As I reflect on what leadership means I’m drawn to Kruse’s attempt to define leadership.
“Leadership is a process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others, toward the achievement of a goal”
(Keven Kruse, What is Leadership?, 2013)
Leadership is not about your position or title, it’s about the choices you make within your circle of influence. Covey (2006) explained that you can begin by leading yourself. Great leaders start by recognizing the value of ongoing professional and personal development. Regardless of whether you are involved in education or in business, it’s about making purposeful choices to help your team work together to reach a goal. A team can be your friends, family, your educational colleagues, your classroom of students, the people on your home based business team or the people in your department at work.
Leaders are integral members of teams which are similar to communities of practice (CoPs). Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) noted that CoPs are voluntary, vibrant and productive groups that foster ongoing relationships amongst group members, which builds value and engagement and in turn contributes to social capital. While every reading acknowledged teams or groups or followers, communities of practice was not a common phrase in the popular literature. The strategies suggested for developing vibrant, voluntary communities of practice are simply good strategies to consider for all teams in any context.
As Stephen M. R. Covey (2006) said “leadership is getting results in a way that inspires trust” (Speed of Trust, p. 40). Leadership is a multidimensional concept that not only focuses on the task at hand but on how you go about achieving the goal. It’s like going on a trip. We all need to be headed to the same destination, but the paths we take and the stops we make along our journey all depend on how we are going to get there.
There’s many ways to reach your destination. The concept of differentiated learning is based on the idea that we have a common outcome to achieve, but the learning and instructional strategies we use to get there depend on our choices. You can hop in a car and drive yourself. Going it alone will eventually get you there, but you may have to make more stops along the way to get everything done. You could car pool with people that you trust, but that means you have to carefully choose your team so they can fit in the vehicle. You could hop on the company bus, train or plane. There’s lots of ways to get results, but not every path will be as efficient or support the coevolution of social and intellectual capital.
In a Good To Great article, Collins (2001) explained that it’s all about getting the right people in the right seats on the bus. As the bus driver (leader), you have to start with WHO is on the bus. The right people will bring a diverse and unique set of intellectual capital with them. It also means that you have to get the wrong people off the bus. Building strong social capital within a group starts by creating a culture of excellence where individuals are motivated to be part of strong, dynamic team.
Part of creating a culture means defining the boundaries. Dr. Henry Cloud (2013) explained we have to lead in a way that people’s brains can follow. You won’t foster strong, interpersonal connections and create a trusting environment by creating fear. You have to keep the team focused on their goal, inhibit the barriers that will distract them and provide the opportunity to create routines in their working memories. Sinek (2014) agreed noting the importance of creating the circle of safety and how all of our actions as group members trigger brain based responses that either reinforce the relationships or create trust gaps.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) referred to the organizational advantage of companies that have both high intellectual and social capital as creating innovative, trusting and cohesive teams. While trust is not the only component of building social capital, trust was mentioned by Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998); Daniel, McCalla and Schwier (2003); Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002); McGonigal(2015); Sinek (2014); Cloud (2013); the Heaths (2010); and most definitely by Covey (2006) in The Speed of Trust. Trust was the common thread in the majority of reading that I did.
Covey (2006) gave specific trust building behaviours to practice. Cloud (2013) discussed how trust permeates the culture you create. It “is the starting point … [that] makes it all work” (Boundaries for Leaders, p. 171). Both McGonigal (2015) and Sinek (2014) focused on the body’s response to hormones like oxytocin which help foster trusting relationships. Trust is an integral part of creating healthy social capital, which in turn creates a strong, leadership culture. As Covey (2006) stated and Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) noted, when trust goes up, the costs both financial and relationship go down. Trust increases the likelihood of knowledge exchanges which also generate intellectual capital.
Daniel, Schwier & McCalla (2003) cited Nahapiet & Ghoshal’s (1998) different aspects of social capital.
- Structural – how members connect with other people in the community; how does information spread (Daniel, et al., 2003, p. 5).
- Here’s where I see an interesting connection to Gladwell’s work in The Tipping Point. Although he asked what causes a word of mouth epidemic, the question is essentially the same as asking how information is dispersed through a person’s network. Gladwell (2006) talked about “connectors”, the people who are linked to many different people in a variety of social circles. While the articles on social capital didn’t mention the common links in the network, I would propose that the efficient dissemination of information flows out through key connectors with in the community. Gladwell (2006) likened it to the game the six degrees of Kevin Bacon. While we live in a social media age, there are still key influencers online that we all follow or are connected to through our online network.
- Next Gladwell (2006) mentioned the “mavens,” individuals that are extremely knowledgeable about specific topics. They are your go to people. When a maven answers your questions there’s a high probability you are going to follow their advice because you trust them and know that they are suggesting the best option for you. Networks high in social capital will include mavens and connectors. Both have a high knowledge capital and are willing to share their tacit knowledge with the group.
- Finally, Gladwell (2006) explained the “persuaders” are the members of the group that can change people’s minds. They are able to convincingly share and spread ideas.
- Next Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) noted the relational dimension. There are 4 components: Trust which we noted the value of earlier; norms; obligations: and identification.
- Both Covey (2006) and Cloud (2013) noted the importance of clear boundaries for a team. People need to know where they are going, clarify what’s expected and be supported by a culture that trusts them to get it done.
- Chip and Dan Heath (2010) explained you have to shape the path. You have to create the environment which not only encourages people to make the change but shapes their choices. The Heaths’ strongly emphasized the significance of a shared identity. In fact, they noted it’s our go to decision making model. We may reason out our decision using the rational model, but when in doubt the elephant wins and we decide in favor of our identity. Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber (2009) agreed that activating an identity to which people can relate, helps to build a shared identity (p. 427).
- Gladwell (2006) likened this notion to the broken windows effect. We are shaped by our environment and the people in it. Culture is how we make sense of the world and our behaviour shifts according to the environment and context in which we live and work.
- Daniel, Schwier & McCalla (2003) also noted the value of network ties and configuration as essential aspects of how we access information, which connect back to Gladwell’s connectors, mavens and persuaders.
- Lastly, the cognitive dimension is based on building meaningful connections in a shared context. A shared language helps teams facilitate the exchange of information which creates an opportunity to build intellectual capital. Daniel, Schwier and McCalla (2003) noted the significance of shared narratives (p. 6). Just as Carmine Gallo (2014) explained in Talk Like TED, stories not only help us organize the world, they are given preferential treatment in our memory. Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) also highlighted how stories are a powerful way to not only transfer explicit knowledge, but if you look closely at how the story flows the tacit knowledge is embedded, as well.
- Bolden, Gosling, Marurano and Dennison (2003) pointed out that although there are many different leadership theories, there is no one size fits all leadership style and each theory lends itself to different styles, followers and situations (p. 8). Knowing what style to apply depends on your context and situation and it’s an important part of responding to the needs of your team
Melrose, Park and Perry (2015) reminded us of the value of articulating our personal philosophy. Before we can decide what or how to reach our destination, we have to understand why we chose that teaching approach in the first place. Reflecting on your personal philosophy of learning and leadership is an important part of growing as a leader. We all have a go to framework that not only helps us organize our learning, but it’s what we default to in times of stress. In his TED Talk – How great leaders inspire action, Simon Sinek explained
people don’t buy what you do they buy why you do it.
Whether it’s selling a product, implementing a change or teaching a new skill. People don’t buy in because you told them to, they are drawn to your why. Just think about the teachers and leaders that have inspired you. It was likely their genuine enthusiasm and leadership style that you connected with most. A strong understanding of content is important but unless people understand why the concept is important, it’s just data.
It doesn’t mean that your why or your personal philosophy of leadership or learning won’t change. They will continue to evolve. What’s important is that you are an active part of the evolution. It’s the small actions each day that become the habits shaping your path and in turn your life. Make sure you are becoming the leader you want to be not just the one that happened.
Sometimes the smallest actions say the most. Body language and non-verbal communication surfaced on several occasions during my research. From Amy Cuddy’s (2012) research on how body language can change the hormones released in our body and in turn how our brains think to McGonigal’s (2015) physical resilience power-up strategies, body language is embedded into social capital without us even realizing it. Our brains will judge within seconds whether members of our network are trustworthy or not. It’s not even something we need to consciously decide. Our primitive brain is always working to protect us. Sinek (2014) pointed out if the trust begins to fail our brain chemistry changes and we are no longer focused on the team goal but rather our individual survival. Ruggieri, Boca and Garro (2013) noted face to face leadership is established through “body language, vocal inflection, eye contact and clothing” (p.98), which is reinforced based on the group’s response.
Winkler (2010) mentioned in several theories the results a leader produces are dependent upon the a group’s favorable response. In the idiosyncrasy credit theory of leadership, for example, a leader rises as they gain credit for upholding the social norms and expectations of the group. Once they become a leader their credits enable them step outside the boundaries and push the group in innovative directions, but only as long as the group finds the results favorable. Too many withdrawals in your leadership credits means you will lose control. Similarly, Covey (2006) discussed the significance of making deposits not just withdrawals in your trust account. While Winkler (2010) didn’t directly define the concept of social capital, it permeated the majority of contemporary theories that he discussed.
As I re-read my Super Better post wondering how I was going to connect gaming and resilience to leadership, I was drawn back to McGonigal’s (2015) keys connections between our thinking and behaviours that contribute to post-traumatic and post-ecstatic growth.
- Learn to benefit find connected to Chip and Dan Heath’s (2010) find the bright spots which pairs with the strength based leadership focus.
- Finding the heroic story encouraged us to connect to our story and how we identify with our network.
- Cultivating connectedness builds relationships.
- Being flexible and adopting a challenge mindset will help you and your team find the best solution rather than the one you think should work.
- Lastly, taking committed action links to following through with what you say you are going to do (Cloud (2013) & Covey (2006)).
All of which help build social capital.
While gaming may not be your thing, the value in Super Better lies in the small, achievable challenges that build resilience. If you are focused on developing a team of strong leaders, building these strategies into your community of practice will not only strengthen the resilience of the individuals, but the team as well. As Collins (2001) said, you need the right people on the bus and then it doesn’t matter what detours you encounter the team will make it happen.
What about e-leadership?
Avolio et. al. (2009) noted that e-leadership comes with its own unique set of challenges based on the physical distance, as well as, the type of technology; moreover, face to face is not the same as virtual environments (p. 440). Ruggieri, Boca and Garro (2013) explained that online transformational leadership encouraged increased communication, self awareness and increased levels of team identification. By focusing on more than just the transactions that occur within a group, transformational leaders build the skills of their followers in multiple dimensions. In short, they foster the growth of well rounded, leaders working towards a common goal.
As I reflected in an early post. I learned the most from online classes lead by transformational leaders where we were encouraged to share our ideas without the fear of being wrong. The true building of intellectual capital is in the sharing of and reflecting on ideas. You don’t grow unless you share, make connections and think more deeply about your experiences. All of which rarely happens without a positive, social capital rooted firmly in trusting relationships. As Sinek (2014) noted, “the people always have the power” (p. 67) and the true power lies in realizing that we are all responsible for protecting the circle of safety. The circle is what supports the coevolution of social and intellectual capital which creates an organizational advantage (Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998); Daniel, Schwier & McCalla (2003)).
Driscoll (2005) cited Wenger (1998) as she noted how our learning trajectory changes over time. Whether you are on an inbound trajectory headed toward full group participation as an insider or sustaining relationships in related communities of practice as a broker or on an outbound course, people are always interacting with communities of practice in different ways (Psychology of Learning for Instruction, p.168-169). Driscoll (2005) noted the work of Lave & Wenger (1991) when she explained that becoming an insider takes time. Newcomers start on the periphery and through their interactions with oldtimers (full participants) slowly progress toward full participation. As new members join the group, the once newcomer becomes a mentor as they move closer to becoming an old timer (Driscoll, 2005, p. 166).
Learning trajectory is an interesting way to think about home based business entrepreneurs. There’s a strong core group that is very active and in some cases includes the founders. As teams grow, newcomers learn the business and progress toward full inbound participation, but just as often as new people join others are on their outbound path. It’s an ever evolving community of practice held together by the core members. As Driscoll (2005) shared with reference to the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), there is no illegitimate peripheral participation. Access to most specific home based business groups requires actual membership before detailed sharing of knowledge occurs. Whether people choose to engage and move from legitimate peripheral to full participation, depends upon the social and intellectual capital within the group. The community of practice needs to welcome the new members and in turn new members must choose their level of participation (Psychology of Learning for Instruction, p. 167-166).
While it may at times be necessary for someone to actually take the lead, it doesn’t mean that all members can’t practice positive leadership. We all have a choice to participate in and help strengthen the team. The strength of a team lies not in in one person but in the complex interconnections between the explicit and tacit knowledge shared by the group. Perhaps in the end effective leadership is less about the person leading and more about creating the conditions in which we can all learn to lead. Avolio et. al. (2009) discussed leadership as an emergent state in which team members collectively lead each other (p.431). Providing opportunities for each person’s strengths to contribute to and lead the team when appropriate creates a unified and cohesive group that can take on any challenge.
References available on our Leadership Resources page.