Respond to three (3) colleagues post

Respond to at three (3) of colleagues’ postings listed below in the following ways:

Respond to at least three of your colleagues’ postings in one or more of the following ways:
· Share an insight about what you learned from your colleagues’ analysis or application of the case and discuss how and why your colleague’s posting resonated with you professionally or personally.

· Seek additional clarity or ask your colleague a question, with accompanying context that will help your colleague to think more critically or broadly about how to apply the case to other situations.

· Offer an example, from your experience or observation, which validates or differs from what your colleague discussed related to the case or how it might apply to a particular organization.

· Offer specific suggestions that will help your colleague use what he or she presented related to the case and how it applies to an organization that can help your colleague build upon his or her leadership skills within an organizational culture.

· Offer further assessment from having read your colleague’s post that could impact a leader’s effectiveness within an organizational culture.

· Share how you will apply something your colleague discussed to improve your own leadership qualities.

·
No plagiarism

·
APA citing

1st Colleagues – John Wright  

RE: Discussion – Week 3

Top of Form

Hi All,
I remember from 2003 to 2008, I was hired to start and develop the audio visual department at the Johns Hopkins University (Homewood) undergraduate campus. As the first, and only African American (black) to be in this position I experienced the level of being in a leadership position without having any corporate power, having the decision making power to hire, fire, reward or discipline. The only power, as a leader, that I had was knowledge and technical based. I realized that I was there not only to develop this department but change the landscape of leadership with the school and campus. “The economic, technological and demographic changes work together, resulting in a rapidly shifting landscape in which the power and influence of those in the ranks becomes integral for how organizations function.” (Helgesen, 2008) I work with two other employees, one was Black and the other was Vietnamese. We together busted the myth or assumption that only “white” people can effectively and efficiently run a department. We economically changed the landscape by creating over 1 million dollars in revenue of the five years I was in this position.
Because this department was running as an independent entity, we were technically under the environmental service department, the management thought it would be best to move our department to IT services. As the transformation took place a more hierarchal approach and less power was given to me and my crew. The IT department had no knowledge of what we were doing or how we were doing it with only three people, “with differences in authority, pay, privilege, and status” (Pinchot, 1992) the IT department started making changes to set up a normal position of power for them. They hired and inexperienced white man to take over my duties in scheduling, fired the Vietnamese employee and took over operations, and made life miserable for me and the other black employee. I eventually was fired based on the differences of vision for the department.
One thing that I learned from this experience is to continue to lead by example, to make sure I am doing my part as a leader is not a dictator, but to be more of a team player and be willing to accept collaboration and work with other people that may have different set of skills and be willing to share knowledge. As a leader we must be able to “learn, teach, coach, collaborate, value criticism, and lead by example” (Pinchot, 1992)
The reason why I tell stories of my past working experiences is because I have been self-employed since 2008. Although, I have owned a company, my interaction with people have been limited to service and not as a boss or manager. The reason why I chose the leadership program at Walden is to gain more knowledge as a leader and thus teach, coach, and influence young people to make a difference spiritually, socially, and economically as leaders which aligns with what Walden University stands for.

References

Helgesen, S. (2008). New Sources of Power. Leadership Excellence, 1p.
Pinchot, E. S. (1992). Balance of Power. Executive Excellence, 3.
Bottom of Form

2nd Colleagues – Natasha Mills Top of Form

Nye vs. Helgesen Discussion

Top of Form
Leadership continues to transition into a more interesting topic due to the continuous introduction of new dimensions. The constant changes in the concept are mostly attributed to new perspectives on what leadership is by various scholars. The commentaries by Nye and Helgesen present some of the varying views on leadership. However, before reviewing how their understanding of leadership varies, it is important to note that they share a common ground that leadership has changed significantly over the years and that organizations need new models of leadership. Nonetheless, they differ in the specific models of leadership that they propose to organizations. Despite presenting plausible models, I am more inclined towards Helgesen’s views than Nye’s views.

Helgesen (2008) argues that changes in three factors have been at the center of preferred leadership models in contemporary society. They include changes in the economy, technology, and demographics. Changes in the economy are in the form of individuals owning the primary means of production, broadly vested knowledge, and competition that comes from anywhere due to the value allocated to great ideas over costly machines. The technological changes involve the wide distribution of information and broken barriers between work and home, as well as public and private lives.
Lastly, Hegelsen (2008) considers the entry of women into the realms of leadership as a major change in demographic, which immensely influences the idea of leadership. The author posits that changes in these three factors work together to challenge the traditional notions of leadership. As a result, leadership is less vested in positions and more anchored on earned personal authority, aspirations, personal qualities, individual expertise, and the power of relationships and connections.  

On the other hand, the second commentary confirms the changes in the concept of leadership by introducing the influences of soft and hard power (Nye, 2008). However, the author’s main point of concern is that organizations have largely adopted the concept of soft power since people today are less differential to authority and the flattening of hierarchies. From this perspective, Nye proposes that leaders ought to blend hard and soft power for more effectiveness in contemporary society, an idea that he refers to as smart power.
However, based on the examples included in the commentary, the author proposes the use of hard power laced with soft power, citing that a leader with too little assertiveness limits achievements. Further, Nye (2008) provides that people are bound to take advantage of a leader’s soft power to manipulate leaders and place obstacles on paths towards the achievement of goals. Nonetheless, Nye agrees that the importance of soft power is on the rise as the significance of the choices of followers continues to increase.
After reading the two commentaries, I am more inclined towards Helgesen’s argument because it presents a perfect picture of the events that are occurring in the leadership spectrum today. The world’s economy, technological advances, and the introduction of new demographics such as diversity into leadership are the cardinal factors that are driving change in leadership. At the same time, followers in contemporary organizations prefer leaders who earn rather than command authority, an aspect that Nye identifies as soft power.
In other words, leadership has significantly transitioned from its traditional notions, including the use of hard power to lead followers, into a concept where soft power equals effectiveness. Soft power is earned by personal authority, individual qualities, relationships, and connections, among others. Consequently, more people are continuing to embrace soft power, which means that hard power or traditional forms of leadership are being faced out. Followers in current business environments prefer empower-and-track, which is soft power, over command-and-control, which is hard power (Gandolfi & Stone, 2018). It is also important to note that at no point does Nye provide an example where the use of soft power resulted in organizational failure. This means that the author’s arguments against the new phenomenon are unsupported projections.

My view on the use of power affects leadership practices within an organizational culture because it translates to the leadership style that I am bound to implement. For instance, if my views support the use of hard power, then I am likely to implement leadership styles that are aligned with it and vice versa. Simply, views are a reflection of preferences, and they are always most likely to turn into actions. When these views are implemented, they affect the followers of the leader, and the organizational culture subsequently. This is because leadership as a critical component in the construction of the purpose and meaning of an organization (Salovaara & Bathurst, 2018).

References

Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2018). Leadership, leadership styles, and servant leadership. Journal of

Management Research, 18(4), 261-269.

Helgesen, S. (2008). New sources of power. Leadership Excellence Essentials. 25(5), 6

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2008). Soft power. Leadership Excellence Essentials, 25(4), 10.

Salovaara, P., & Bathurst, R. (2018). Power-with leadership practices: An unfinished
business. Leadership, 14(2), 179-202.
Bottom of Form

3rd Colleagues – Jefferson Battle

RE: Discussion – Week 3Top of Form

As we delve into a week devoted to power dynamics, I want to also bring some fresh thinking from HBR on the topic of politics. While not directly power, this is a very close cousin. Herein the authors mention:

What happens to office politics when you remove the office? Although virtual work has existed for some time now, the pandemic has dramatically changed the context of work by fully removing the office, eliminating interpersonal contact and physical human interaction — and with it, opportunities to engage in tactics of manipulation or impression management. What does this all mean for office politics? Do the old norms and rules still apply? Can we expect a reduction in bias and nepotism, and an increase in meritocratic talent management practices? Is technology sanitizing the dark side of human behavior at work, forcing us to focus on our actual job performance, reducing the impact of informal networks and soft power at work? To be sure, an office-less environment isn’t a panacea. Human nature hasn’t changed overnight, and back channel communication and power plays won’t simply evaporate. But by following the strategies outlined in this article, you’re far more likely to be “politically” successful during this liminal time as our conceptions of office life continue to shift. (para. 1)

Just something to consider as we get started, and I look forward to your thoughts on power.

Sincerely,

Jefferson Battle

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Clark, D. (2020). Navigating office politics when there is no office. Retrieved January 26, 2021 from https://hbr.org/2020/10/navigating-office-politics-when-there-is-no-office
Bottom of Form