Running Head: Synthesis Paper for Foundations of Leadership Course

Synthesis Paper Assignment EDUC 5201G Foundations of Leadership -

Dr. Diana Petrarca October 5, 2013 By Theresa Shin University of
Ontario Institute of Technology
Synthesis Paper for Foundations of Leadership Course
2
Abstract This paper reveals my journey, during the last few weeks
since the beginning of this course, through the leadership topics,
readings, lectures, and discussions in the Foundations of
Leadership course. The journey has led me from a confused,
incoherent state to a questioning, open-minded state, eager for
more learning to occur. The synthesis of ideas occurred when I was
able to piece together my own experiences, readings, lectures,
other people’s comments, and questioned the direction that all of
these are leading us.
Synthesis Paper for Foundations of Leadership Course
3
I find that my learning, up to this point in the course, slightly
confusing and not very coherent. I hope that by reviewing the
reading notes and thinking through some of the terms used in the
readings and the lecture, that I may achieve a better
understanding of the information covered in the course to-date.
The readings on the evolution of leadership helped me to organize
the historical changes on the leadership thought process over the
last century and beyond – connecting all the way back to
Aristotle! However, as the evolutionary chart shown in Day and
Antonakis’ (2012), The Nature of Leadership, in figure 1.1 - A
Brief History and Look into the Future of Leadership Research (p.
7), these changes were not linear in progression, nor in any
coherent order. Many theories and ideas were represented at
various times sometimes in tandem with two or more theories
recognized during the same time frame. What I find interesting
about the leadership theories is the diversity and the large
number of leadership theories currently recognized in literature
as Fairholm and Fairholm (2009) mentioned, “There are about as
many different understandings of what leadership is as there are
writers on the topic” (p. 1). Given the complexity and the
diversity of thinking on the topic of leadership, it’s surprising
that the leadership theories have survived although there was a
point in time during the late 1970s, also known as the Anti-
leadership Era (Van Seters & Field, 1990), where skeptics
questioned the validity of research methods (Day & Antonakis,
2012), and the leadership research and interest seemed to have
waned during that time. It was suggested by Miner (1975) that “we
should give up and abandon the concept of leadership altogether?”
(Van Seters & Field, 1990, p. 37) Nevertheless, given the serious
consequences of leadership to our society
Synthesis Paper for Foundations of Leadership Course
4
and to each one of us, it’s understandable that we, as members of
an evolving intellectual society, keep returning to define and
better understand leadership in all its qualities. As mentioned by
Warren Bennis (2012) in Day and Antonakis’ (2012), The Nature of
Leadership, “it is important to remember that the quality of all
our lives is dependent on the quality of our leadership … By
definition, leaders wield power, and so we study t hem with the
same selfinterested intensity with which we study diabetes and
other life-threatening diseases” (p. 259). This was the clarifying
statement that validated the study of leadership, the raison
d'être, and opened a pathway for me to muddle through. I suppose
it’s the practical side of me that appreciates this statement, and
makes it relevant. My mind is swirling with one theory after
another, none of them really sinking in yet. This is probably
where the confusion lies. I would need to digest some of the
theories well, in order to organically grow my own thoughts in a
connected tangible way. Van Seters and Field (1990) have made an
attempt to categorize some of the central ideas from well-known
theories during the last 100 years to better understand the
underlying themes and interests by creating the Evolutionary Tree
of Leadership Theory, identifying nine eras and the recognized
theories, which were acknowledged during those eras (figure 1,
Evolutionary Tree of Leadership Theory, p. 33). Another revealing
connection that Van Seters and Field (1990) drew with their
unidirectional arrows was the convergence and integration at the
Transformational Era. This Transformational Era seems to have
drawn the qualities from the diverse theories and put together a
number of dynamic, interactive, creative, visionary qualities
labelled as the Charisma Period and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Period. The Transformational Theory appeals
Synthesis Paper for Foundations of Leadership Course
5
to me because it identifies the leader to be proactive,
intrinsically motivated, innovative, creative, and open to new
ideas (Van Seters & Field, 1990). I feel that any organization
today would be very fortunate to have a leader who has these
qualities: a vision, willing to take risks, highly adaptable to
change, willing to delegate authority, emphasize innovation,
exemplify the values, goals and culture of the organization,
leading by empowering others, energises people to action, develops
followers into leaders, and transforming organisational members
into agents of change. These are the qualities that Van Seters and
Field (1990) have listed as meeting part of the definition of the
“new leader” (p. 41). I’ve observed such a leader in one of the
organizations that I was a part of. I made an effort to attend
events and speeches where this leader would be presenting because
I felt renewed, or energized after listening to the leader speak.
In my daily job in the front lines, where I come in contact with
many people, it’s easy to lose sight of the purpose, goals, and
visions of where the organization is heading, and in what way I
contribute towards the organization. I found that the
communication style of this particular leader was so effective
that I felt included; I got a sense of where the organization was
heading (the vision), and I wanted to cheer the leader/
organization on to continue to improve and progress to meet its
goals. I understand that this type of leader is rare, and in over
25 years of work experience, I feel that it’s my one and only
experience of a “real” leader. More importantly, I felt that I can
relate to and agree with the values that the leader was trying to
instill in the organization. These values included inclusiveness,
respect for one another, and celebrating diversity, among others.
The leader was able to empower the people of the organization to
meet the mission of
Synthesis Paper for Foundations of Leadership Course
6
the organization by proactively creating an environment that would
provide the right conditions to thrive. Reflecting on this
experience with a leader, it seems that some of the values that I
hold seem to have matched up, or relate to the values that the
leader felt were important. This may have been the influencing
factor that as a constituent, I was able to define my role beyond
the daily grind, and felt empowered to make a difference in my
work. Fairholm and Fairholm (2009) stated that the “leader must
act and influence at the level of values, because values are more
powerful than plans, policy, procedure, or system. They define the
person of the leader …” (p. 3). Fairholm and Fairholm (2009) also
introduced the Leadership Perspectives Model (LPM), which focus on
“rethinking leadership in values terms.” They felt that “our core
values define us, determine the goals we seek and the methods we
will use to attain them, and dictate our measures of success” (p.
3). The “values-set” of a leader also determines the “mind-set” of
the leader in the role of the leadership (Fairholm & Fairholm,
2009, p. 3). This brings to mind a comment that one of the
classmates brought forward in the class last week about the values
being different in many cultures around the world, especially from
the Western cultural values. Would this mean that a “great leader”
in a different culture would have a very different set of values?
To some extent, a first instinctive response to this question
would be a “yes”; however, if we were to look at internationally
well-known and respected leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Mother
Teresa, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Bill and Melinda Gates, Steven
Lewis, Nelson Mandela, and etc., we would also find that there are
many shared values for human rights, and concerns for leading man-
kind to a more equitable future among other
Synthesis Paper for Foundations of Leadership Course
7
values. Fairholm and Fairholm (2009) define leadership as a
“values transfer” process, facilitating this task “(1) through the
leader’s example, (2) through forming cultures within which
followers can come to trust their leaders enough to follow them,
and (3) by reflecting their authentic core self, their soul or
spirit – in their relationships within the group and with all
stakeholders” (p. 4). I feel that the above mentioned well-known
leaders fit Fairholm and Fairholm’s (2009) definition of
Leadership Perspectives Model, which seems broad enough to fit
many leaders in our global world today. However, this train of
thought makes me wonder if leadership models were created
partially to categorize leaders into a definable type? What is the
purpose of a leadership model? Would it be for expanding
understanding by analysing, categorizing and researching, or is
there another purpose? By understanding leadership well, would we
be able to help shape next generation of leaders through various
educational and experiential learning strategies? “How can
Leadership Be Taught” (Lagace, 2010, p. 2). What would our society
be like filled with leaders? These are some questions going
through my mind at this point in my reflections when synthesizing
the ideas generated through the readings, class discussions,
lecture notes, and personal experiences. It seems that I may be on
the verge of deviating into a very different topic at this point –
looking into a crystal ball for the future. However, as an
individual, and as a leader, I feel that envisioning a future for
our society is also a part of each one of our responsibilities. It
would help us to lead our lives with purpose, with enthusiasm, and
with conviction when we feel that we all have a role in making our
world a better place to live. I feel that writing this synthesis
paper has helped me to go on a short journey into my thought
process because looking back at
Synthesis Paper for Foundations of Leadership Course
8
how I began this paper, confused and incoherent, I feel as though
I’ve arrived at a new place in concluding this paper. I feel
better prepared to learn more about leadership. My mind is open to
absorb and to better filter and question as though I’ve been given
a new direction to travel.
References Day, D., & Antonakis, J. (Ed.). (2012). The Nature of
Leadership. 2nd Ed. Los Angeles, California: Sage Publications,
Inc. Fairholm, M., & Fairholm, G. (2009). Understanding Leadership
Perspectives: Theoretical and Practical Approaches. New York, NY:
Springer Science + Business Media, LLC. Johns, H., & Moser, H.
(2001). From Trait to Transformation: The Evolution of Leadership
Theories. Education, 110 (1), 115 - 122. Lagace, M. (2010). What
the Brightest Scholars Say about Leadership. Harvard Business
School – Working Knowledge, Harvard College, 1-3. Van Seters, D.,
& Field, R. (1990). The Evolution of Leadership Theory. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 3(3), 29 - 45.