Strategic Leadership

Whatever else leaders may do, they need to capture and communicate their vision. That’s what leadership author Bruce Avolio calls strategic leadership. He describes this important aspect of leadership as the ability “to articulate the strategic intent that needs to be pursued and then to get others to interpret it, modify it as necessary, implement it, and then evaluate how close to intent they were able to achieve.”

When I think of how a leader implements strategic leadership, I think of how our political leaders pitch their domestic program. Several have articulated their vision in simple, yet easily understood terms.

For example, Theodore Roosevelt asserted the “Square Deal”.

Franklin Roosevelt offered Americans a “New Deal”.

And John F. Kennedy campaigned for the “New Frontier.”

In their own way, this slogan accomplishes Avolio’s idea of strategic leadership: each slogan represents a program, articulates that program, invites support from followers, and allows others to interpret it for themselves.

We remember these presidents and their programs because they were, in one sense, successful. That is, the imagery each president used to present their domestic program proved to be captivating to those in the electorate. The American people bought into these ideas and supported these presidents as they pursued their agenda. That is a key element of strategic leadership: ownership. It’s not just that a leader owns a vision. It’s that he is able to get others to own it as well. At its most successful, a vision is not the president’s or the leader’s but rather our vision. We take it as our own.

Leadership at its fullest expression, then, casts a vision that others find compelling and are willing to make their own. As you and I think about and pursue leadership in our various contexts, we should remember that our best and most successful leadership will cultivate and communicate a compelling vision. Are you implementing strategic leadership?

Lincoln’s Transformational Leadership

Abraham Lincoln is arguably the greatest president and transformational leader in US history. Having presided over the Union’s victory over the Confederacy, Lincoln nevertheless called for national reconciliation. The definitive statement of Lincoln’s gracious generosity of spirit is encapsulated in his Second Inaugural Address.

Delivered March 4, 1865, just over one month before the end of the Civil War, this speech exemplifies Lincoln’s transformational leadership ability:

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Lincoln set the United States on the trajectory we follow today and transformed our nation.

Transformational leadership, according to author Peter Northouse, “engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower.”

Mount Rushmore depicts four presidents who were great transformational leaders. George Washington, the father of our country, set the standard for presidential leadership. Thomas Jefferson presided over a peaceful transfer of power and enlarged the national territory. Abraham Lincoln saved the union and bound the nation’s wounds. Theodore Roosevelt projected national authority both for strong foreign policy and progressive reforms.

These presidents were prominent political transformational leaders. But many men and women in other positions are also transformational leaders: parents, pastors, coaches, civic leaders, and teachers. I’ve blogged about two of my favorite transformation leaders, Dennis Kinlaw and Roy Lauter.

Who are your favorite transformational leaders? And how are you being transformed?

“As long as it’s not illegal or immoral…”

Professor Roy Lauter, a native from the hills of eastern Kentucky, has a special ability to turn a phrase. As the advisor for student government at Asbury College, when Prof. explained his leadership style and philosophy to the new members of the student body Executive Committee he always said, “You can do whatever you want, as long as it’s not illegal or immoral…”

My junior year, I was elected student body Vice President for Governance in student government at Asbury College. As such, I served on the Student Body Executive Committee (EC), which worked closely with Prof. Lauter. We tackled issues that student government organizations confront: concerts, parking, cafeteria issues, services for commuter students, raising awareness of political issues, rewriting the student body constitution, tussling with the student newspaper, and representing the students to the faculty and trustees.

No matter what, Prof. maintained, “you can do whatever you want, as long as it’s not illegal or immoral…” He wasn’t taking a laissez faire, “I don’t care” attitude, but demonstrating a situational approach to leadership.

Situational leadership theory states that a leader’s style depends upon the development level of his or her subordinates. Developing followers respond to a directive leader. Moderately developed followers respond to a coaching or supporting leader. Highly developed followers need only a delegating leader.

At times, Prof. would direct us as to how to accomplish our goals. Sometimes he would coach us. But most often, he allowed the EC to do as we thought best, even when he knew our efforts would fail. He understood that trust and learning from mistakes allowed us grow as leaders.

Ultimately, the goal of a good leader is to develop the skills and abilities of his or her followers. Leaders can help subordinates improve. Often it takes just the right kind of leadership to move a follower from developing to developed. How about you?

Task v. People

In a leadership seminar you will likely be asked, “What is more important, task or people?” One website asks the question this way. The answer, of course, is, “Yes!”

While both task and people are important aspects of almost any leadership situation, there are various ways of combining a leader’s concern for task and people.
Blake and Moulton use this grid:

(1, 1) indicates Impoverished leadership where a leaders is unconcerned with both task and interpersonal relationships. (9, 1) indicates Authority-Compliance leadership where efficient operations and productions goal are emphasized. (1, 9) demonstrates Country Club leadership where concern for interpersonal relationships remains paramount and production minimal. (9, 9) indicates Team leadership where both tasks and interpersonal relationships are stressed. (5, 5) indicates Middle-of-the-road leadership where a compromise between people and production is achieved. This matrix is a useful tool for helping leaders to identify their leadership style.

An example from my work at the IRD is apropos. My responsibility was to give our weekly volunteer, Jennifer, work to do. Often she arrived early and I would be irritated by her chatty stories that always seemed to interrupt my morning routine. I’d rather be left alone until I was ready to start the day’s tasks. One day I realized that when it was Jennifer’s day to volunteer, she was my task. Other things became less important. Because she would do whatever we asked and help lighten our load, the least I could do was listen. As my thinking changed, I gained an appreciation not only of Jennifer’s work, but of Jennifer herself. The work was no less important, but Jennifer was just as important. Productivity and satisfaction increased for both of us. I remember Jennifer when I encounter new leadership opportunities. And to consider what’s more important, task or people. That’s the power of the leadership grid.

Standing on Shoulders

A dear friend has said, “We never make it on our own; we always find ourselves standing on the shoulders of others. And when we do, we discover that we can see farther, think more deeply, and engage more vigorously.” I have found that to be true. Many have been generous enough to allow me this privilege; I want to tell you about two of them.

When my dad attended Asbury Theological Seminary, two years of Hebrew were required. During his junior year, at one of the early classes in the quarter, a puckish middle-aged professor looked at the class and asked, “What do you think of trying to learn two years of Hebrew in one? At our current pace, we won’t finish the textbook material this year, and the library has a new audio lab that would help us. If you’re willing to study hard and do some extra work, I think we have a small enough class that we could do this. Let me know next time.” After considering the offer, the students answered, “Well, if you’re willing to teach us that much in such a short time, we’d be willing to try.” And so, a life-long association with “Prof.” began.

While my dad studied his Hebrew, my mom taught elementary school and supported the family. During that time the seminary president’s wife became concerned about the wives of the future pastors: “Soon they’ll be preacher’s wives. They might need to know about what being a preacher’s wife will be like before they leave seminary. We ought to help them prepare for their ministry.” She organized other professors’ wives and they began meeting regularly with the students’ wives. Thus, the “Seminary Annes” (a word-play on “seminarian”) started.

My mom recalls one of their meetings. Each professor’s wife brought something from home that they used to support their husband’s ministry. The items were displayed on tables around the room. One by one, each wife shared in simple show-and-tell fashion. One professor’s wife displayed a blue Delft porcelain tea set and teaspoons—noting the importance of social activities in a pastor’s ministry. Undoubtedly, another brought a Bible—indicating the importance of personal and family bible study. But my mom remembers one item particularly: a framed photograph of the professor—the same professor who was teaching my dad Hebrew.

When the professor’s wife shared, she said simply and passionately, “My husband is my ministry. The Lord has called me to Dennis, and it is my role to support and encourage him, especially in prayer. I pray for Dennis every day.” To this day my mom tears up when she tells this story. I suppose she does because that’s where mom first learned to pray the way she does, regularly, every day, for my dad, his ministry, and our family.

When I attended Asbury College, I had the privilege of meeting Dennis and Elsie Kinlaw. I found the same warmth and glow that must have attracted a young seminary student and his wife. On one particular occasion, my best friend and I went to see the Kinlaws at their home just before Christmas break. With a stately and genuine grace, Mrs. Kinlaw greeted us, welcomed us in, and invited us to sit on the couch. Before long, the tea kettle whistled, the coffee table was set with fine china, and homemade sugar cookies were brought to us. “Dennis is meeting with someone, but I’ll tell him you’re here.”

At those visits, Dr. Kinlaw would eventually ask, “What are you reading these days?” I needed an answer, so I began to read more, and with more discrimination. When I had an answer, Dr. Kinlaw would ask more and deeper questions, challenging me to go further. After college, our discussions became somewhat more frequent when I worked at the Francis Asbury Society, the organization Dr. Kinlaw founded in the 1980s. When I went to tell him about the opportunity at IRD and ask his advice, he encouraged me, like a mother scooting a young chick out of the nest: “I think you should go. It’s a good opportunity and you’ll gain experience that will be helpful for the future.”

In the ten years I have been with IRD since that conversation with Dr. Kinlaw, I have found his advice to be good and true. While my Asbury education had equipped me, it was time to experience things not to be found in Wilmore, Kentucky. Since then, I’ve had the privilege to work with Diane Knippers (an Asbury College graduate when Dr. Kinlaw was college president), meet with and learn from some incredible intellects (like Robert George, Michael Novak, Tom Oden, and others), and work with extraordinary colleagues. Yes, Dr. Kinlaw, we do stand on the shoulders of others—those who come before us. Thank you for allowing me to stand on yours!

Leadership v. Management

Before coming to Virginia Tech, I was employed for twelve years at a Washington, DC-based think tank, the Institute on Religion and Democracy. During my tenure at the IRD, I worked on the business operations of the organization. Others performed programmatic functions. I supported their work. My time was spent organizing fundraising mailings, processing payroll, maintaining the database, keeping personnel records, producing the annual budget and the like. As a small watch-dog organization, on occasion, I would attend events and report on what I found.

Despite my less visible role, I nonetheless considered myself a leader. Each president for whom I worked praised my efforts. I received increasing responsibility, rising from Administrative Director, to Director of Operations and Development, and eventually Vice President for Operations. At the peak of a two-year expansion, I supervised the largest segment of the staff, supervising five of IRD’s sixteen employees.

But greater responsibility, promotion, and pay raises do not necessarily indicate one’s position of leadership. Recently, I have come to better understand the difference between leadership and management. Upon reflection, my work at IRD can largely be described as managerial. Perhaps others can benefit from my experience and this reflection upon the difference between the two.

Professor and author Peter Northouse defines leadership as "a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal." He finds that leadership and management have overlapping and similar characteristics, such as working with people or goal accomplishment.

But there is a significant difference. John Kotter describes it this way in A force for Change: How Leadership differs from Management:

Some have said that leadership is eighty percent perspiration and twenty percent inspiration. The actual ratio may differ depending on any given situation. Managers can be effective leaders, but not all effective managers are leaders. It’s the inspiration that marks the difference.

The Very Beginning

This is my first blog entry, the fulfillment of a requirement for a course entitled "Theoretical Foundation of Leadership" that I am taking at Virginia Tech, where I am a PhD student in the Higher Education program. Periodically, I will post blogs incorporating some personal reflections on leadership. You might also find other musings and thoughts, reviews of journal articles, and articles that appeared in other publications.