Analysis of Leadership Agility Theory

Analysis of Leadership Agility TheoryLeadership is in a constant flux, driven by the high-octanes of an ever-changing population(prenominal) landscape. contention has neer been fiercer, times have never been much unpredict competent, and leading has never been more(prenominal) significant for agreements to succeed. Bill Joiner and Robert Stephens (2006) introduce the concept of leading mental dexterity which they defined as the ability to take wise and effective execute amidst complex, rapidly-changing conditions (p. 6). The best thing nearly the exercise is that upon teaching the introductory pages, you already know that it is a timely book on leadinghip. Joiner and Stephens make their expression early on that effective leadinghip in the globularized world is circumstanceualized that with the cross-cultural considerations, attractors atomic number 18 now faced with the ch on the wholeenge to adapt more ably to changing conditions and goals. When it comes t o books on leading, I was looking for concrete examples on what the authors are actu exclusivelyy trying to point out in ordinate to illustrate the theories in a real-world setting. This book did not disappoint me on this aspect. There were numerous examples of individuals at various stages in their leading careers, how they handled crisis situations and decision-making, including the strengths and weaknesses of their judgments. The further just about chapter of the book alike encourages the reader to assess his or her direct of organisational elation and to determine which core competencies of carefreeness he or she take to commence to lead more effectively.The book is well-written, not very good in language, very organized, and rife with illustrations on the points they wanted to make, differentiateicularly on how the various aims of lightheartedness and core competencies differ from one another. From the title itself, I expected structure as I knew the authors would try to guide me by what they call the cardinal levels of mastery in loss leadership. The authors succeeded in meeting all the challenges in coming up with a book on leaders that in the end, gives the reader not only the basic concepts, exactly teaches him on how to measure his or her agility level provide guidance on what to do next. In this book review, I intend to indicate the strengths as well as the points for improvement that I piece trance reading the book. I leave also synthesize the concepts haveed by the authors to relevant leaders concepts we have learned from the course from Northouse (2008), Clawton (2008) and Kouzes and Posner (2007).Highlights of the BookPart One of the book introduced the core competencies in leaders agility which is the main windic of this work. To do so, the authors did three things. First of all, they provided the rationale for leaders agility in the context of the interdependent world that has been borne out of globalization. They emphas ized the complexity that leaders in organizations now face. The acceleration of ideas and new technologies has increased competition to a level never anticipated in the past. With the speed of these technological neuters, opportunities and threats are also encountered at roughly the same level. This necessitates leaders to develop the ability to bring agile, a behavior demonstrated when leaders are able to supplement resources and relationships in order to effectively answer to channels that affect the organization. Agility, said the authors, is developmental it passes through different stages and displays specific behaviors as leaders go from the closely basic stage to the highest. The cardinal steps in leaders agility hold (from the lowest to the highest level) expert, carry throughr, catalyst, co-creator and synergist (Joiner Stephens, 2006). Second, in order to provide a instruct look at how agility is demonstrated differently in five miens, the authors narrated a fictional character, Ed, a manager, who, upon encountering a situation responds to it in five very distinct ways. The manner in which Ed responded to the situation stipulation illustrated a level in the leadership agility hierarchy. Third, the authors presented core competencies which are significant in leadership agility. By competencies, they hatefult the abilities and the skills wishinged by leaders to become agile. All in all, there are four competencies, which include context-setting agility, stakeholder agility, fictive agility, and self-leadership agility. Under each core competency are both capacities involved. Within the context-setting agility, leaders have sense of purpose and situational sureness. Under yeasty agility, leaders possess reflective judgment and connective awareness. Under stakeholder agility, leaders possess power style and stakeholder understanding. Under self-leadership agility, leaders possess developmental motivation and self-awareness.Part Two o f the book expounds on the five stages of leadership agility, devoting one chapter for each level. This section of the book explained in detail the areas, distinctions, and dissimilitudes at each level of agility and illustrated each by presenting at least(prenominal) three case studies. The authors showed the leadership style, organisational initiatives, team leadership, and use glacial conversation associated with each agility level. The specific stages in leadership agility intertwine with some of the leadership concepts and styles that have been discussed in the course. I will discuss the concepts in relation to the five leadership agility levels.Expert. At the Expert Level, which is the lowest in the agility hierarchy, the leader proceeds with a tactical and problem-solving style of leadership. At this stage, the leader believes he holds the expertness and prepare to know what is best for the organization. This is similar to what has been learned from the course objectives . The style of leadership being manifested at this level is transactional heed is key. This is what Burns (as cited in Northouse, 2008) tried to reiterate in distinguishing managers and leaders in that managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing (p. 213). The thrust in the Expert level of agility is results, not the fulfilment of organizational goals or empowerment of followers. The leader stays on top of the situation. While this leadership style gets things done, it is a mild variation of the controlling leadership style because the leader is the central decision-making body and the leader assumes that he or she alone knows what is best for the company.Achiever. The Achiever strives for outcome and leads knowing that ones expertise and positional authority alone does not lead to effective leadership exactly also on ones capacity to motivate others. In this stage, the leader moves up from being purely transactional to recognizing the n eed to be transformational as well. Northouse (2008) explained the difference between transactional and transformational leadership by saying that the latter motivated by considering and appealing to the interest of the followers. The ability to motivate others is the leadership aspect in Kouzes and Posners (2007) so-called journey. According to them, leadership requires the capacity to convince people to go on board while management guarantees that they reach the destination. To Joiner and Stephens (2006) then, the Achiever level of agility requires one to be both leader and manager. The Achiever initiates alter by looking at the market surround and seeking insert from stakeholders. Since the Achiever prioritizes outcome, there is an emphasis on using communication to corroborate the leaders views as well as accommodate views from others so broad as it furthers organizational goals. One of the biggest concerns for leadership is handling the change attend to through more effect ive ways of communicating (Northouse, 2008 Clawson, 2008). Clawson (2008) considered communication all crucial(predicate) in any organization and opined that meetings should be a forum of empowerment. Clawson (2008) believed that meetings are an avenue where leaders show that while being the head of the organization, he or she is not supposed to dominate the mathematical group but kind of empower them to speak out about current concerns and to foster dialog in the direction of finding working solutions.Catalyst. The Catalysts leadership style is chimerical and innovative and is able to articulate goals and at the same time inspire people into achieving those goals. In a sense, the Catalyst is transformational and realigns the culture and values of an organization to that of empowerment, teamwork, and participation. The Catalyst pushes for change and does so progressively. This is because he or she realizes that organizational change and member empowerment are vital elements o f building and maintaining an industrious and self-propelled organization. Kouzes and Posner (2007) believed that transformational leaders engaged stakeholders proactively and values their feedback as important considerations in decision-making. blush in the midst of opposition, the Catalyst welcomes dialogue and considers team-building to be an integral part of leadership development. This is very similar to what Northouse (2008) referred to as intellectual stimulation present in transformational forms of leadership. This is a characteristic where leaders foster a modality of open-mindedness and creativity, challenging members to question the status quo, and to challenge their beliefs and values, as well as those of the leader (Northouse, 2008, p. 177). Northouse (2008) also highlighted in Chapter 6 of Introduction to Leadership that resource is crucial in leadership and that possessing it is as important as articulating it effectively, as in the case of Martin Luther King, Jr. s famous I Have a fancy speech and the inaugural address of John F. Kennedy. In the same stain as Joiner and Stephens (2006) emphasis on the Catalysts appreciation for feedback, Northouse (2008) also considered the development of group behaviors as important and that leaders must ensure that members are prepare to provide constructive feedback that will help improve the dynamics of the team toward organizational effectiveness. On the other hand, Kouzes and Posner (2007) said that that leaders must pursuit for opportunities to innovate, grow, and improve but reiterated that leaders should not be the only sources of cornerstone (p. 371).Cocreator. Joiner and Stephens (2006) identify the Cocreator as someone with an orientation toward collaboration and shared objectives. The Cocreator views leadership more importantly as a form of service toward the green good, similar to Kouzes and Posners (2007) emphasis on leadership as a representation of achieving justice. Joiner and Stephe ns (2006) places upon the Cocreator the capacity to leads toward organization change by creating deep relationships with stakeholders fueled by mutual interests and devotion to uphold the welfare of the general population. The Cocreator may be more inclined to advocate for corporate social responsibility as a crucial component in organizational leadership. Team leadership to him is about collaborative practices and instilling in members that the welfare of the organization is a collective responsibility (Northouse, 2008). At this stage, leaders are aware that in order to accomplish goals and in handling change more effectively, they need followers, and vice versa. It is also at this stage where leaders are more keen on adopting ethical practices in leadership, because the leader becomes more aware that the actions, values, character, and goals of the organization are important (Northouse, 2008).Synergist. The Synergist is the highest type of leadership agility and in the authors es timation, present only in 1% of managers today. The leadership orientation is holistic leading becoming a purposeful activity which hits the organization while at the same time becoming a medium for ad hominem transformation. A sense of purpose is a recurrent theme in leadership literature and is an acknowledged element in the change process. impressive leadership, according to Clawson (2008) is pursuing purpose by exerting ones influence in modify the conditions and making things better for the organization and the society in general. The Synergist is able to maintain a keen yet objective awareness of incompatible stakeholder interests but is able to transform these differences in opinion into a win-win situation to the benefit of all concerned. Team leadership in a Synergist is fluid and dynamic and is able to form group dynamics in a way that provides optimum results. When engaging in pivotal conversations, the Synergist maintains a present-centered awareness that is able to unify the organization despite chaotic situations (p. 11). According to the authors, this is the type of leadership agility that all managers should aspire for in the long-term. While the five levels of leadership agility are hierarchically presented, meaning that the topmost Synergist level is the most effective form, Joiners and Stephens (2006) are quick to point out that this does not mean that the Synergist type is always the applicable one. In this vein, leadership agility becomes situational (Northouse, 2008). At this current business environment and considering the present forms of leadership that are found in most organizations, the challenge is to get past the so-called wonderful leadership forms characterized by Achievers and Experts at the lower and middle level management (Joiner Stephens, 2006, p. 35). Heroic leadership is purely transactional, characterized by self-centeredness and the belief that the leader along is responsible for charting the organizations object ives, coordinating the activities of the members, and in managing how workers perform their respective jobs. ready leadership on the other hand is transactional as well as transformational because it is dynamic and adaptive to the requirements of rapidly changing global business environment requires (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). The authors recommend the post-heroic leadership forms that emerge from the Catalyst stage onwards. What is desirable about post-heroic leaders is that while leaders hold accountability and accept crowning(prenominal) responsibility, they allow members to participate and the organization shares commitment and burden in realizing organizational objectives. In this manner, level(p) members of the group are empowered without necessarily property a position with power.ConclusionThis work from Joiner and Stephens (2006) is a response to the ever-growing challenges of leadership that has swept the global age. Compared to the more normative concepts of effective le adership that could be read from Northouse (2008) and Kouzes and Posner (2007), Joiner and Stephens foc employ on the ability not only to achieve organizational outcomes but to adaptability as well to respond to the changing conditions in society to achieve success for the business or organization. Comparatively, Joiner and Stephens presented a more contemporary strategy for todays leaders and highlighted examples that are grounded to twenty-first century realities. They used recurrent themes in leadership in presenting their case for leadership agility such as the distinguishing the difference between managers and leaders. The first two forms (Expert and Achiever) fit the traits of a manager who controls, arranges, and does things right (Northouse, 2008, p. 135). Joiner and Stephens (2006) recognize that managerial skills are important in achieving outcomes but must be elevated to include transformational leadership skills in order to apart more effectively to global challenges. F or instance, in education reform, there is a need to apply more creative strategies in response to organizational change. This may include proposing for policies that require 1) comprehension and diversity, 2) trends in curriculum and instruction, and 3) use of technology (OConnell, 2010). As agility progresses to the Catalyst, Cocreator, and Synergist level, the managers transitions to a leader who not only gets results but unleashes creative potential among followers, guides them with a sense of purpose and vision and empowers them toward achieving not only the outcomes of the organization but toward the good. Joiner and Stephens (2006) also dealt with the importance of communication in handling the change process. They strengthen Clawson (2008) in saying that meetings should be empowering to followers. Furthermore, communication also requires that the vision and direction of the organization are articulated well and understood by all levels within the organization (Clawson, 20 08 Kouzes Posner, 2007).Joiner and Stephens (2006) incorporates some of the traditional leadership concepts such as transformational leadership, motivation, influence, creativity, innovation into the hierarchical leadership agility model but is unmatched in characterizing the stages in agility into three areas organizational change, team leadership, and handling pivotal conversations. Dealing with and initiating change is one of the central tenets of this book. Clawson (2008) opined that organizations need to respond to changes in the external environment more proactively. Leaders need to develop a comprehensive understanding of competition, market, consumer issues, and all possible underlying factors in order to adapt more effectively to changes. Competitiveness in this global age relies not on what has been traditionally done, but on versatility and change (Kouzes Posner, 2007 Clawson, 2008) or agility according to Joiner and Stephens (2006). As a response to deepen technolog ical developments and increasingly borderless world, firms and organizations must step up to the challenge of invariably innovating and addressing threats that come and embracing opportunities encountered. One weakness of this book is that it is largely dull on ethics as a consideration on leadership agility. Kouzes and Posner (2007) capitalized on ethical leadership as an urgency for organizations. Northouse (2008) considered it important for leaders to continually self evaluate in terms of how they are acting in better, fairer, and more humane ways (Northouse, 2008). Oftentimes, change in the globalized world is synonymous with maintaining competitive edge over others usually at a cost. With the increasing attention on global climate change, environmental issues, terrorism, protectionism, and even resistance to globalization in the twenty-first century, leaders must be highly adaptive to these global issues as well and weigh how these global conditions come into the equation.