A Christian Perspective
Definition:
"Organizational Management and Leadership: A Christian Perspective" defines leadership as "the ability to influence others and is dependent upon whether the leader possesses that which followers seek."
Satterlee, A. (2009). Organizational Management and Leadership: A Christian Perspective. (2nd Ed.). North Carolina: Synergistics International Inc.
Summary: Boris Groysberg is a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. Michael Slind is a writer, editor, and communication consultant. They are the coauthors of Talk, Inc.: How Trusted Leaders Use Conversation to Power Their Organizations (Harvard Business Review Press, 2012). In their article “Leadership is a Conversation,” Groysberg and Slind discuss …show more content…
how smart leaders today have found engaging with employees in a way that resembles an ordinary person-to-person conversation is more effective than a series of commands from on high and has become more attractive than the command-and-control approach to management in recent years. Groysberg and Slind make mention that by talking with employees, rather than simply issuing orders, leaders can retain or recapture some of the qualities—operational flexibility, high levels of employee engagement, tight strategic alignment—that enable start-ups to outperform better-established rivals. The authors conclude their article by recommending four suggestions for leaders to develop this model. The essential attributes of interpersonal conversation: intimacy, interactivity, inclusion, and intentionality. Leaders who power their organizations through conversation-based practices need not (so to speak) dot all four of these i’s. However, as they’ve discovered in their research, these elements tend to reinforce one another. In the end, they coalesce to form a single integrated process.
Discussion:
Leadership is a very relevant topic in the business field as it relates to globalization, new technologies, and changes in how companies create value and interact with customers have sharply reduced the efficacy of a purely directive, top-down model of leadership.
Leaders must step down from their corporate perches and then step up to the challenge of communicating personally and transparently with their people. As counterintuitive as it might seem, the best way to lead people into the future is to connect with them deeply in the present. No one will dive into a heartfelt exchange of views with someone who seems to have a hidden agenda or a hostile manner, and any discussion that does unfold between two people will be rewarding and substantive only to the extent that each person can take the other at face value. For example, as a production team leader at a chemical company I must know exactly how to engage the crew of workers that are assigned to my area. By cultivating the art of listening to people and by learning to speak with employees directly and authentically I have found that more work gets accomplished and the overall work environment is less hostile, because workers feel comfortable engaging me in one-on-one conversation or in a group discussion. This creates an atmosphere where the workers in my area feel at ease and they are comfortable telling me about situations that occur in the field and we are able to work through them to get jobs done more effectively. …show more content…
Having a that level of intimacy and getting close to workers has made my decision making and communicating those decisions across to workers easy because they trust I will make the right decisions.
I agree with Groysberg and Slind that physical proximity between leaders and employees isn’t always feasible. Nor is it essential. What is essential is mental or emotional proximity. Leading from a bottom up approach has made the level of trust and open communication in my group flourish. Workers in my group trust that they can communicate with me on all aspects of the job without fear of being talked at or down to. This like Groysberg and Slind suggest shifts the focus from a top-down distribution of information to a bottom-up exchange of ideas. In this way Leaders who take organizational conversation seriously know when to stop talking and start listening. Few behaviors enhance conversational intimacy as much as attending to what people say. True attentiveness signals respect for people of all ranks and roles, a sense of curiosity, and even a degree of humility.
In their article, Groysberg and Slind also suggest that trust is hard to achieve.
In organizations it has become especially difficult for employees to put trust in their leaders, who will earn it only if they are authentic and straightforward. That may mean addressing topics that feel off-limits, such as sensitive financial data. I find this to be a tough balance as I communicate with workers as openly and as honestly possible about information that can be openly discussed. There are times when I am not able to give out the information that is wanted and it ways in on the trust factor and the balance of open communication. This makes the balance of information to a bottom-up exchange difficult, tough to manage, and hard to be an effective leader. I have found that staying open minded, listening, and incorporating what the workforce has to say about what takes place in the field makes the bottom-up approach work even in difficult
situations.
References:
Groysberg, B. & Slind, M. (2013). Leadership is a Conversation. Harvard Business Review. June 2012. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2012/06/leadership-is-a-conversation/ar/5. Web. 28 October 2013
Goldman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets Results. Harvard Business Review. March 2000. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results. Web. 28 October 2013
Kirby, J. (2012). Trust in the Age of Transparency. Harvard Business Review. July-August 2012. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2012/07/trust-in-the-age-of-transparency. Web. 28 October 2013
Satterlee, A. (2009). Organizational Management and Leadership: A Christian Perspective. (2nd Ed.). North Carolina: Synergistics International Inc. (p. 5)
"Organizational Management and Leadership: A Christian Perspective" defines leadership as "the ability to influence others and is dependent upon whether the leader possesses that which followers seek."
Satterlee, A. (2009). Organizational Management and Leadership: A Christian Perspective. (2nd Ed.). North Carolina: Synergistics International Inc.
Summary: Boris Groysberg is a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. Michael Slind is a writer, editor, and communication consultant. They are the coauthors of Talk, Inc.: How Trusted Leaders Use Conversation to Power Their Organizations (Harvard Business Review Press, 2012). In their article “Leadership is a Conversation,” Groysberg and Slind discuss …show more content…
how smart leaders today have found engaging with employees in a way that resembles an ordinary person-to-person conversation is more effective than a series of commands from on high and has become more attractive than the command-and-control approach to management in recent years. Groysberg and Slind make mention that by talking with employees, rather than simply issuing orders, leaders can retain or recapture some of the qualities—operational flexibility, high levels of employee engagement, tight strategic alignment—that enable start-ups to outperform better-established rivals. The authors conclude their article by recommending four suggestions for leaders to develop this model. The essential attributes of interpersonal conversation: intimacy, interactivity, inclusion, and intentionality. Leaders who power their organizations through conversation-based practices need not (so to speak) dot all four of these i’s. However, as they’ve discovered in their research, these elements tend to reinforce one another. In the end, they coalesce to form a single integrated process.
Discussion:
Leadership is a very relevant topic in the business field as it relates to globalization, new technologies, and changes in how companies create value and interact with customers have sharply reduced the efficacy of a purely directive, top-down model of leadership.
Leaders must step down from their corporate perches and then step up to the challenge of communicating personally and transparently with their people. As counterintuitive as it might seem, the best way to lead people into the future is to connect with them deeply in the present. No one will dive into a heartfelt exchange of views with someone who seems to have a hidden agenda or a hostile manner, and any discussion that does unfold between two people will be rewarding and substantive only to the extent that each person can take the other at face value. For example, as a production team leader at a chemical company I must know exactly how to engage the crew of workers that are assigned to my area. By cultivating the art of listening to people and by learning to speak with employees directly and authentically I have found that more work gets accomplished and the overall work environment is less hostile, because workers feel comfortable engaging me in one-on-one conversation or in a group discussion. This creates an atmosphere where the workers in my area feel at ease and they are comfortable telling me about situations that occur in the field and we are able to work through them to get jobs done more effectively. …show more content…
Having a that level of intimacy and getting close to workers has made my decision making and communicating those decisions across to workers easy because they trust I will make the right decisions.
I agree with Groysberg and Slind that physical proximity between leaders and employees isn’t always feasible. Nor is it essential. What is essential is mental or emotional proximity. Leading from a bottom up approach has made the level of trust and open communication in my group flourish. Workers in my group trust that they can communicate with me on all aspects of the job without fear of being talked at or down to. This like Groysberg and Slind suggest shifts the focus from a top-down distribution of information to a bottom-up exchange of ideas. In this way Leaders who take organizational conversation seriously know when to stop talking and start listening. Few behaviors enhance conversational intimacy as much as attending to what people say. True attentiveness signals respect for people of all ranks and roles, a sense of curiosity, and even a degree of humility.
In their article, Groysberg and Slind also suggest that trust is hard to achieve.
In organizations it has become especially difficult for employees to put trust in their leaders, who will earn it only if they are authentic and straightforward. That may mean addressing topics that feel off-limits, such as sensitive financial data. I find this to be a tough balance as I communicate with workers as openly and as honestly possible about information that can be openly discussed. There are times when I am not able to give out the information that is wanted and it ways in on the trust factor and the balance of open communication. This makes the balance of information to a bottom-up exchange difficult, tough to manage, and hard to be an effective leader. I have found that staying open minded, listening, and incorporating what the workforce has to say about what takes place in the field makes the bottom-up approach work even in difficult
situations.
References:
Groysberg, B. & Slind, M. (2013). Leadership is a Conversation. Harvard Business Review. June 2012. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2012/06/leadership-is-a-conversation/ar/5. Web. 28 October 2013
Goldman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets Results. Harvard Business Review. March 2000. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results. Web. 28 October 2013
Kirby, J. (2012). Trust in the Age of Transparency. Harvard Business Review. July-August 2012. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/2012/07/trust-in-the-age-of-transparency. Web. 28 October 2013
Satterlee, A. (2009). Organizational Management and Leadership: A Christian Perspective. (2nd Ed.). North Carolina: Synergistics International Inc. (p. 5)