This Week's Definition: A consistent theme which has been illustrated throughout this course has been the concept of visionary leadership. Many of the authors we have read have incorporated this concept into their perspective and style of leadership in various ways. This week's definition of leadership will be based upon a refutation of Sally Helgesen's (1996) article, "Leading from the Grass Roots". While I agree that leadership exists in many ways additional to positional leadership, it is not the case that leadership efforts are equivalent amongst various different levels and styles of leadership. Additionally, I agree that the success or demise of a firm or corporation is dependent upon the collective effort of all the leadership which runs throughout an organization.

It is important to highlight the fact that many firms and corporations are run at the helm of their CEO. For instance, Target Corporation essentially belongs to Greg Steinhafel (CEO of Target). He is responsible for the strategic and operational efforts of the company and it is his vision which directs the path which the company will take. In many situations it is fact that "leaders are leaders by virtue of their position" (p. 20). No other individual calls the shots like Steinhafel and no other individual is as responsible for the consequences of the decisions he makes. He is certainly not the only leader in the company and at times he will be influenced by those ranking lower than he, yet it is fact that he was appointed CEO because he demonstrated a superior ability to lead and direct the company over any other candidate.

Furthermore, considering the responsibility associated with the CEO or the "main" leader of any organization, the leadership efforts of the many leaders subordinate to him/her will be acting in a manner consistent with the goals and vision of the CEO. It is clear that Helgelson doesn't deny this power which is associated with the positional leaders in an organization. Helgelson stipulates that "linking leadership with position signals our inability to grasp how organizations are changing" (p. 22). Organizations require consistent change in order to maintain their position in dynamic environments. Consequently, leadership roles are changing as well. Helgensen implies an ongoing "flattening" of organizations, instead, organizations are becoming more integrated and more individuals are attaining autonomy yet they are maintain their fundamental horizontal structure (assuming that this argument is based upon organizations which employ a horizontal structure).

I have to argue that positional leaders are the best leaders within any organization and they have better leadership qualities and abilities than those who occupy the "grass roots". Leadership exists in many forms and, unfortunately, not every individual in an organization can be a leader. We need engineers to develop our products, not lead our companies. With this framework in mind, the best engineer can potentially ascend the ranks and lead the engineering department, but many of his peers will not achieve this. The fact that he was able to supersede his peers indicates his leadership adeptness.

As Helgelson mentions "position is a crude way of measuring power" (p. 23). Crude? This seems to be a harsh word to describe a position as being a metric for power. Organizations typically compete in competitive environments which usually necessitates an unequal distribution of power to positional leaders. The competitive aspect of these environments will, most often, fairly cycle new individuals throughout the various positional roles in an organization in order to keep perspectives and efforts fresh and ongoing. As Helgelsen mentions Jenkins' three derivations of power: "the power of expertise, of specialized knowledge or skills; the power of personal relationships and connections; and the power of that great intangible, personal authority or charisma" (p. 23). These are all excellent virtues which a good leader, regardless of their rank, should possess and they align well with the crucial leadership characteristics which Kouzes and Posner (1989) outline in their article, "Leadership is in the Eye of the Follower". What Helgelsen fails to realize is that the individuals who occupy the various positional ranks throughout an organization will most likely demonstrate these traits and they will demonstrate them more so than their peers. For example, person A and person B both demonstrate these traits very well, yet it is person A who holds a positional rank over person B. If this situation exists, then it is logical to assume that person A demonstrates a mix of these traits which is more suitable for the goals of the organization than person B.

Positional "top-down" leadership is a real and necessary element in horizontal organizations. While there are many different aspects of dynamic environments which increase the autonomy of individuals outside of positional ranks, there will not be a set of conditions which will completely eliminate or erode the need of positional leaders. Positional leaders, while not always the most informed, are usually the best informed and the best suited for the roles which they occupy. This does not discredit the efforts of individuals who do not occupy positional roles, but overall, leadership effort must be measured by the degree to which they are being employed. Leadership exists in many situations and it can be very complex or exceedingly simple. Yet, positional leaders must be given the most credit to the overall leadership effort of an organization because their efforts align more strategically with the overall efforts of a company.

Analysis of Definition Differences: Last week's definition and this week's definition are similar in the fact that they both describe a disparity between leaders and non-leaders. This week, I made a clear distinction on the effects of positional leadership, it broadens the scope of last week's definition and goes more in depth on the requirements that satisfies the disparity between leaders and non-leaders. I disagreed with Helgelsen because her view is very limited, as she states that positional leadership is "demoralizing and increasingly obsolete" (p. 20). As I implied previously, organizations are competitive and demand excellence, thereby rewarding it substantially. If an individual cannot compete adequately then they she will surely be ushered out of the competitive arena which encompasses our capitalistic market economy, the driver of our companies and firms.

This Week's Definition: It is important to highlight the element of a leader and a follower. Leadership varies depending on the environment in which it exists. In certain arenas, such as the military, leaders are going to have a clear purpose and will demand strict submission to their will a majority of the time. Conversely, in a horizontally organized firm, leaders are going to expect feedback, criticism, and opinion from their co-workers and subordinates. Regardless the environment in which leadership is present, there will most certainly be a clear distinction between the leader and his followers. Innately, being a leader affords an individual more power than their followers but this doesn't necessarily limit the efforts of the followers. In nearly every organization or group, an individual is going to be a leader due to the fact that they are more qualified than their followers. As Kouzes and Posner (1989) stipulate, "to enlist in another's cause, we must believe that person knows what he or she is doing. We must see the person as capable and effective" (234). Instilling motivation on individuals and commanding them does not need to be a forceful process of leadership (in most leadership environments; some environments may require this), instead these elements associated with the power a leader has comes naturally as followers begin to develop a trust in what their leader is doing. Kouzes and Poser (1989) set up a framework for this theory, "if a leader behaves in ways consistent with this or her stated values and beliefs, then we can entrust to that person our careers, our security, and ultimately even our lives" (234). Leadership, in terms of the leader-follower relationship, is hierarchical by nature, but depending on the environment this hierarchy will either limit or promote the effect and the degree to which followers can contribute to the actual leadership process.

Analysis of definition differences: Last week's definition promoted the idea of "bureaucratic" leadership, as outlined by Boleman and Deal (2003), which isn't wrong and is even necessary in certain instances (like a military situation), but there are times in which leadership doesn't have to follow this framework. As we break down the elements of leadership and distinguish leaders from followers it is evident that the environment in which leadership occurs will dictate the type of leadership which is employed. As implied last week, leadership can be something that is "done" to people, this week, I made it clear that different environments can increase the collaboration amongst leaders and followers and promote an inclusive leadership. This week's course readings aided the development of this idea, namely, Kouzes and Posner set up a clear framework that allows for the distinction between leaders and followers, "leadership is a reciprocal process. It occurs between people" (233). The degree of leader-follower reciprocity is highly dependent on the leadership environment. Conversely, Astin and Astin (1996) set up an unnecessarily convoluted framework for the different aspects required of a leadership team. The musical ensemble metaphor seemed highly redundant as the principle concepts aren't insightful enough or difficult enough to understand.

References
Kouzes, James M. and Barry Z. Posner (1989). "Leadership is in the Eye of the Follower," The 1989 Annual: Developing Human Resources. New York: Pfeiffer and Company.

Boleman, Lee and Deal, Terrence (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

This Week's Definition: Leadership, as mentioned last week, must start with a vision, but it encompasses much more than just creating an ample vision. It is necessary to begin by instilling a common ideal/vision upon those around you; unite them, inspire them, create motivation for everyone to head down the same path. While this is a crucial beginning stepping stone it does not encircle all of the responsibilities associated with good leadership. Leadership is constantly fueled by the idea of continued forward movement, forward thinking, and forward action. Innovation is a necessary supplement to effective leadership, because in order for a firm, organization, or group of people to move forward, elements must constantly be change, altered, or introduced to maintain a vibrant and versatile environment. This idea of forwardness is derived from having a clear and effective vision (the vision essentially drives all efforts of leadership). As Lee and King (2001) stipulate, "leadership without vision is just management, administration, or something else entirely (32). Leaders promote change and guide, they are drivers of their own vision and command a power over their team members to help unify the effort required to accomplish the goals of the group.

Analysis of the Differences: Last week my definition focused primarily on only a component of leadership, the vision, whereas this week I elaborated more concisely on the role of a leader effectively leading and promoting the attainment of a vision. Both definitions are very adequate, but this week's definition is much more comprehensive and outlines a much more essential process of leadership. The course readings are extremely helpful and intriguing; I have always intuitively acted in some of the similar manners which the readings suggest, only now are my thoughts being clearly presented and organized from multiple different perspectives. As Lee and King (2001) mention "you discover your vision by looking at yourself honestly" (37); my leadership vision has been present in the past few year, but ambiguous; the course readings are really helping me shape my vision of leadership.

It seems as though leaders like those who I have referred to above and leaders in everyday situations don't necessarily have to be the most creative innovators or intellectually superior to anyone around them, they just need to be able to realize the potential for improvement within their environment and enact a series of actions and decisions to make improvements occur. The success in leadership is not primarily based on an individuals ability to develop groundbreaking new tactics or methods for achieving their goals, instead it is their ability to develop and enact efficient and effective ways of carrying out currently held plans or ideas to achieve such goals.

In my leadership experience as the recruitment chairman for my fraternity it was my goal to recruit as many new members to our house as I possible could and exceed the efforts of previous recruitment chairmen. Our methods for recruitment were simple, generate contacts, get to know them by taking them out to dinner, and introduce them to other members of our chapter. While there is no mystery to the ease of this task I was curious as to why recruitment numbers had been so stagnant over the past few years (on average about 15 members were recruited into the house at the beginning of the year). I wanted to recruit 25 new members during my recruitment campaign and initially I felt the only way this would be possible is if I developed all of these superfluous new ways to market our house and rush individuals, many of which fell through before my efforts even began. When it came down to it I decided to just use the same simple method of just getting to know the prospects we're rushing but approach it in a different way. While previous recruitment chairmen were so focused on rushing new members during the beginning of school when all the new freshman are on campus they neglected the potential for rushing men over the summer. With this critical observation in mind I began generating contacts in the early summer and started rushing prospects in June. Because of this I was able to enter the school year with 5 new members, when all was said and done I had successfully pledged 23 new members into the house.

My methods were not complex, I took a different approach to a traditional idea and realized great benefits from doing so. In Bill Shore's book "The Cathedral Within" he references the words of French Romantic artist Eugene Delacroix, "What moves those of genius, what inspires their work is not new ideas, but their obsession with the idea that what has already been said is still not enough.". This quote has been very inspirational to me and it has allowed me to strongly believe in the idea of taking something that already exists and improving it. I feel there is a general societal perspective that improving what exists isn't as clever as creating something new, and in terms of cleverness it may not be, but when it really comes down to the bottom line it is all about what is most effective. If a leader can spend their time taking an existing idea and strengthen and modify it to be leveraged to achieve their goals they could realize more success than someone who is overly concerned with creating a brand new way to achieve something. While I do not discount the merit of creating new innovative ideas I must just say that this feat requires a lot of input and resources which could ultimately potentially fail. When a proven method has been shown to work why not just improve its execution and achieve goals efficiently?

Shore mentions in his book the concept of working within the scope of something much larger than yourself which I feel is an imperative driver of successful leadership. Shore mentions that "devoting your life to a cause you will never see completed need not diminish your craftsmanship and dedication". We live in a very goal oriented society and our success is normally determined by the our ability and the extent to which we are capable of achieving quantified goals. Yes, a good leader will more often than not achieve the goal they set out for, but this is not what makes a good leader per se. A good leader and a mediocre leader may both have the potential to achieve specified benchmarks but a good leader will demonstrate their ability to do this through the dedication and commitment they prescribe to the task at hand. Developing and manipulating their resources and staying focused will allow them to keep a consistent view of the vision they have for the outcomes of their goals. A good leader can effectively work backwards from a vision by outlining all the necessary steps along the way and overcoming them one step at a time. The idea of "vision" is important because it is what drives us. Whenever you have the opportunity, ask someone successful what their vision for their future is, furthermore, ask them what their vision for right now was 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago. I can almost guarantee you that anyone who has achieved a substantial amount in their life has always had a clearly define consistent vision for where they want to be. Colin Powell once said "There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure", with this in mind we must further highlight the importance of a vision with the idea of preparation and hard work. Hard work along is never going to be enough to be successful it has to be complemented with structured preparation, and what does one prepare for? Their vision, you study for a test because you envision yourself getting an A. You work hard to go to medical school because you envision helping people with cancer in the future. A vision is where it all starts, those who can dream and be ambitious about their futures and can commit a strong work ethic to transforming a vision into reality will reap the most success and gratification in their lives.