed?

The president, board chair and other trustees should understand clearly their respective roles and responsibilities. Presidents run higher education institutions, not the chair. Chairs are often the leaders of local or national businesses and forget that board service means guiding presidents, not dictating actions. They should avoid writing copy to be sent to the campus community over the president's signature, for example.

The board chair and other trustees should be familiar with social media and the positive and negative role it can play in a crisis. That does not mean being an expert on Twitter, Instagram and other channels but rather knowing enough about the landscape to be helpful during discussions on best next steps. A board chair recently told me to "stop people from tweeting" negatively about the institution, which was hardly helpful or realistic.

The institution should have a plan in place for monitoring social media conversations if a crisis occurs and for deciding how the institution should respond. The board should understand the institution's protocols, so they're not alarmed by the often appallingly negative commentary prevalent on social channels. A general rule of thumb is to post statements sent to the community and to correct factually incorrect information but to avoid engaging in an endless back-and-forth. And the board needs to remember social media is handled by the institution, not the board.

During a crisis, the chair should remind board members not to talk with media representatives about what is occurring. It's important board members resist feeding the rumor mill or offering off-the-record intel during a time of crisis. If news-media representatives contact them, board members should refer such inquiries to the designated college or university spokesperson. To help prevent board members from being caught off guard when approached by others, such as parents and funders, the institution's communications team should prepare talking points. It's crucial the board speak with one voice to avoid misinformation and confusion.

The chair and board members should support the administration as much as possible. Depending on what's happening on the campus and what's appropriate, they should consider joining the president at campus gatherings and briefings. Trustees should convey calmness and strength and stand behind the administration until the situation is resolved.

After the challenge has passed, the board chair should ask the president to give the board an assessment of the crisis strategy, what worked and what didn't, and what steps the college or university will be taking to better prepare for the next issue. Also, over the longer haul, the board nominating committee should weigh how a potential trustee might be helpful in a time of crisis when it considers those who are the best candidates for the board.

This is not a comprehensive list; it is designed to be just a helpful start. But the jobs of a board chair and president are demanding ones, and no one knows what the future will bring. I hope these suggestions will prompt some fruitful homework assignments as the new school year rapidly approaches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College leaders should prepare now for crises that may arise in the new academic year (opinion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summers used to be a quiet time on American campuses, but there's no off-season anymore. Higher education institutions now regularly face financial difficulties, student and faculty demands, industry disruption, and other challenges that can attract negative public attention.

# data[].attributes.body
We need to remember this. Good leaders must be good followers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Good followers have to get along with people of different backgrounds," says Frances Villagran-Glover, the new vice president for student services at Northern Virginia Community College. The college, with six campuses, is the largest public institution in Virginia and the second-largest community college in the country, with a very diverse population.

"I think it's really important for anyone in a leadership position, for myself, as a Latina woman, to always look through a student lens and to always advocate for students of all backgrounds to ensure that they receive the support and access and resources they need to be successful," she says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To Be a Good Leader, You Need to Be a Good Follower, Vice President Says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Good followers have to get along with people of different backgrounds," says Frances Villagran-Glover, the new vice president for student services at Northern Virginia Community College. The college, with six campuses, is the largest public institution in Virginia and the second-largest community college in the country, with a very diverse population.

# data[].attributes.body
Working in higher education, I often wonder: WHY?!? This offers some insight to how leaders are reacting to current events their institutions are facing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the face of ever-stronger headwinds, colleges look to their leaders to steady the ship. This guide will help you navigate troubled waters.

# data[].attributes.body
There are several articles within this link that offer up what institutions are doing during this pandemic. Leaders are working to show their worth and how they are contributing back to communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the pandemic has closed campuses, forcing higher education to reinvent itself, many colleges are also meeting this unprecedented moment with a renewed sense of purpose about their role in the community.

Faculty and staff members, as well as students, are contributing and producing medical equipment, preparing buildings for use as health-care facilities, providing Wi-Fi to local residents, and offering services like public information, small-business support, legal aid, and spiritual counseling. From Bonnie Resinski, the costume designer and wardrobe manager for the Center for Fine Arts at Saint Francis University, in Pennsylvania, who realized she could turn yards of fabric left over from a 1998 production of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest into medical masks, to researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who are developing a design for a simple, inexpensive emergency ventilator, the sector is responding to what the Tufts University president, Anthony Monaco, has called "a Dunkirk moment for our country."

It is an extraordinary time of daunting challenges, but also opportunities "to establish our higher-education institutions as pillars of the community," says Ora Hirsch Pescovitz, president of Michigan's Oakland University. Public trust in colleges and universities has been declining for years, fueled by rising tuition, concerns about the value of a degree, political and ideological debates, and doubts over whether the system still serves the common good. Making the case for higher education's role in society means assuming public responsibility in a crisis.

To explore how colleges are contributing to the "war effort" to contain and fight the coronavirus - and mitigate its social and financial effects - The Chronicle collected examples from around the country. Too many people have mobilized on too many fronts for us to recognize them all. Rather, this project gives a sense of the prevailing and novel ways that administrators, faculty and staff members, and students are managing, with great determination and ingenuity, to help.
How is your institution contributing to the "war effort" against the coronavirus? Tell us here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Colleges Are Doing to Help Their Communities Fight the Pandemic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the pandemic has closed campuses, forcing higher education to reinvent itself, many colleges are also meeting this unprecedented moment with a renewed sense of purpose about their role in the community.

# data[].attributes.headline
Emotional Intelligence College Success Predictor

# data[].attributes.subject
Emotional Intelligence College Success Predictor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can High School Grades Really Predict College Success?

Two 18-year old students start their community college courses this month. They both have good GPAs from the same high school and strong test scores. One will persist to graduate with a "2-year" degree four years from now, while the other will wash out. Why?

Historically, high school grades and assessment scores were relied upon as a predictor of success, but recently they've been proven to be an ineffective predictor of graduation. So what is left? If you are thinking of IQ, you would be wrong. The answer is emotional intelligence.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence is often defined as your ability to identify and manage your emotions and those of others. Mere awareness of emotions is not enough to succeed in higher education; also being able to manage those emotions is critical.

Emotional Intelligence In College

For our two transitioning high school graduates, it means navigating from the controlled environment of high school to the wide open world of college, where there are few-if any-adults monitoring and guiding their decisions. It's that same freedom for which they have longed that is often their downfall.

When they struggle, colleges often respond with academic support in the form of course tutoring, but that might not be addressing the issue. Recent research points to the non-cognitive affective domain and characteristics such as self-efficacy, college student identity and mindfulness as better indicators of success.

WGU Study on Emotional Intelligence

That is exactly what Western Governors University (WGU) has discovered in their research.

WGU is the largest non-profit institution of higher education in the United States, with over 65,000 students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees. In partnership with the Academy of College Excellence and , WGU developed a course to address their students' affective domain growth, their emotional intelligence for being a successful college student by building a self-supported peer network.

Their research suggests their students have developed a deeper learning and connection among their peers. They believe that they are college students, and it turns out that makes all the difference.

Understanding Your Own Emotional Intelligence

Unlike many personality assessments, 5 Dynamics methodology was created in the world of education to better understand how students learn. Understanding how your mind is wired to perceive the world is a powerful discovery, whether it comes in your freshman year of college or after 20 years of corporate life.

Taking the next step-understanding others' learning preferences and how you can influence and support their learning-is the critical component. Realizing that we are in this together, be it a college experience or corporate life, brings humanity to the struggle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Emotional Intelligence Is A Better Predictor of College Success Than High School Grades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two 18-year old students start their community college courses this month. They both have good GPAs from the same high school and strong test scores. One will persist to graduate with a "2-year" degree four years from now, while the other will wash out. Why?

# data[].attributes.body
Male vs. female leaders in higher education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Communal, inclusive, democratic. That may be the future of college leadership.

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Ways To Lead Your Team More Effectively

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Ways To Lead Your Team More Effectively

# data[].attributes.body
This article presents ideas that align with several of the leadership beliefs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We expect to lead and be led. In the absence of orders I will take charge, lead my teammates and accomplish the mission. I lead by example in all situations. - Navy SEAL Creed

Most great leaders have a passion for building and leading an elite team. Who wants to lead a team based on mediocrity and moderation anyway? That would be a direct negative reflection on who? The leadership. But leading elite teams takes persistence and a consistent pursuit of personal and professional development. Constant personal reflection and taking action based on regular feedback.

I try to constantly study the art of leadership and have drawn many comparisons from my time in the Navy SEAL teams to my experiences as an entrepreneur leading a growing company. Here are five tips for leading an elite team.

Create an environment of leadership. At all levels. When you consider the caliber of team members you find in the military your first inclination might be to wonder how they recruit and develop such selflessness. Such an attitude of service and loyalty to the person to your right and left. But with further consideration, one will realize that it is more about the environment and culture that creates these attitudes and makes them a reality.

Elite teams have leaders at all levels. There are many successful organizations out there where the most senior leaders are absolutely not leaders. They are authorities. And because they are authorities, people do what they say. But those people would never truly follow them. And then there are people at the very bottom of the totem pole that are true leaders. Emergent leaders that take charge in the absence of orders and inspire those around them.

Make the team feel safe. Management and leadership are different disciplines.You cannot manage a team into combat. They must be led. It is hard to think that anyone would feel safe in a combat situation. It is all about trust and loyalty. When you trust the leadership and the team members to your right, left and rear, you have an overwhelming sense of comfort. When bullets start flying, politics go out the window. You are fighting to protect your teammates and nothing more.

Imagine if everyone on your team embodied this kind of philosophy? What an unwavering sense of loyalty that would create, and therefore a distinct competitive advantage over your competition. This starts at the top by senior leaders staying calm under pressure, communicating effectively, providing resources and removing obstacles. When the team feels safe and supported, they will do everything in their power to execute their responsibilities and go above and beyond to help achieve company goals.

Actively manage through adaptive change. This is critical in combat as in business. All businesses experience change, especially growing businesses in dynamic industries. Great leaders know when it's time for change, even if it means reinventing your business. This can be a scary thing for the team and often things get worse before they get better.

Change management requires a few key things from the leadership. First, you need to communicate what the change is and why it is necessary for the company to continue to be successful. Second, you need to ensure that each team member regardless of rank or position understands how this change impacts them and what is required of them for productive implementation. Third, you need to make the team aware of what the leadership is doing in order to provide support and resources during the transitional period of change. And fourth, over communicate consistently during this time and get feedback. In the SEAL teams we say "pass the word." Simply put, this means tell me what the hell is going on. Make sure to tell your team what the hell is going on.

Be a servant to your team. I recently finished reading Steven Pressfield's historical fiction ' The Afghan Campaign' about Alexander the Great's invasion of the Afghan kingdoms in 330 B.C. And Alexander, in all his ambition and arrogance, was at heart, the epitome of a true servant leader. He led from the front affording himself no additional comforts that his men didn't have during their brutal trek through the Hindu Kush Mountains.

Great leaders embrace the concept of servant leadership asking nothing of their team they haven't already done or aren't willing to do themselves. And while you can't always be in the trenches side-by-side with your team members, making a conscious effort to do so periodically goes a long way. Then, when you're out there steering the ship they know you still care intimately about their specific roles in achieving the company's vision.

Always eat last. Traditionally, in the military the officers eat last at chow time. This is a simple but impactful gesture of leadership. When you sacrifice for your team, they will sacrifice for you. It is the team that must execute on a daily basis and therefore it is imperative they have the resources to do so, even before you do.

Earlier I referenced the book 'The Afghan Campaign." When Alexander was leading forced marches through treacherous and unforgiving mountain conditions, eventually the food ran out. He could have easily had a personal supply train providing him with food and all the comforts of home, but he didn't. When his men didn't eat, neither did he. Yet he still projected strength and positivity despite seemingly impossible odds.

These five elements of leadership are not easy to execute on a consistent basis. It requires a daily focus and attention. Asking yourself, with each move and decision you make, am I being the best possible leader I can right now? If not, adjust accordingly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Ways To Lead Your Team More Effectively

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We expect to lead and be led. In the absence of orders I will take charge, lead my teammates and accomplish the mission. I lead by example in all situations. - Navy SEAL Creed Most great leaders have a passion for building and leading an elite team. [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Personality tests are big in department meetings. We share, so we know who and what types are on our teams. It can help us understand how to approach each other.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Personality types

Understand others

In our free type descriptions you'll learn what really drives, inspires, and worries different personality types, helping you build more meaningful relationships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free personality test, type descriptions, relationship and career advice | 16Personalities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Personality types In our free type descriptions you'll learn what really drives, inspires, and worries different personality types, helping you build more meaningful relationships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you believe that you can adapt your style? Harvard University professor Ron Heifetz and leadership experts David Rooke and William Torbert say that you can. So let's look in more depth at Lewin's leadership styles, their strengths and risks, and how you might become more skillful in using them.

Authoritarian, Autocratic Leadership

This approach is helpful when your team needs to follow a process "to the letter," to manage a significant risk. It's also effective when you need to be hands-on with people who miss deadlines, in departments where conflict is an issue, or in teams that rely on quick decisions being made.

But you need to be aware that relying on control and punishment to maintain standards will likely drive people away. Similarly, if you always demand that your team works at top speed, you can end up exhausting everyone.

Instead, you can show respect for team members by providing the rationale for your decisions. And they will more likely comply with your expectations if you take the trouble to explain Why the Rules Are There.

You can improve your ability to "lead from the front" by Planning for a Crisis, Thinking on Your Feet, and making good decisions under pressure. But be sure to balance these skills with an awareness of their potential negative impact on creativity, ideas gathering, motivation, and trust within the team.

Being too autocratic can also mean that you'll find it hard to stand back from the detail and take a wider, more strategic view.

Democratic, Participative Leadership

With this approach, you set goals, guide team discussions, and make the final decision. But you also acknowledge that your people can have valuable insight into a problem or process, so you actively consult them. As a result, you'll likely gain creative input and fresh ideas that you wouldn't have come up with if you were working alone.

You might wonder how to manage differing opinions in the team, once you've invited participation in this way. Your goal is to build a culture in which people can have healthy debates with one another. So:

Be aware that processes could become dangerously slow if you involve your team members in every decision. You'll need to judge carefully whether you need to adopt a more autocratic approach, even if it's only briefly.

The Delegating, "Laissez Faire" Leader

"Laissez faire" is a French phrase adopted into English that means, "Let (people) do (as they choose)." It describes a policy of leaving situations to run their own course, without interfering.

By adopting this style of leadership, you empower your team to make decisions and to organize its own processes, with little or no guidance. The danger of this approach is that situations can collapse into chaos if your people have low motivation or poor skills. It can work, however, if they are experienced, knowledgeable, confident, creative, and driven, or if deadlines are flexible and processes are simple.

Be in no doubt, though, that as the leader you will still be held accountable for the outcome! So you might want to organize team decision making processes to support your people while you take a "hands off" approach. Just be sure to delegate the right task to the right person, as a mismatch could mean that the whole team fails.

Avoid becoming too remote, even with a high-performing, highly autonomous team. Change can occur at any time in business, so your organization's requirements for your team might shift after your initial brief. If this happens, stay in touch with your people, and communicate clearly and promptly. Remember, you can offer your support without becoming a micromanager!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's Your Leadership Style? - Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Leadership styles. Strengths and weaknesses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do ethics matter? This may seem like an obvious question, but there are a few national leaders who don't seem to be encumbered by moral dilemmas. Their sense of right and wrong flexes to fulfill whatever their personal agenda may be at the time. And they are often rewarded for it. These individuals continue to win elections and are successful in turning their beliefs into law.

Maybe it is our fault. Maybe we, as a society, have allowed ethics to be a nonbinding talking point. When someone with an opposing opinion displays unethical behavior, we villainize them and demand justice. Conversely, when our allies display questionable morals, its acceptable because we perceive their intents as pure. It is irrelevant that this only perpetuates a cycle of lowering standards. A win is a win...right?

Considerable research shows how we become susceptible to compromising the moral high ground. Understanding the ways our values are at risk will help us recognize the biases that get in the way of ethical decision making and the negative affects it could have on our organizations. Here are a few to be mindful of:

Ability vs Integrity. In theory, we can all agree that morality outweighs competence. However, in practice, the opposite is often true. The research finds that in competitive environments, leaders value competence over morals. We tend to excuse or willingly overlook shortcuts to attain the end-goal.

What's not said. Which is worse, a blatant lie or withholding the truth? Most people choose the lie; however, isn't omitting relevant information just as wrong? This common occurrence is referred to as omission bias and it can be equally as deceptive and harmful as a bold-face lie.

Silent standards. Another factor that increases the likelihood of unethical decisions is when leaders avoid using moral language. We are great at discussing tasks, deadlines, and priorities, but according to research, we tend to steer clear of mentioning integrity and respect. And when we do talk about ethics, we too often use euphemistic language to "sanitize" the unethical actions with such terms as "problematic" and "questionable" instead of "disreputable" and "immoral." While intended to mitigate liability, avoiding such pointed language can cause the team to be unskilled at identifying unethical actions, decreases feelings of guilt about the consequences of their unethical actions, and will ultimately result in further unethical actions.

Loyalty. When choosing my team, loyalty is a key characteristic. At the same time, there are clear downsides to loyalty. Research has found that when forced to decide between being loyal or virtuous, loyalty tends to win out. In fact, those who choose to "abandon" devotion to follow their moral code are deemed to be troublemakers and branded with such derogatory labels as tattletale, snitches, and (as the President recently said) rats.

Following an ethical code is not difficult, but it is also easy to succumb to the biases that make us unaware that we've lost our way. Remain vigilant to evade crossing into the "dark side." Avoid the hypocrisy that makes us believe it is okay for our team to do something but wrong when the other team does the same thing. Hold both teams by the same standards and rules. Winning is great, but lowering the bar will ensure your win is short-lived.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
journal of experimental social psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
organizational behavior and human decision processes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
journal of personality and social psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Four Reasons Why Leaders Ignore Unethical Behaviors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do ethics matter? This may seem like an obvious question, but there are a few national leaders who don't seem to be encumbered by moral dilemmas. Their sense of right and wrong flexes to fulfill whatever their personal agenda may be at the time. And they are often rewarded for it.

# data[].attributes.body
We have present on various leaderships types, and we try to make them related. We compare leaders in the TWD, and students really like it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photo via Gene Page/AMC

"The Walking Dead" has entertained millions over the six seasons of television on AMC. Most of the selections from the zombie genre are easily forgotten splatter fests, but some stand the test of time as deeper comments on society, such as "Night of the Living Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead." "The Walking Dead" joins this tradition. As society collapses under the weight of zombie hoards, we get to see what happens, both on a group and individual level.

Here are 5 lessons on leadership we take away from "The Walking Dead."
Don't let desperation be your counsel.
Under stress, people seek leadership. They seek hierarchy and order. There are few things more stressful than facing zombies, or "walkers," in a society where all institutions have collapsed. Bad situations often lead to bad choices in leaders. "The Walking Dead" has shown numerous examples of this happening, from the governor in season three to Negan in season six. It takes an exceptional leader to not take advantage of that desperation.

In normal life, how often does a new commander make changes just for the sake of being different, rather than because what he or she is doing actually makes sense on its own? Change isn't always a good thing, even when things are bad. Make sure you're doing right, not just doing something.
You don't have to be perfect to lead.
Better than the rest is still good enough.

Luckily for the group of wanderers who make up the protagonists in "The Walking Dead," they have found one of the few leaders in that world who wields power responsibly: Rick Grimes, a former sheriff's deputy. Initially skeptical of his leadership, Grimes quickly demonstrated his capabilities. Tactically sound, with command presence and decisiveness, Grimes was far better equipped than most to lead a group against zombie hordes.

Being a good leader doesn't require one to be perfect, and Grimes isn't. He falls short on occasion. When the group finds itself in a safe haven in Alexandria, disregards the rules of the community and nearly loses his own group in the process. It took getting cold-cocked by Michonne to set him straight. Being wrong isn't the kiss of death for leaders. Being unwilling to correct oneself when appropriate is.

Don't lose your moral compass.

The group's survival can be at odds with its humanity. As the group's ordeal has dragged on to a seventh season, Grime's tolerance for moral compromise has increased, but he still manages to bridge the gap between pragmatism and principles. Like a Marine on a land navigation course, he keeps his azimuth pointed in the direction of his moral code, even if some obstacles force him slightly off the righteous path.

The counterpoint to Grimes during the show's first two seasons is Shane Walsh. Walsh was in the sheriff's department with Grimes, and was similarly well equipped to battle zombies. However, while Grimes' goal was to survive with humanity, Walsh's goal was merely to survive. As in anything done for expediency, it works for awhile. For example, Walsh successfully brings back medicine essential to save Grimes' son by shooting another man, his partner on the mission, in the leg to distract the walkers chasing them. Anytime the ends continually justify the means, one ends up in bad places. Walsh's disregard for others nearly ripped the group apart and ended up being his personal undoing as well.

Cultivate your subordinates.

Everyone has a breaking point, and even the best leaders are no different. For much of the beginning of the series, Grimes took far too much responsibility on himself and failed to delegate. When he came across a problem he couldn't handle, the group suffered for it. For example, after his wife died, he disintegrated for a time, leaving the survivors aimless. Earlier in the series, Grimes had asserted his sole command of the group after the disaster at the farmhouse, creating what fans called the "Ricktatorship." While a rudder steer was definitely necessary, his move squashed initiative by his subordinates. Only when his emotional collapse forced some of them to step up did they inadvertently reach their potentials.

This is a key leadership point: The measure of a truly great leader is not whether a leader has made himself essential, but whether he has built a group that can be successful even after he leaves. A leader is always in danger of leaving, be that by transfer, battlefield casualty, or being eaten by zombies. The group needs to be able to keep going without him.

Look for the best in people.

One of Grimes' subordinates, Daryl Dixon, is a rough-hewn, Harley-riding, crossbow-slinging badass. As the beginning of the story, though, he's just a maladjusted loner living under the shadow of his older brother Merle. He's a capable hunter, both of animals and zombies, and an accomplished outdoorsman. He's initially content to only provide those services to the group, living with the group, but not part of the group for the longest time. Often, he's almost a hindrance through his passive-aggressiveness. Eventually, the group offers him the sense of belonging that he never found as a delinquent, and Dixon ends up being a capable second-in-command, and often the voice of reason for the group.

Good group dynamics are key to bringing out the best in people. Too often, groups cast out individuals with outstanding potential, just because they seem to be too much trouble. That happens in the military all the time - a promising young service member has some minor disciplinary problems and is cast aside quickly without even finding out what the root problems are. Once Dixon emerged from his brother Merle's shadow, he was free to become the zombie-killing badass he was born to be. Similarly, if we spend time with some of our subordinates, more of them can become the people they were meant to be when they joined.

Of course, "The Walking Dead" is just a fun TV show, and we have to be careful about drawing too many parallels to it. Still, art imitates life. Good works of art, be those books, plays, movies, or television, give us a chance to stand in others' shoes and think about how we might act in similar situations. I just hope I can do as good a job in my daily life as Grimes does in the zombie apocalypse. His leadership class is still in session for at least another season though. I hope he makes it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Things 'The Walking Dead' Teaches Us About Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The Walking Dead" has entertained millions over the six seasons of television on AMC. Most of the selections from the zombie genre are easily forgotten splatter fests, but some stand the test of time as deeper comments on society, such as "Night of the Living Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead."

# data[].attributes.body
Deierlein, T. (2015). Why You Should Have a Written Leadership Philosophy. Leader to Leader, 2015(77), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.20186
Week 7 Content

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bold strokes and a powerful personality are the defining qualities of a heroic leader. But shunning the spotlight, the quiet leader works, circumspect and practical, to transform, inspire - and win.
Why read another article on leadership? Is there really anything more to say on the subject? Do we not have enough books, articles, speeches and videos about great leaders, what they do, and what we can learn from them? The problem, I believe, is that we spend too much time on the stories of men and women who have reshaped the world, led great political or moral crusades, or transformed companies or industries. Heroic leaders do teach us important lessons-about courage, high ideals and determination. Their stories help parents and teachers pass on critical values. And, without the efforts and sacrifices of these great figures, our world would be a colder and meaner place.

But our preoccupation with heroes has three serious drawbacks. First, it distorts our understanding of leadership by telling us to think in terms of a pyramid. At the top are heroes and stars; at the bottom are shirkers, free riders, and worse. But where does this leave everyone else? Most people, most of the time, aren't saving the world or exploiting it. They are living their lives and trying to take care of the people around them. The same is true in organizations: Most of the attention goes to the movers and shakers, the hard chargers, the stars who lead turnarounds or make their numbers no matter what. But what about everyone else? Are they just cogs in the wheel? Is the world really divided into inspiring Supermen and feckless Clark Kents?

The second problem with the heroic view of leadership is that it ignores everyday right-versus-right problems. The common portrayal of great leaders shows them confronting great challenges. They know what is right and do it, despite the risks and costs. But what about the situations, all too common in organizations today, in which one serious responsibility conflicts with another?

Suppose, for example, that your company is about to lay off 10 people. You know who's on the list, and you've been asked to keep the layoff plans confidential for a few more weeks. One day, a friend of yours, whose name is on the list, tells you he is just about to buy the house of his dreams and he asks you what you think. What should you do? As a corporate officer, bound by a duty of confidentiality, you should say nothing. As a friend, you should tell the truth and warn him.

Everyday work life is full of right-versus-right decisions. In fact, it sometimes seems that these hard trade-offs are delegated downward from bosses to people in the middle of organizations. In these cases, it does little good to tell people to screw up their courage and do the right thing. The essence of the problem is that several right things-obligations to owners, employees, communities and one's own values-are clashing with each other. For men and women in this predicament, tales of heroism that end with the punch line "Just do the right thing" are irritating and irrelevant.

The third problem with the heroic view is that it offers little help to people caught in the uncertainties of contemporary life. Try to recall the brief, shining moment, just three or four years ago, when so many problems seemed solved. The Cold War had ended, the New Economy was transforming work and life, managers were hiring and building, and stocks were a sure thing. In the last couple of years, however, managers have been whipsawed from boom to bust, from optimism to pessimism, from investing and experimenting to hunkering down. Grand stories of past heroics are hardly instructive for people who have to decide what to put in and cut out of next month's budget, and don't know which way the rollercoaster will swerve next.

Albert Schweitzer's suggestion

So, where should we look for guidance? A surprising but powerful answer was suggested decades ago by Albert Schweitzer-a man who was, by any standard, a commanding, heroic figure. In his late 20s, Schweitzer decided to give up promising careers as a musician or a theologian. Instead, he became a doctor and spent his life working with the poor in central Africa. When he won the Nobel Peace prize in 1952, Schweitzer used the funds he received to build a facility for treating leprosy. Schweitzer changed many lives and inspired countless others. Yet, in his autobiography, Out of My Life and Thought, he wrote these words about the role of great moral heroes in shaping the world:

Of all the will toward the ideal in mankind only a small part can manifest itself in public action. All the rest of this force must be content with small and obscure deeds. The sum of these, however, is a thousand times stronger than the acts of those who receive wide public recognition. The latter, compared to the former, are like the foam on the waves of a deep ocean. (Schweitzer, Albert, Out of My Life and Thought, P. 74, New American Library, New York, 1963).

This is a remarkable, almost radical statement. Here is a heroic figure dismissing heroes as mere "foam" and telling us to look elsewhere-at "small and obscure" deeds-if we want to learn about making the world a better place. He is suggesting that we look away from grand figures, extreme situation and moments of high historical drama, and pay close attention to how thoughtful, practical men and women resolve the challenges of everyday life.

For the last four years, I have been studying men and women who lead quietly. I gathered more than 150 case studies describing how people in the middle of organizations successfully addressed everyday problems. By doing this, I learned a lot about who quiet leaders are and how they work.

A profile of quiet leaders

The men and women I studied were realists and pragmatists. They didn't kid themselves about the difficulties and uncertainties they often face. Nor did they see themselves as miniature versions of great leaders of the past. They recognized that they were often isolated and had little power, that they were not leading armies or social movements, and that, all too often, they were more like the bug than the windshield.

Instead of taking forceful, direct action, these quiet leaders worked behind the scenes-quietly, carefully and patiently. They didn't ignore their self-interest, and they understood that martyrdom is a once-in-a-lifetime activity. Their overriding aim was to address serious problems and live by their values, but without damaging their careers and reputations.

Quiet leaders also recognized the full complexity and uncertainty that govern so much of life and work today. They didn't assume "the right thing" was usually clear, that they knew just what it was, and that leadership was largely a matter of doing the right thing.

Quiet leaders did understand that some situations call for direct, forceful, courageous action. But they saw these cases as the exception, not the rule. Heroism, in their view, was a last resort, not the first choice or the standard model. They understood why navy flyers, the brave men and women who land streaking jets on the relatively tiny decks of aircraft carriers, are told in training that "there are no old, bold pilots." In other words, preparation, caution, care, and attention to detail are usually the best approach to important, demanding challenges.

The work of quiet leaders

What do quiet leaders do? My research indicates that they rely heavily on five basic guidelines.

Don't Kid Yourself. Quiet leaders don't kid themselves about how far they can see down the road in front of them-or about how much they can control. Their view of how the world works was captured in a Breton fisherman's prayer, "Oh Lord, the sea is so vast and my boat is so small."

As quiet leaders try to navigate inside their organizations, they keep their minds open to the full and fertile range of things that can and do happen in organizations. They realize that, sometimes, they are up against adversaries who don't fight fair; then they are cautious and watch their backs. They also realize that sometimes things will unexpectedly break their way, so they are ready to grab opportunities. And quiet leaders also understand that, quite often, things turn out much different from what they or anyone expects, and then they are ready to move flexibly and rapidly.

Quiet leaders see the world as a kaleidoscope, rather than a fixed target or a well-mapped terrain. In most organizations, most of the time, self-interest, short-sightedness, and chicanery are tumbling together with shards of loyalty, commitment, perseverance and integrity. The churning is continuous-fuelled by the dynamism of the modern economy, the restlessness and vibrancy of contemporary life, and the age-old drivers of human nature.

This is why quiet leaders reject cynicism-they see it as too simplistic. Dark-tinted glasses distort reality just as badly as rose-tinted ones. In fact, cynics are often quite naive-they actually believe they can predict human behaviour, almost mechanically, by assuming that people will act on the basis of narrow, self-interested and generally low motives. In contrast, realists expect all sorts of things to happen-good and bad, virtuous and vicious, inspiring and dismaying. They make plenty of room for the unexpected.

Have Some Skin in the Game. Quiet leaders are tenacious people, and the reason for that is surprising. The heroic view of leadership presents men and women with noble ideals and pure motives. But the motives of quiet leaders are decidedly mixed. In the cases I examined, quiet leaders were usually well aware of their own self-interest, and they worked hard to protect their reputations and careers. Heroic self-sacrifice held little appeal for them. They followed, in effect, the guidance of Hillel the Elder, the ancient Hebrew scholar and sage, who asked, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, who am I?"

One individual I studied-call him Terry-worked as a sales rep for a large drug company. The firm had a strong code of ethics and its executives made frequent statements about corporate responsibility. Hence, Terry was surprised to discover that his company was engaged in an extensive, subterranean effort to sell one of its drugs for a use that the Food and Drug Administration had not approved-a clear violation of FDA regulations. For a while, Terry went along with this scheme, but eventually he had misgivings. So Terry told the doctors he handled that the drug had not been approved for certain uses, and he told his boss and some of the other reps that he had done this.

Looking back on the episode, Terry was candid about his motives. He didn't want any patients to suffer because he had pushed an unapproved drug and he didn't want to get in trouble-if the FDA clamped down on the practice or if his company needed a scapegoat. Terry's motives were clearly mixed. He was trying to help others and also trying to help himself. If he didn't have this powerful, dual motive, he might not have acted as soon or as courageously as he did. What really mattered in his case, as in so many others, was the strength of his motives, not their purity.

Making changes, even small ones, in a recalcitrant world is a hard, demanding task. It is typically a marathon, run on long, lonely roads, rather than a thrilling sprint in front of a cheering crowd. Typically, the men and women who stay the course do so because they have some skin in the game. The big engines of self-interest are churning inside them.

Some people do astonishing things out of unalloyed altruism-think of firefighters running into a burning building-and we call these people heroes and saints. But the rest of us are typically motivated by considerations that are more mixed and less noble. Quiet leaders recognize this. They don't think that their all-too-human motives disqualify or exempt them from doing what they should. Instead, like Terry, they look for ways to channel their self-interest in ways that also serve others.

Buy Time. Back in the heyday of Internet hype, we were told we had to live and make decisions on Internet time. The guiding mantra was "Ready, Fire, Aim." Now, looking back, it is easy to see this as the nonsense it was. In fact, the same people who told us to make decisions faster and faster were also telling us that the world was becoming more complex and less predictable. And this second observation was true-things were swirling faster and faster-but it was also the reason why decisions should not be hurried.

The quiet leaders I studied recognized the complexity and uncertainty of the problems they faced and often looked for ways to buy time. They didn't want to win what medical schools call the SSW, that is, the award for being swift, sure and wrong. Quiet leaders recognize that time lets turbulent waters settle and clarify. It lets people discuss their situations with others and think things through on their own. Time gives people a chance to assess their real obligations and gives sound instincts a chance to emerge. It lets them observe and learn, look for patterns, understand some of the many, subtle ways in which individuals and events interact, and look for small, subtle opportunities in the flow of events.

So quiet leaders buy time in a variety of ways. Sometimes they succeed in making the case for a delay. But when they can't, they do things that hardly resemble charge-the-hill leadership. Sometimes they rely on minor subterfuges-"I didn't get your message," "I can't meet until next week because I'm with clients"-and, in other cases, they use standard organizational games to secure the time they need.

For example, one newly minted bank manager did not want to follow her boss's instructions to start laying off personnel and cutting costs. She felt everyone deserved a last chance and believed there were a couple of employees who could make real contributions if they had the right leadership. Hence, she stalled-by consulting the human resources department, having lawyers look carefully at the legality of firing, by cutting some other costs and temporarily placating her boss. These tactics gave her the time she needed, and she saved several imperiled jobs.

Good managers don't want to work in organizations where game playing is standard operational procedure and quiet leaders don't use stalling tactics casually or routinely. But they are willing to get their hands dirty and buy time when it's the best or only way to do what they believe is right.

Drill Down. How do quiet leaders use the time they buy? They use it to attack the uncertainties and complexities that surround them.

Notice something striking about most of the well-known stories of heroic leadership-the absence of technical complexities. The Alamo was defended by a handful of men using simple weapons; President Lincoln didn't have an army of lawyers vet the Emancipation Proclamation; and Ann Sullivan didn't have to seek third-party reimbursement before working with Helen Keller. The inspiring stories of heroic men and women are usually unencumbered by the technical complexities that permeate so much of life and work today. Ninety per cent of all the scientists and engineers who have ever lived and worked are now living and working right now and their number is doubling every few years. The same is true for lawyers, accountants and other specialists.

Hence, when quiet leaders manage to buy some time, they use it to drill down into the full complexities of the problem in front of them. They get as much advice as they can from people who have confronted similar problems. They examine and re-examine their problem, looking for new angles. They look beyond the technical aspects of the problems, to its politics. And, whenever possible, they try to learn by doing - and moving carefully. Instead of charging ahead, their inclination is to nudge, test and escalate their efforts gradually in whatever direction seems to make the most sense. Terry, the drug rep, spent several weeks figuring out what to do, and the new bank manager spent weeks learning about his staff and how to motivate them.

Bend the Rules and Look for Compromises. We don't associate compromises with leadership. If anything, the heroic view teaches us that real leaders take courageous stands and defend their principles to the end. And bending the rules sounds too much like the tactics that destroyed Enron.

Quiet leaders understand all this, but they also understand something else: Responsible behaviour in some difficult situations requires a little wiggle room. Recall the case of the boss whose good friend was about to buy a big house and lose his job. The easy, pseudo-responsible solution to the problem would be to take a stand on principle-by saying nothing in order to protect corporate confidentiality or by being loyal to the friend and telling him what was going to happen. The more difficult and responsible approach is to bend the rules a little-by saying something like, "I'd be a little careful, given the lousy earnings lately" or "Our competition has been laying people off and I'd be too nervous to make a big financial commitment right now." This approach isn't perfect, but like so many tough, daily decisions in the middle of organizations, it is a practical way of making good on conflicting responsibilities.

There are no small things

Compromises like this are hardly heroic. Nor was Terry's effort to stop selling unapproved drugs, or the bank manager's efforts to save a couple of jobs. Most of what quiet leaders do is unseen, subtle and often unrewarded. Quiet leaders spend much of their time on small things, but they work very hard to get these small things right.

Sometimes small efforts are snowballs that roll down hills and gather force. Sometimes, in situations poised on the knife's edge, they tip things in the right directions. Sometimes ostensibly small acts influence other people months or even years later-by taking root in their experience, gestating and shaping their development. And, even when larger consequences do not result from small acts, they matter simply because they are the right thing to do. As Bruce Barton, a remarkable business executive who founded a major ad agency, served in Congress and wrote widely about religion, observed, "Sometimes, when I consider what tremendous consequences come from little things-a chance word, a tap on the shoulder, or a penny dropped on a newsstand-I am tempted to think there are no little things."

But what do these small, unglamorous, everyday efforts add up to? The answer is that they are almost everything. The vast majority of difficult, important human problems-both inside and outside organizations-are not solved by a swift, decisive stroke from someone at the top. What usually matters are careful, thoughtful, practical efforts by people working far from the limelight. In short, quiet leadership is what moves and changes the world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bold strokes and a powerful personality are the defining qualities of a heroic leader. But shunning the spotlight, the quiet leader works, circumspect and practical, to transform, inspire - and win. Why read another article on leadership? Is there really anything more to say on the subject?

# data[].attributes.body
Link to the photo and the article:
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/leadership-definition-2948275

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

There are many differences between bosses and leaders. Supervisors and managers should consistently analyze their leadership styles to ensure they are successfully leading their teams.

According to a recent study by Robert Half, 49% of professionals surveyed have quit a job due to a bad boss.

To become a good leader, you should influence, inspire and mentor your team members.

There are a few key strategies that every great leader incorporates into their behavior: delegating authority, being thoughtful to team members, facilitating open communication and setting clear employee expectations.

Being promoted to a management role may seem like a great accomplishment, but many professionals find the responsibility to be more challenging than they imagined. Merely being someone's boss doesn't mean you are a good leader.

Effective leadership is increasingly important in the workplace, as more and more employees are leaving great companies over one resolvable element - bad bosses. According to a recent study by staffing agency Robert Half, nearly half of all professionals surveyed (49%) have quit a job because of a bad boss.

There are many key differences between a boss and a leader, and it is important that you analyze your leadership style to ensure that you are effectively steering your team in the right direction. Keep in mind, though, that even those who start out with less effective management skills can modify their behavior to become good leaders. [Are you an effective leader? Ask yourself these questions to find out.]

Many professionals step into management or supervisory roles and find themselves wondering, "What are the qualities of a boss vs. a leader?" We spoke with leadership experts to discover the five key differences between the two.

As you read the following comparisons, reflect on your own actions to determine which one you are.

According to Sue Andrews, business and HR consultant at KIS Finance, a key difference is that a boss's authority comes from their position, whereas a leader's authority comes from their ability to influence others.

"A boss is there to ensure that employees follow the rules of an organization, but a leader will encourage others to think for themselves to achieve the desired ends," Andrews told Business News Daily. "A boss will need to give orders to instruct others what to do, but a leader can inspire others to find the best way forward, whilst motivating them to maximize their potential."

Although subordinates only follow bosses because they have to, bosses can grow their influence through encouraging behavior, added Ken Gosnell, CEO of CEO Experience (CXP).

"You can grow your influences by caring for your team, listening to their thoughts and ideas, and sharing the 'why' behind the decisions and actions that you take," said Gosnell. "This is a second step in leadership, but it makes all the difference, and people will follow you because they want to, and not just because they have to."

You shouldn't just explain a task and leave it in your employee's hands. According to Christine Macdonald, director of The Hub Events, a boss ensures you understand your work, while a leader supports and guides you through it.

"The biggest difference between a leader and a boss is that a good leader inspires people and makes them excited about their work," she said.

Success takes passion; without the desire to complete tasks, workers won't be as driven to give their best performances. As their leader, you should motivate them by letting them know the importance of their work.

Employees are human, and mistakes are to be expected. Who you are as a boss is evident in how you deal with mishaps. While bosses are more likely to use a reward/punishment system to discourage poor behavior, great leaders understand that employees benefit from encouragement and mentorship. If an employee performs well in a specific line of work, that strength should be recognized and mastered.

"One key element of leadership is the ability to harness the talents of others to achieve a common goal," said Macdonald.

It's important to note the strengths and weaknesses of each employee and mentor them independently. Rather than attacking skill gaps, work to patch them by guiding employees through their shortcomings and building their confidence in new areas.

A boss focuses on the objectives of their department and is stringent in following protocol to achieve those goals. They think for the short term, delegate tasks to their subordinates and tend to micromanage.

Christina J. Eisinger, executive coach and consultant at CJE Consulting, said that a boss has key objectives to meet, whereas a leader will set the long-term vision for the team and use it as "a key motivator."

"A boss gets results by telling people what to do and is concerned with doing it right," she said. "A leader is skilled at results by enabling their team to figure out what to do, is concerned with doing what is right."

Andrews added that leaders seek to drive commitment by setting an example for others to follow and inspire others by encouraging development. "They are comfortable delegating authority and avoid micromanaging, preferring to see others develop. Utilizing their excellent communication and negotiation skills, they will influence others for the overall benefit of the organization."

A boss doesn't take the time to get to know their employees like a leader does. Eisinger said that bosses view their team members as subordinates, whereas leaders let go of this hierarchical distinction and view their team members as equal contributors.

To be a leader, it's important that you facilitate positive relationships with your employees. Work with their needs and create a culture that encourages open communication.

"By getting to know your team better, you'll be able to understand how to explain your vision in a way that will really connect with each person," said Macdonald. "This means you can personalize the way you motivate people."

She added that good leaders are genuine and loyal. You set an example for your company. If you lack passion or motivation, odds are your team will too. Don't be afraid to be human - be real and express your emotions to connect with your workers.

To be a good boss or leader, you can incorporate a few key strategies into your behavior. Experts listed three of these strategies as thoughtfulness, communication and clear expectations for your employees.

Gosnell recommends treating your employees with thoughtfulness. A good leader conducts their decision-making process based on the best interests of the team as well as the company.

"Leaders who lead for impact think first of their followers," said Gosnell. "They know that if they are doing what is in the best interest of their followers, it will bring great results for the followers and the organization."

Leaders should also incorporate good communication by listening to their teams. Gosnell said a listening leader will hear how to make an organization better through the words of their team.

"Listening leaders grow in influence and impact, while those who neglect to listen to their team will struggle with disengaged employees who won't listen," he added. "A leader who wants to be listened to should practicing listening to their people."

Whether you see yourself as a boss or a leader, Andrews said, the key to your success is your staff seeing you as fair in your approach toward them. Set fair, clear employee expectations and be consistent in your manners so your staff knows what they can expect from you.

"This is essential in the workplace, as one of the greatest causes of employee stress is not knowing what to expect from their manager," said Andrews. "Frequent changes in focus and conflicting priorities will leave staff feeling anxious. However, effective communication and a clear goal will ensure that teams all pull in the same direction."

Team leaders are responsible for more than just delegating tasks and monitoring employees. They are responsible for the success of the whole team as well as the success of each individual team member. An effective team leader should understand each member's strengths, weaknesses, and goals and utilize their talents accordingly.

Eisinger created a brief checklist for leaders to refer to when determining their primary responsibilities:

Ensure the team has what they need to get the job done.

Provide challenging, meaningful work.

Be accessible and approachable.

Hold regular one-on-one meetings with each direct report that focus on career development.

Measure performance.

Provide regular, ongoing feedback (both positive feedback and constructive criticism).

If you do not currently implement all of these responsibilities into your work duties, don't worry. Just focus on improving, and seek feedback from your team about what you can do better. According to Eisinger, most good leaders start out as bosses.

"In the work I do, it seems to be an inevitable transition point for people as they first step into a supervisory role and develop their leadership capabilities," she said. "It's normal to exhibit some of these 'boss' characteristics. However, it is critical to recognize one's unique challenges and work to overcome them so they can become leaders."
What do you think the difference is between a boss and a true leader? Share your thoughts on this topic with the business.com community. Additional reporting by Sammi Caramela. Some source interviews were conducted for a previous version of this article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Be a True Leader and Not Just a Boss

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many differences between bosses and leaders. Supervisors and managers should consistently analyze their leadership styles to ensure they are successfully leading their teams. According to a recent study by Robert Half, 49% of professionals surveyed have quit a job due to a bad boss.

# data[].attributes.body
Everyone has either had one or will have one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nothing sparks more commentary than asking employees about what makes a manager a bad boss. And, the feelings of their anger and despair come through in every discussion. Whether your spouse or partner or best friend is dealing with the behavior of a bad boss, you provide a listening ear-and possibly good advice about how to address the less than positive situation.

Consensus doesn't exist about what makes a manager a bad boss, of course, because bad bosses come in so many different shapes and sizes. What one person thinks of as a bad boss may not resonate with a coworker who has different needs from work and their boss relationship.

Many bosses fall into the bad boss category because they fail to provide clear direction, regular feedback, recognition for contributions, and a strategic framework of goals that enable their employees to see their progress. These kinds of bad bosses are what are called "generic bad bosses" because all employees need these types of support and feedback-and they suffer when they don't receive it.

Other bad bosses are bullies. They are nasty and overly critical. These bad bosses badger employees, and employees can never do enough to please them. On the extreme end of the spectrum, bad bosses may harass, physically assault, and throw objects at employees.

But, several themes occur most frequently when employees cite bad behavior on the part of their bosses.

If you are thinking of a particularly bad boss, you are likely to experience one or more of the following in your workplace. Very bad bosses most commonly do the following.

1. Love brownnosers, tattletales, and relatives who report to them about their employees' behavior. They choose favorite employees and cover up and make excuses for the poor work of their incompetent favorites. They ignore selected people and discriminate against many employees. They tend to give their favorites better schedules and assignments, more attention, and pal around with them outside of work.

2. Fail to communicate, and may not even have clear expectations, timelines or goals. Bad bosses change their minds frequently leaving employees off-balance. Bad bosses change expectations and deadlines frequently. Employees have trouble knowing where they stand and whether they're meeting expectations. Employees fail to feel a sense of accomplishment when expectations don't exist.

3. Use disciplinary measures inappropriately when simple, positive communication would correct the problem. Bad bosses ignore employees until there is a problem, and then they pounce.

4. Speak loudly, rudely, one-sidedly to staff. Bad bosses don't provide the opportunity for staff to respond to accusations and comments. They intimidate people and allow other employees to bully employees. A bad boss frequently talks right over an employee who has put aside their fear and attempted to communicate.

5. Take credit for the successes and positive accomplishments of employees. They are equally as quick to blame employees when something goes wrong. They throw employees under the bus loudly and in public whenever they need to cover for their own poor performance or lack of leadership and follow through.

6. Fail to provide rewards or recognition for positive employee performance. Employees rarely feel recognized no matter how much they have contributed or succeeded.

These are the bad boss behaviors that employees are more likely to commonly see or experience. Taking place more frequently (because the behavior is generally more acceptable in the workplace) a bad boss is also someone who:

1. Is not qualified for the boss job by either skills or experience. The bad boss doesn't know how to lead and interact effectively with people.

2. Will not let go of problems or mistakes. The bad boss returns to discuss negative events continually and searches for faults in employees.

3. Will not accept constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement. The bad boss can't deal with disagreement from employees who have their own opinions about work-related issues. While this bad boss won't openly disparage and abuse their employees, they also will not listen to them.

4. Lacks integrity, breaks promises and is dishonest. Bad bosses make up stories when they don't know the answer to an employee's question and they are not motivated to find out.

5. Does not have the courage to deal with a difficult situation, usually a difficult employee who is making the workplace unpleasant for every other person, despite knowing that dealing with the problem is the right thing to do.

6. Causes dissension among staff members by his or her actions and comments. For example, discussing the work responsibilities or home life of one employee with another employee.

If you feel harmed and you've decided it's time to do something about your bad boss, then you should consider taking certain actions such as documenting your boss's bad behavior. You can also take steps to avoid being the target of a workplace bully.

Your first step, however, is to solicit help from your HR department because that's why they exist as a resource for employees. Most likely you're not the only person suffering. Who knows, there might already be complaints filed against your bad boss.

The worst decision that you can make is to do nothing. The reason? You spend a third of your life at work. You want to make your work in your workplace the best experience ever. You can't do this if you report to and tolerate-a bad boss.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 12 Characteristics of a Bad Boss and How to Deal With Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nothing sparks more commentary than asking employees about what makes a manager a bad boss. And, the feelings of their anger and despair come through in every discussion. Whether your spouse or partner or best friend is dealing with the behavior of a bad boss, you provide a listening ear-and possibly good advice about how to address the less than positive situation.

# data[].attributes.body
This video is easy to understand and follow. I feel like it's an AHA one for those questioning if introverts can lead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Good Leadership? Introverts Break it Down

# data[].attributes.body
Shepherd, S. (2017). Why are there so few female leaders in higher education: A case of structure or agency? Management in Education, 31(2), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020617696631

There are not as many female leaders as there are male leaders-- much less in higher education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Earlier this year, Chancellor William McRaven of the University of Texas made a remarkable statement. "The toughest job in the nation," he said, "is the one of an academic- or health-institution president." Under normal circumstances, one might take this claim with a grain of salt. In the academy, we all like to complain about our jobs.

McRaven, however, is not a typical academic executive. A retired four-star admiral and Navy SEAL, McRaven's last job prior to the chancellorship at Texas was running America's Special Operations Command. Among other tasks, he planned and supervised the raid that killed of Osama bin Laden. When a decorated Navy SEAL says that a job is tough, and leaves after three years, we ought to take special notice.

Higher education commentators frequently suggest that being a president is hard today because of the unique times in which we live: times defined by limited resources, protest, conflict, and social media controversy. In truth, however, leaders across all the public and private sectors of the economy face equally great challenges right now, from global competition to constant pressure for quarterly profit, and protest and upheaval are nothing new in higher education So what makes the job of university president so uniquely difficult? After serving as a college president and talking with dozens of colleagues over the years, I have concluded it is due to structural institutional leadership challenges faced by no other CEOs.

To begin, college and university presidents answer to a very large number of constituencies: students, staff, faculty, trustees, alumni, and, in the public sector, political leaders. None of these constituencies can be ignored. All are outspoken. And most of the time, they desire radically different outcomes.

Trustees probably want greater efficiency, innovation, and cost reductions that are anathema to the professoriate and staff. Alumni want to preserve the campus values and atmosphere they treasured decades ago, despite the desire of other constituencies, particularly current students, to move forward and evolve. Alumni also want sports victories, an outcome faculty do not prioritize. Current students frequently demand instant changes in management, finances, and curriculum that all the other constituencies reject. Political leaders want demonstrable employment results and cheap (or free) tuition without undue expense to taxpayers. Unlike the private sector, where the desire for profit serves as a clear and unequivocal unifying objective for board, investors, and (most) employees, there is no single, underlying goal to tie these disparate groups together.

The academy's system of distributing power among these constituencies makes managing this complex mosaic even more difficult. Presidents in the academy have much less direct power than most CEOs. Unlike C suite executives in other leadership contexts, many college and university presidents typically need support - and often formal votes of approval - from faculty and staff senates in order to proceed with even mundane changes in university practice.

Tenured faculty hold great power, and they cannot be fired and are not subject to the forms of control or influence, through compensation or job assignment, that CEOs in other settings routinely use to bring their work force into alignment with institutional goals. In the public higher education sector, the ability of a president to set tuition or issue debt is subject to political control from state legislatures, a challenge unlike that in any other field. And students utilize the power to protest more frequently than constituencies in any other non-political sphere.

Board composition makes the exercise of presidential power even more difficult. In the private sector, the average corporation board has nine members. This compact size allows for a close and intimate working relationship between CEO and board. Many colleges and universities, however, possess much larger boards, with some possessing as many as thirty board members. In public systems, these board members may, at times, represent narrow political constituencies with very specific goals. For private institutions, the fact that many board members are also major philanthropic donors can make honest and open communication between board and president challenging, and in some cases, impossible.

The vague character of our systems of shared governance add further complication. Most organizations in other settings enjoy clear lines of authority. Even when power is distributed, it is distributed so that everyone understands their role and its limits. In the academy, however, those lines are often incredibly hazy. Many colleges and universities possess multiple governing documents - articles of incorporation, state laws, community constitutions, faculty codes, and student constitutions.

These controlling documents, some decades old, or adopted in radically different epochs, often conflict, sometimes explicitly, more often implicitly, in ways that make it very unclear what a president and other constituencies can and cannot do. Many customary academic practices must be respected even when not reflected in these documents. Presidents are frequently criticized by constituencies for violating these controlling documents or the perceived "spirit" thereof, when in fact, no other course is possible. It is also difficult to harmonize these conflicting charters and customary norms, for any proposed changes to long-cherished privileges, whether actual or imagined, trigger vociferous opposition.

In sum, the academy's system of shared and distributed power among a large number of constituencies with very different interests, accompanied by unwieldy board structures and conflicting and vague governance rules, makes it much more difficult for a university president to define and implement a clear agenda or implement rapid changes in response to changing contexts than it is for CEO peers in other institutional settings. Stated another way, a university president may need significantly greater leadership skills to achieve good outcomes than leaders in other contexts. Because of this, one can and should expect a higher percentage of failed or underachieving presidencies in the academy than we might in other sectors, public or private.

One can debate whether this is a good or bad thing. If a university possesses strong finances, a positive brand and a culture of academic excellence, then the fact that it is hard for a president to make major changes of any kind is probably positive. In these cases, the existence of numerous brakes on presidential-led change may help the president operate as a long-term steward and honest broker between competing constituencies. If, however, change and innovation at a university is necessary for improvement, to adjust to changing academic or economic conditions, or to insure institutional survival itself, then the fact that we have made presidential leadership so difficult - even by the standards of a Navy SEAL - may be a matter of concern.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Toughest Job in the Nation | Leadership in Higher Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Earlier this year, Chancellor William McRaven of the University of Texas made a remarkable statement. "The toughest job in the nation," he said, "is the one of an academic- or health-institution president." Under normal circumstances, one might take this claim with a grain of salt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At our Presidential Leadership Scholars weekend in College Station, Texas, John Sununu, former governor of New Hampshire and George H.W. Bush's chief of staff, recounted President Bush's first meeting with French president Francois Mitterrand upon assuming office in 1989. U.S. relations with France were strained, and while there was no immediate need for joint U.S. and French action at the time, President Bush knew that sometime he would need America's old ally and wanted to repair relations with its leader.

As recorded in Sununu's The Quiet Man, President Bush invited Mitterrand to his home in Kennebunkport, and over two days he began to win over the veteran statesman, developing a lasting friendship and professional partnership. This relationship, authentically cultivated, paid extraordinary dividends when President Bush was able to use his partnership with Mitterrand to negotiate financial assistance to Poland and Hungary in 1989 and the eventual reunification of East and West Germany.

This "relational" approach to leadership was core to President Bush's values and personality. And in the broader world, relational leadership-the longstanding and almost instinctive cultivation of close personal and professional relationships as an entre to building alliances and partnerships-is common. It's prevalent in politics, where relationships among legislators and community members often lead to compromise, and in business, where trust is such an essential component of partnership.

So, how is relational leadership cultivated?

It starts with a genuine interest in others. President Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff and Transportation Secretary Andy Card said of the President, "President George H.W. Bush created personal relationships with everyone he could. That personal connection could become a strategic partnership when it needed to be. It was universal but sincere." I've seen the same in my career. When I was a new business analyst at McKinsey, for example, a senior director in the office took an interest in me and counseled me, even though I would never be useful to him. And most of us have benefited from peers or mentors who have befriended us and then aided us in the cultivation of our careers. These friendships aren't purely instrumental but authentic, sincere and driven by a genuine interest in others.

Relational leadership is further predicated on empathy-understanding others and meeting them where they are. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, President Bush was criticized for his subdued response. Some wanted the president to celebrate more visibly. But President Bush knew how tense a political moment the event was for Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, and sensitive to his relationship with Gorbachev and the fragility of the moment, the American president avoided the kind of gloating that may have made the situation more challenging for the general secretary to manage. This was an important gesture and one for which President Bush was misunderstood and criticized. But, as Sununu notes in The Quiet Man, it displayed empathy for Gorbachev and strengthened their partnership. Similarly, we're experiencing a heightened cultural appreciation now for former television host Fred Rogers based at least partially on his remarkable empathy. Mr. Rogers is the subject of a new documentary and a forthcoming feature film -and much of what makes him so unique and so compelling is the deep empathy he so regularly displayed for everyone he met, particularly children and the vulnerable. This empathy and kindness left even casual acquaintances transformed by their interactions with him and was a critical foundation of his leadership. It's similarly essential for each of us.

Further, this authentic and empathetic relational leadership is nurtured by small and large gestures of friendship. As I've written elsewhere, I once worked with a woman at a DC-area organization who was exceptional about spending time with even the most junior members of her organization and making them feel special. She took me to lunch and subsequently mailed me a book about which we'd spoken and a handwritten note-a kindness I appreciate to this day. Similarly, President Bush frequently wrote handwritten notes to friends and partners around the world. And while his subdued reaction to the fall of the Berlin wall was a grand gesture, he also made small gestures to reinforce relationships. Genuine interest in and excitement for others manifests in gestures and signals that you value and understand them.

Finally, while relational leadership is personal by nature, it can be powerfully embedded in the culture of an organization or team. Speaking of the Bush White House, Governor Sununu said, "President George H.W. Bush's commitment to collegiality was contagious. We all worked hard to maintain that." A culture that prioritizes authentic relationships starts at the top and cascades through an organization. In my time as a management consultant, I worked for several partners who prioritized collegiality among their teams-hosting kick-off dinners for us to get to know each other, planning team events to encourage bonding and insisting on respectful treatment of all colleagues-and that top-down leadership transformed the groups with which they worked.

Relational leadership can be incredibly successful, particularly when it is authentic, empathetic, reinforced through gestures of friendship and embedded in the culture of a team. It's not the only style of leadership, but can be powerful and personally fulfilling.
This article is part of a six-part series on leadership lessons from presidents that includes "Searching For The Right Leadership Style," "The Power Of Relational Leadership," "The Simple Power Of Connected Communication," "How A President Makes A Decision That Matters," "The Johnson Treatment: Pushing and Persuading Like LBJ" and "Life Is Worth Living In Three Dimensions."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At our Presidential Leadership Scholars weekend in College Station, Texas, John Sununu, former governor of New Hampshire and George H.W. Bush's chief of staff, recounted President Bush's first meeting with French president Francois Mitterrand upon assuming office in 1989. U.S. relations with France were strained, and while there was no immediate need for joint U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Introverted?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Do you ever think about the kinds of people who get promoted in your organization? Are different personality types - both extroverts and introverts - represented in that group, and made to feel like they belong? New research shows that introverted leaders, in some cases, are actually more effective in inspiring and motivating people.

To learn more about developing introverted leaders, we talked to the expert - author and WorkHuman Live speaker Susan Cain. In part one of our Q&A, we talk about what it means to be an introvert, the qualities that make introverts exceptional leaders, and the best ways to recognize and reward the introverts on your team.

If you prefer to listen to the interview, click here to listen to it on WorkHuman Radio.

Read the rest below.
How do you define an introvert?
A lot of your readers will be familiar with the idea that it has to do with where you get your energy. Introverts get their energy from being in quieter situations. They could be very socially skilled, but derive more energy from quiet. Extroverts get their energy from being out there.

It's also important to understand that there are neurobiological differences. The reason introverts get their energy from quieter situations is that we have nervous systems that react more to stimulation. When there's too much going on, we feel an overreaction; whereas extroverts have nervous systems that don't react as much. If there's not enough going on, an extrovert will feel bored and sluggish and listless, and that's why they'll start looking for people to talk to and things to do.
What is the most surprising thing you've learned about introverts in your research?
There is an amazing correlation between introversion and excellent leadership performance. I think there is a perception that if you're an introvert, there are some things you can do well, but leadership is probably not one of them. But the new data shows that when introverts make it to those leadership positions, they actually tend to deliver great and sometimes superior results, which is really interesting.

You can see examples of this from Gandhi through his transformational leadership, and also in business leadership. You see figures like Beth Comstock, the vice chair of GE, and Douglas Conant, the much-revered former CEO of Campbell Soup. Introverted leaders tend to solicit ideas from other people and listen to those ideas and use them, so there is not as much of a brain drain.

Also, many introverts arrive at leadership positions not because they set out to be a leader and doggedly became one, rather because they tend, by their nature, to get very passionate about one or two subjects in their lives. When they get passionate about their work, or a cause, or a mission, they end up inspiring trust, building alliances, and acquiring expertise. They ascend to leadership positions in the name of the thing that they really, deeply, care about. That is a very potent way of being a leader. People can feel that commitment.
It's about leading by passion, right?
Yes, and it's about how you become a leader in the first place. I think there are some people who just want to be a leader and that's what's motivating them. Whereas for a lot of the people we've studied, they weren't motivated by being a leader, per se. They were motivated by the underlying thing they were doing.

Bill Gates is a great example of this. You don't get the feeling he cares one way or another about controlling events or people. You get the feeling he really cares about solving problems in the world and that's his driver.
When you work for somebody like that, you can tell the difference, too.
You can tell the difference and you end up attracting other people who are similarly motivated by the cause itself and by the project itself, as opposed to by salary or by title. Not that these things fall away - we're humans; all these things matter. But, if you want a purpose-driven workplace, it helps to have a purpose-driven leader.
Last year Amy Cuddy told The New York Times that, "now people think it's cool to be an introvert." Do you agree or do you think there's still misconceptions out there about introverts?
I think it's both. I think that she's right, it's changed enormously. A year ago, I sat on a panel with Arianna Huffington, George Stephanopoulos, Candice Bergen, and a few other people. One by one they all publicly identified themselves as introverts. I really don't think that would have happened six years ago. I do think the culture has shifted enormously that way.

At the same time, there's still a long way to go, particularly in the business world. When you're looking for a job or if you're just looking to put your hat in the ring for a leadership position, I do think there's still a stigma that is associated with the idea of being an introvert. I analogize this to the women's movement, where we've come so far and there's still so far to go.
We all crave connection and appreciation at work. Do you think introverts like to be recognized differently than extroverts and if so, how?
I think they do like to be praised publicly but not in a way that puts them on the spot in an uncomfortable way - not in a way that draws uncomfortable or unwelcome attention. You also want to pay attention to how are you rewarding them for their contributions. I remember conducting interviews in Silicon Valley and one manager told me he'd been part of a team of introverted engineers that had done exceptional work. Management rewarded them by sending them on a cruise. This is the last thing we want to do. Reward me by letting me go home to my own space, that's what I want.
So it's about choice?
Yes, it's about choice and I think people do want recognition. That's human. Everybody wants it, but they tend to want it in quieter ways.
In your book, you cite research from another WorkHuman speaker, Adam Grant. He talks about how introverts in some ways can be better leaders than extroverts. Can you talk about this and how we can get better at finding and fostering quieter people into leadership tracks?
Yes, I always challenge my audiences to think of someone they know who is very talented, but is a so-called "unnatural leader." It might be themselves or somebody they are working with. I encourage them to sit down with that person and come up with a one- and three- and five-year plan to see where that person wants to be.

Introverts are often assumed to be less ambitious, when they are not at all, necessarily. Find out what that person's ambitions are. Figure out how you are going to help them get there and how are you going to help them as a leader to step outside their comfort zone when they need to. You're not asking them to turn into somebody else. You're asking them to draw on their natural strengths.

How to Recognize Quiet Leaders @susancain #workhuman
Click To Tweet

Stay tuned for part two of our Q&A, where we discuss radical candor, building a more inclusive workplace, and giving yourself permission to be an introvert.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Recognize Quiet Leaders: Susan Cain Q+A (Part 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you ever think about the kinds of people who get promoted in your organization? Are different personality types - both extroverts and introverts - represented in that group, and made to feel like they belong? New research shows that introverted leaders, in some cases, are actually more effective in inspiring and motivating people.

# 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.attachment_link.readable_text
Executive Summary

Conventional wisdom suggests that the most charismatic leaders are also the best leaders. But research shows that, while at least a moderate level of charisma is important, too much may hinder a leader's effectiveness. Three studies - involving 800 business leaders globally and around 7,500 of their superiors, peers, and subordinates - suggests that as leaders' charisma increases, so does their perceived effectiveness, but only up to a point. The researchers also found that highly charismatic leaders were perceived to engage in more strategic behavior and less operational behavior. The findings suggest that leaders should be aware of the potential drawbacks of being highly charismatic.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the most charismatic leaders are also the best leaders. Charismatic leaders have, for instance, the ability to inspire others toward higher levels of performance and to instill deep levels of commitment, trust, and satisfaction. As a result, they are generally perceived by their subordinates to be more effective, compared with less charismatic leaders.

But our research shows that while having at least a moderate level of charisma is important, having too much may hinder a leader's effectiveness. We conducted three studies, involving 800 business leaders globally and around 7,500 of their superiors, peers, and subordinates. Leaders occupied different managerial levels, ranging from supervisors to general managers. Our paper is forthcoming in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

First, it's important to understand what charisma is. Traditional models of charismatic leadership state that charisma is not a personality trait, but simply exists in the eye of the beholder. In other words, charisma is attributed to someone, as opposed to being grounded in one's personality.

However, the observation that people tend to agree in their perceptions of others' charisma levels suggests that it is not only a matter of attribution, and that this agreement might result from a personality-based foundation underlying these perceptions. So the first goal of our research was to establish a measure of charismatic personality.

We gave leaders the Hogan Development Survey (HDS), a personality inventory specifically designed for work applications, and looked at how they scored on four personality tendencies: bold, colorful, mischievous, and imaginative. More-charismatic leaders score high on these traits, which is reflected in their high self-confidence, dramatic flair, readiness to test the limits, and expansive visionary thinking.

Next, we conducted a study to confirm this cluster of traits as a valid measure of charismatic personality. Using a sample of 204 business leaders, we showed that charismatic personality related to subordinates' perceptions of charismatic leadership. So leaders with a highly charismatic personality, as measured with HDS charisma, were also perceived to be highly charismatic by their subordinates. Using an archival data set from 1998 on a sample of 156 people, we further showed that HDS charisma levels could be predicted by people's charismatic behaviors (for example, being energetic, assertive, and generating enthusiasm).

Our second goal was to investigate the relationship between charismatic personality and leader effectiveness. In a second study, 306 leaders (65% of them men) provided HDS self-ratings of their charismatic personality, while their coworkers provided ratings of their overall effectiveness using a 10-point rating scale, where 5 is adequate and 10 is outstanding. Taken together, 4,345 of their coworkers participated in this study: 666 superiors; 1,659 peers; and 2,020 subordinates. An average of 14 people rated each leader in terms of overall effectiveness.

Consistent with our expectations, we found that as charisma increased, so did perceived effectiveness - but only up to a certain point. As charisma scores continued to increase beyond the 60th percentile, which is just above the average score relative to the general population of working adults, perceived effectiveness started to decline. This trend was consistent across the three observer groups (subordinates, peers, and supervisors).

We also asked the leaders to evaluate their own effectiveness. As shown below, the more charismatic the leaders were, the higher they rated their own effectiveness. This discrepancy between self-perceptions and observer ratings is in line with other research demonstrating that leaders with high self-esteem typically overrate their performance on a variety of criteria.

In a third study, we tested whether the effects of charismatic personality on effectiveness could be explained by looking at specific leader behaviors. To test this, we asked 287 business leaders (81% men) to rate their charismatic personality, and an average of 11 coworkers - including supervisors, peers, and subordinates - to rate each leader in terms of overall effectiveness. Additionally, coworkers now also rated leaders on two pairs of opposing leader-behavior dimensions: the extent to which they were forceful and enabling (tapping into the interpersonal behavior dimensions, or how they led), and the extent to which they were strategic and operational (representing the organizational dimensions, or what they led).

Although we did not find significant relationships between charisma and the interpersonal behavior dimensions, we found that highly charismatic leaders were perceived to engage in more strategic behavior and less operational behavior. But how can this explain lower effectiveness ratings for the most charismatic?

One explanation is that the costs associated with the desired trait (charisma) eventually come to outweigh its benefits. For highly charismatic leaders, we expected that the costs associated with a lack of operational behavior would come to outweigh the benefits delivered by strategic behavior when a certain level of charisma is exceeded. And that's exactly what we found: Highly charismatic leaders may be strategically ambitious, but this comes at the expense of getting day-to-day work activities executed in a proper manner, which can hurt perceived effectiveness. They failed, for example, in managing the day-to-day operations needed to implement their big strategic vision and in taking a methodical approach to getting things done in the near term. Further analysis showed that for leaders with lower levels of charisma, the opposite was true: They were found to be less effective because they lacked strategic behavior. For example, they did not spend enough time on long-term planning, and failed in taking a big-picture perspective, questioning the status quo, and encouraging innovation.

In terms of practical implications, our findings suggest that leaders should be aware of the potential drawbacks of being highly charismatic. Although it's difficult to draw a precise line between "just enough" and "too much" charisma, these are a few traits to look out for that can influence one's effectiveness. Self-confidence, for instance, may turn into overconfidence and narcissism in highly charismatic leaders, while risk tolerance and persuasiveness may start to translate into manipulative behavior. Further, the enthusiastic and entertaining nature of charisma may turn into attention-seeking behaviors that distract the organization from its mission, and extreme creativity may make highly charismatic leaders think and act in fanciful, eccentric ways.

For those whose charisma may be above optimal, coaching and development programs aimed at managing potential operational weaknesses, enhancing self-awareness, and improving self-regulation can be useful. Highly charismatic leaders would also benefit from receiving feedback from their coworkers on their effectiveness. That way, any gap between their perception and the perceptions of others will become clear. In contrast, coaching programs for leaders low on charisma might focus more on boosting their strategic behavior.

In sum, we found support for the idea that a leader can be too charismatic. Our findings suggest that highly charismatic leaders are perceived to be less effective, not for interpersonal reasons like self-centeredness but for business-related reasons that specifically relate to a lack of operational leader behavior.

We do want to point out that we didn't include situational factors in our study, which could influence the strength and shape of the relationship between leader charisma and effectiveness. Under certain conditions, such as in low-stress situations, this relationship may be strictly linear ("the more charisma the better"). However, we believe that high-stress and high-pressure situations are rather typical for a "normal" leadership context, enhancing the likelihood of finding a too-much-of-a-good-thing effect. Additional studies will be important to further investigate the specific conditions under which charisma is desirable or not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Too Much Charisma Can Make Leaders Look Less Effective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Executive Summary Conventional wisdom suggests that the most charismatic leaders are also the best leaders. But research shows that, while at least a moderate level of charisma is important, too much may hinder a leader's effectiveness.

# data[].attributes.body
The person I interviewed had servant leadership characteristics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Servant leaders are a revolutionary bunch–they take the traditional power leadership model and turn it completely upside down. This new hierarchy puts the people–or employees, in a business context–at the very top, and the leader at the bottom, charged wi

# data[].attributes.body
Link to image and posting: https://www.gapingvoid.com/blog/2019/10/25/what-does-real-leadership-mean-2019/

I love the images Gaping Void produces. They are very relatable. This fits my leadership style.

# data[].attributes.body
This video is older, but I feel it is still worth watching. "The goal is to hire people who believe what you believe."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership -- starting with a golden circle and the question: “Why?” His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Wright brothers…

# data[].attributes.body
This was a very interesting read.
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.attachment_link.title
Emotional Inteligence - A Minute With John Maxwell, Free Coaching Video

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Alward, E., & Phelps, Y. (2019). Impactful Leadership Traits of Virtual Leaders in Higher Education. Online Learning, 23(3), 72–93.

Times are changing. As leaders, we need to prepare for face to face interaction as well as online interaction. Is it possible to lead both?
Link to article: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1228828.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Citation: Humphreys, D. (2013). Deploying Collaborative Leadership to Reinvent Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century. Peer Review, 15(1), 4–6.

# data[].attributes.body
Integrity and accountability are very important qualities. Your word is gold until it's not. People will hold you to that, and they won't forget.