Culture and diversity in the workplace has not been properly studied until more recently. It was not until the 1980s that gender really started to be examined while ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion did not come under the microscope until the early 2000’s, and leadership and diversity did not come onto the scene until 2006 within the Educational Management Administration & Leadership journal (Coleman, 2012). More attention needs to be given to culture and diversity in modern times as business practices have grown to include people from different backgrounds all over the world. It is not uncommon in this day and age that organizations employ teams of people from various countries to work together to complete the goals. In order to get the most out of these information-rich groups and provide a workplace that is free of bias while being safe and accommodating there are more than a few barriers a leader must be able to break through.

Leaders that deal with multi-cultural teams need to develop certain cultural competencies first before they can successfully manage their organization’s business. There will be a need for these leaders to fully understand business, political, and cultural trends (Northouse, 2016). It is important to know how other cultures truly operate and how they too view other cultures. Just like any lesson in school, you need to read about what you are focusing on before you can really interact with it in a meaningful and knowledgeable way. Leaders will also need to understand other culture’s perspectives on tastes, trends, and technology, while being able to work with these different groups effectively (Northouse, 2016). This will allow management to overcome cultural barriers and develop better global business acumen skills. Additionally, leaders should be able to adapt what they are used to currently to other culture’s living styles and communication preferences (Northouse, 2016). What is normal for one country is not always the same for another. Communication is no different and the same goes for ethics. Western and eastern cultures have different cultural values such as individualism and collectivism. Within these differences lies different views of what is ethically correct as well. Understanding these differences will help a leader to direct their business efforts more effectively. Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own culture is superior and more knowledgeable than others (Northouse, 2016). This is one more important competency a global leader needs to address. They will have to learn how to interact with others in such a way that the other group is viewed as equal rather than seeing one group as culturally superior (Northouse, 2016).

When thinking about global diversity, the issues of equal opportunity, equity, equality, inclusion, and direct and indirect discrimination need to be addressed (Coleman, 2012). This means that they are thought of not only when designing leadership strategies, but implementing them as well. For example, a leader might want to give thought to these concepts when designing corporate policies for existing employees, but also give them the same amount of thought when putting the policies into action, especially for new or potential employees. There is a good chance that new employees might not be knowledgeable with some current cultural practices within an organization, and any policy design that a leader comes up with should leave room to account for this by being as inclusive to as many groups as possible while also accounting for adaptability should a new employee or group member bring new cultural needs to the table when they join an organization. Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are part of this and come with one major difference. Equality of outcome means that it is not enough to ensure that business practices and policies are fair, but that leaders should pay special attention to the preparation of these practices and policies as they relate to context (Coleman, 2012). This essentially means that accommodations should be in place for those who might be disadvantaged in today’s society rather than just making sure current business operations are seen as fair. Simply put, a leader in the global arena needs to know that the outcome of their leadership is fair, but also that the methods of including disadvantaged people are also fair (Coleman, 2012).

When I worked in the construction industry I had heard tales of women who had tried to join certain companies. They were not hired for their expertise or because the knowledge and skills they possessed were valued by the employer. They were not even hired to make the company look diverse, they were hired as a sort of novelty for the other workers to laugh at when they could not complete a task which was the assumed outcome by the employees and contractor. Some companies will hire women or minorities just to appear inclusive and that practice does nothing more than to discount important skills that they might bring to the table. It is not productive to only hire someone because they are a woman or a minority. These people should be hired based on the valuable knowledge and competencies they bring with them from their respective cultures or genders. The particular woman I am referencing in the construction example was not even given the dignity of being hired just to give women a chance in a male-dominated industry. Nor was she hired to make to company appear inclusive. In her case, the organization’s policies did not account for equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. From the beginning there was no equal hiring opportunity as she was hired basically as a joke. Furthermore, she had no chance at lasting with that company. She was set up for failure and as the laughs and jeers became commonplace, she decided to leave the company. Here, there was no equality of outcome as the company’s stance on the retention of female employees was set unfairly from the beginning.

It is also important for global leaders to reflect upon their own biases in a manner that seeks to break barriers no matter how strong. By this I mean that everyone has stereotypes and biases within themselves, and some of those can be unthinking or subconscious which will take a bit more searching and personal honesty to identify and rectify (Coleman, 2012). Self-knowledge is paramount to being able to identify and empathize with other cultures. It has been said that self-reflection and knowledge of an individual’s true inner thoughts are central to authentic leadership which is important when being inclusive and accepting of different cultures (Coleman, 2012). This is because authentic leadership is built on a platform of honest relationships and ethical behaviors and these concepts foster trust and equal treatment which are very necessary for different cultures to experience in order to work together cohesively. This type of critical consciousness is key to identifying and establishing core values of the leader which are also quite important as they need to be shared and valued by all parties involved (Coleman, 2012). Shared vision may be hard to obtain between cultures that are very different. Imagine two groups, one with high and one with low power distance, which is the extent that members of a team agree that power should be distributed unequally (Northouse, 2016). It might be difficult for one group to share vision that includes power being shared equally where the other group feels that power should be reserved for few. Therefore, it is important for the leader to examine both their own inner ideals with clarity while also considering those of the different group they are working with and creating new shared visions that both can agree with.

There are more than a few ways that leaders can institute the concepts mentioned in this blog in order to be more successful inclusive leaders that value the differences within other cultures. Training programs and continuing education are good ways to develop cultural sensitivity (Northouse, 2016). The understanding from these experiences will also help leaders with self-reflection. Cultural understanding can help the leader to identify and overcome personal biases which will aid in understanding other cultures unique preferences (Northouse, 2016). Additionally, by understanding what other cultures expect from leaders, one can learn how to lead different groups more effectively through adapting their style to fit other cultures (Northouse, 2016). All of these applications will allow the leader to communicate better with other cultures who’s beliefs and values differ from their own. Understanding other people’s differences will allow for more empathetic, accurate, and inclusive communication (Northouse, 2016).

 

References:

Coleman, M. (2012). Leadership and Diversity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(5), 592–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143212451174

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781483317540/

There are many types of leadership that are still being practiced today despite being outdated. In order for leadership to work correctly, it needs to evolve with the times as people and business practices do. Many dominant types of leadership do not work in a society such as the one we have currently. It may have driven sales in the 1920’s but it often does little more than cause resentment and lack of productivity today. In the article “How Humble Leadership Really Works,” by Dan Cable, (2018) there was an interesting study that followed a UK food delivery service who’s management were driven by numbers rather than care for employees. There were weekly performance evaluations along with questions and complaints that were addressed with the drivers, and as the author said, this was not very inspiring and caused many of the drivers to become resentful with this metric-driven approach to productivity and leadership (Cable, 2018).

This top-down approach to leadership that could be compared in some ways to transactional leadership, is quite outdated and damaging to organizations by being so counterproductive (Cable, 2018). Leaders who use this style are often met with difficulty in meeting goals as they are too concerned with numbers and outcomes rather than focusing on empowering their employees to be the best they can be (Cable, 2018). This is akin to treating employees as a means to an end instead of a valuable company asset. It would seem that the old saying, “You attract more flies with honey,” is quite true. So the question is, how does one go about being a leader but also being a servant at the same time? It would seem that these two principles do not go together. While it can be tricky to understand, servant leadership makes a lot of sense depending on appropriate application of concepts.

Servant leadership means that the leader puts the followers first in an attempt to empower them and build them up to achieve the best that they personally can (Northouse, 2016). This is a type of “lead from behind,” approach. A leader practicing servant leadership will want to know the answers to questions such as, “Are those who are being served developing well and becoming wiser and more autonomous?” and “Are they being freed and empowered to be better servants themselves?” (Northouse, 2016). Servant leadership highlights important characteristics that leaders need to have as well. These competencies include placing followers before their own self-interests and developing them to reach their full capacity as a valued employee (Northouse, 2016). Furthermore, a servant leader will have a strong moral compass when interacting with followers, stakeholders, and shareholders within an organization in order to bring the most good and minimize the most harm (Northouse, 2016).

There are ten characteristics of servant leaders which are as follows; “listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community” (Northouse, 2016 p. 228). Most of these need no introduction as they are commonly known, so let us just look at the two that could use a definition, conceptualization and stewardship. Conceptualization involves the leader having vision for their followers and their organization by communicating clear ideals of goals and direction for the company and all involved (Northouse, 2016). Stewardship refers to leaders who take responsibility for their roles and also take care in their leadership position to direct their followers and the organization in such a way that reflects trust (Northouse, 2016).

I can recall an example of servant leadership with a department manager I used to work for. He hardly seemed like leadership material at the time, but in looking back, I just failed to see the type of leadership he was using and why it was so effective. Many people liked him and no one ever had any ill feelings towards him. We always met our goals and repeatedly had all our affairs in order when we were going to be inspected by higher management. We never really questioned why we all liked him, why we did whatever he said without hesitation, or why we were always so successful. We just thought we happened to have the best team by chance I would assume.

This manager was the type that would repeatedly remove obstacles from our paths in order for us to grow and in turn, serve better ourselves. For example, he would help us clean our areas, which he did not need to, in order for us to have more time to learn our computer ordering system which was important for us to be proficient in so we could better serve clients. He would also take over our desk positions and allow us to step into different leadership roles ourselves. An example being that we could work in other departments while he held down the fort in our own department, allowing us to experience new and interesting responsibilities. The outcome was that we were learning new valuable skills that benefitted us as well as the company. In addition to this, it gave us more autonomy and job satisfaction by reducing role-stress and the boredom that can accompany doing the same menial tasks all day every day, with the same faces constantly. Expectations of what we needed to do also changed which allowed us to feel freer at work, and not locked down into one role where we had to accomplish the same goals all the time.

Servant leaders are not people who have low self-efficacy or a bad self-image. These are people who know that they can benefit by being humble and learning from those who have less power than themselves. They also know that it is their duty to increase ownership and autonomy of their followers while giving them new responsibilities and encouraging them to think for themselves and experience or create new ideas (Cable, 2018). The manager that I had worked with had demonstrated this well. He certainly increased our autonomy by allowing us to rotate within different positions while being able to make new decisions on our own within those roles. It was obvious that we had new responsibilities which made us feel important and boosted our morale, thus further motivating us to continue to take on more. The opportunities he opened up for us did allow us to think for ourselves and create new ideas because we were in charge of ourselves rather than being led from in front. I attribute much of our team’s success to this manager and when there were days where we had to work under other managers, things were certainly not as pleasant or smooth.

I can see how this type of leadership might seem unfamiliar as most of the people I know or have worked with have never experienced it aside from those who worked under the same manager as I did. But it would seem to be much more effective than older outdated methods of authoritarian type leadership. The UK food delivery service mentioned earlier is a good example of this. Management at the company took a different direction and started to ask how they could help their drivers deliver better results. Employees were skeptical but eventually started to submit ideas. When their contributions were helpful and put into place, more and more employees wanted to get in on the information exchange. In turn, the management became more enchanted with embracing new employee ideas and a positive cycle began. They learned that listening to their employees and serving them to become better had fantastic results for the company (Cable, 2018). Employees often know a lot more than they are allowed to express. By practicing servant leadership it is possible to bring out the best and increase employee satisfaction and productivity. In this way, the leader is serving the employees and empowering them at the workplace so that they can better serve themselves. These reciprocal interactions benefit everyone involved, and really seem to fit well in our modern society.

 

References:

Cable, D. (2018, April 30). How Humble Leadership Really Works. Retrieved November 05, 2020, from https://hbr.org/2018/04/how-humble-leadership-really-works

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781483317540/

Team work is becoming more and more prevalent as time goes on. Now more than ever before we are seeing collaborations happen all around us. Work has shifted from in-office to online, and now we are seeing some work transition back to in-office while some work is remaining virtual for the foreseeable future. People are meeting a lot more online yet are still very much dependent on others to get their work done. We can imagine that it is generally easier to work as a team while being in person, and it becomes a little more difficult to do while working apart. The lawyer might rely on the paralegal, and they in turn might rely on the E-Discovery specialist and so on. For some, this reliance on virtual teams might be advantageous, but for others it might be more difficult.

Consider how communication changes when as the workplace changes. For those working in teams that are globally dispersed, virtual teams are fantastic. They can communicate extremely fast and share data or presentations almost immediately. Sometimes however, there are teams that usually work together in person and are not trained properly on how to work in virtual teams. Communication is often hit or miss, meetings are called that could have been avoided with a simple email, and there can be a lot of disorganization if they have poor leadership. From personal experience there has been an influx of meetings that take up too much time and end up being superfluous. Because of this, there are usually numerous requests for overtime in order to get things done within deadlines. Employees are tired and over worked and companies are paying more to allow for overtime because of these meetings that are due to disorganization and poor team leadership.

In order for teams to flourish there needs to be a culture that supports employee engagement, yet some organizations are set up in such a way that their typical vertical decision making is the only way to get things done (Northouse, 2016). Teams will have a hard time achieving goals if they are not empowered to make decisions laterally while also not allowing for decision making at lower levels of rank (Northouse, 2016). So what can be done for organizations that have a really hard time allowing this type of leadership? For example, legal departments sometimes need to run with vertical decision making based on their hierarchy. A paralegal cannot make calls on their level and typically need direction from others who are higher up within their team. Sometimes someone who is higher in the pecking order such as a lawyer will also need things from the paralegal before he or she can proceed. In situations such as this it can be very hard to allow lateral decision making at lower levels because things must be precise and are often reliant on others who are different in rank.

It undoubtedly will take extra effort from those in positions where shared leadership in team settings is difficult to pull off, to lead and be led effectively. One such way of demonstrating effective team leadership is to use distributive leadership where one individual will rise to the leadership occasion when appropriate, and then step back and let others take the lead when appropriate for them (Northouse, 2016). Using the legal department example I mentioned earlier, we can see that it is not possible most of the time for individuals to be able to take positions where they can make decisions autonomously, most of the time. The trade-off is that they can lead in intervals with distributive leadership. One specialist can step up and take the lead and then hand it off to someone else who specializes in a different area. They are not making big decisions themselves but they would now be able to guide collective decisions to be approved by higher management more effectively. Teams that use shared leadership are often higher in trust and cohesion and have less conflict than groups who do not use it, and this is especially true in virtual settings which are very common these days (Northouse, 2016).

In situations such as a big busy legal department, the more common occurrence at least in my experience, is that there will be more team leadership by one individual than there will be individual leadership. Groups will often run themselves but will require guidance and final decision making from their leaders who are mostly managing attorneys and project supervisors. These leaders will need to be able to do and understand a lot, as team leadership can be tricky. They would do well to understand The Hill Model for Team Leadership which basically states that the leader needs to evaluate team performance and then take action to ensure that they have been effective (Northouse, 2016).

The first step within the model is to examine the team and form a mental model of how they are functioning which allows the leader to decide if they need to continue to monitor or if they need to take action. Actions can be internal or external and include task, relational, or environmental actions (Northouse, 2016). This means that they can vary their approach from focusing on training or maintaining standards, to networking and sharing information based on the team’s needs. The outcome is that the leader can evaluate the team’s effectiveness and proceed from there (Northouse, 2016).

Many times I have seen leaders who do not evaluate teams individually and tend to use a blanket strategy for each team they coach. One size does not fit all so this approach rarely works. The Hill Model allows for teams to be evaluated and coached on a case-by-case basis. It works well because it allows for the complexities of team leadership to be analyzed by different points of focus as well as different points of view especially when integrated with shared leadership (Northouse, 2016). The leader can use the model to analyze both internal and external situations and choose from a wide variety of solutions to ensure effective team performance, and when this sort of monitoring and evaluating situations is shared among a group, you will get more diverse behavioral and situational interventions (Northouse, 2016). This will allow for greater team effectiveness all around and especially when there are teams who cannot fully make leadership decisions on their own and require a little help from a true team leader.

 

 

Reference:

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781483317540/

The globalization of business means new demands for leader competencies. There are several factors that modern day leaders need to consider when working with diverse groups of people from various economic, cultural, and gender backgrounds. Leaders need to be aware of cultural perspectives, trends, and opinions from people of different backgrounds (Northouse, 2016). Without this knowledge, it would be hard to relate to others who might seem very different than you. Leaders should also be aware of how other cultures live and how they communicate (Northouse, 2016). Some cultures will value collectivism while others value individualism, and some may see things such as bribery as necessary to business while others might see it as unethical. Learning how other cultures live and how they interact with each other can help us to better understand how we should interact with them. Leaders should also approach an understanding of diverse groups and cultures from a position of equality rather than superiority (Northouse, 2016). Leaders need to be on the same level of those they work with if they want others to feel included rather than tolerated.

Working with diverse business partners or employees means inclusion is important in order to have good business relations and better all-around employee and company performance. People want to feel valued and that they belong and are respected, and much of this falls directly on how a leader acts or what they say and do (Bourke & Espedido, 2020). In their article, “The Key to Inclusive Leadership,” Juliet Bourke and Andrea Espedido have defined six important traits that inclusive leaders share. They speak of visible commitment where the leader shows an authentic interest in inclusivity and humility where the leader knows their limitations and admittedly owns their mistakes while allowing others to contribute ideas (Bourke & Espedido, 2020). They also mention awareness of bias and curiosity of others meaning that the leader is aware that they are capable of “blind spots” and they actively work to correct this, and also that they strive to listen to others with empathy and keep an open mind to the ideas of others (Bourke & Espedido, 2020). The last two traits are cultural intelligence and effective collaboration. They identify cultural intelligence as the ability to understand diverse cultures and adapt themselves to them, and effective collaboration as the ability to empower others while making them feel safe and focusing on unit cohesion (Bourke & Espedido, 2020).

There are many instances where diverse groups of people are highly dependent on one another, and inclusion is very important to make sure that the group operates at a cohesive level. The military is a prime example of this. Within my particular platoon we had people of various ages, religious backgrounds, ethnicities, and abilities. It was important not to let bias get in the way and more important that we all worked as a team with mutual respect. Ethnocentrism is when one group asserts themselves as superior over another with a belief that their values and ideas are more correct than others (Northouse, 2016). You would see a lot of this in the military because so many people came from different places all with differing senses of pride. However, this has no place in the military and is quite dangerous as those who you work with could very possibly hold your life in their hands one day. In situations like this, it is very important to understand how inclusivity is paramount to a well-functioning team. The article by Bourke and Espedido, (2020) mention the importance of being aware of self-biases and how we as leaders need to listen to other’s opinions. Ethnocentrism is similar in that we need to acknowledge that this exists within ourselves while at the same time knowing and understanding that is exists in others as well (Northouse, 2016). This means that leaders need to operate as a part of their followers rather than someone who is observing and leading from afar. However, leaders need to understand that this does not mean they should totally abandon their own beliefs, but that they need to give and take by showing confidence in their own ideas and values while also being open-minded to the idea that other culture’s values and ideas are of worth as well (Northouse, 2016).

In the same article people were asked to rate leader’s performance and to find the one trait they cared most about. Personal bias was the one that stuck out the most but in addition to this the raters expanded their answers to include two additional aspects of humility and perspective taking (Bourke & Espedido, 2020). Those involved in the assessment were not satisfied with a leader who merely acknowledged a bias, they felt that a good inclusive leader should go beyond this. Humility included leaders who would not only admit a bias could or has happened, but would also actively work to fix the issue through peer reviews (Bourke & Espedido, 2020). Furthermore, perspective taking and empathic interactions were valued just as much as humility in a leader. This means that followers want their leader to listen to them on a deeper level and show a genuine interest in them and their ideas. This shows the leader’s desire to work with colleagues as well as the fact that they are trustworthy and supportive and when awareness of bias is coupled with humility and empathy feelings of inclusion were raised by the raters up to 33% (Bourke & Espedido, 2020).

The more diverse a workplace is the more talent you have to pull from. Working with people from various cultures and backgrounds gives you the ability to hear different innovative ideas that you otherwise may never have encountered. We can certainly see the benefits of diversity but need to understand it can be somewhat of a challenge to lead a diverse group while making everyone feel included, valued, and accepted. However, when we learn how to lead with inclusion in mind, we can create a work environment that is extremely productive, valuable, and innovative.

 

References:

Kelly, R. (2014, October 16). The Road Ahead: The changing business environment and what it means for leadership development. Retrieved September 29, 2020, from http://www.leadershipissues.com/the-road-ahead/

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781483317540/

Leadership Traits and Competencies in the Modern World.

Some people might wonder what traits a leader must possess in order to be successful. Certainly there are many, but are there any that we can all agree on across the board? Are there certain traits that are simply inherited or can those same traits be learned? One thing is clear and that is what constituted a great leader 50 years ago does not fit so well in our current age. Leadership competencies and traits have evolved as business practices and new societal changes have happened and it will continue to morph as we progress into the future. There have been lists made of traits and competencies that seem to tell us what a good leader is made up of. As time has gone by these lists have been whittled down to the most common and up-to-date traits. These leadership aspects are generally agreed upon that they are present in most leaders or should be learned by those who do not possess them should they wish to be seen as a leader and have a desire to be a good one.

Leadership traits might include persistence, dominance, tolerance, intelligence, drive, and motivation. However, these terms have spanned a time of more than 50 years. Some of them have re-emerged in various studies over the years and some of them have only shown up once or twice indicating a low connectivity with real leadership traits (Northouse, 2016). This shows us that as time moves on, so do the desirable traits of leaders. Not all traits will apply to every leader as well. For example, someone who leads well as a CEO might not lead as well as a foreman on a construction site. Some attributes of great leadership will apply to one situation and leader while they might not apply in other areas of time and responsibility. Because of this, we can only create a general list of traits that apply to the modern day leader in most cases.

Intelligence and the ability to reason and be strong verbally constitute the first of the desired traits within a leader and they can lead to the ability to develop other important leadership skills. Emotional intelligence is also an important trait and centers around the ability to sense one’s own emotions as well as others and to be able to understand the impact that these emotions can have (Northouse, 2016).

Self-confidence is another trait that we know is important to leadership. It allows the individual to be sure of what they are doing when making decisions or trying to motivate a group. Someone who is high in neuroticism would likely be lower in self-confidence. We know that neuroticism is something that is non-conducive to proper leadership so therefore high self-confidence is a good thing on its own, but is also at least a decent predictor that neuroticism most likely will be less common within that person.

Determination is also a trait that makes the list and includes aspects of persistence, dominance, and drive. This means that determined leaders will often be proactive and assertive, especially in tough situations where their subordinates need direction (Northouse, 2016). Integrity and sociability are good leadership traits to have as well. Integrity deals a lot with honesty and ethical decision making. Sociability involves courteous and diplomatic social relationships and would be present in someone who was concerned for others as a whole. These cooperative behaviors and interpersonal skills are likely to be found in leaders who also tend to be emotionally intelligent (Northouse, 2016).

We can now see the major leadership traits that are generally accepted as being present in most successful leaders. The question remains if these traits are things that someone is born with or if they can be learned. Initially, the trait approach was based on the premise that leadership attributes were inherent within someone from birth. Now, however, there are tests available such as the Big Five Personality Test that can show where someone is lacking in regard to their leadership abilities. This is an effort to allow someone to change or improve areas of leadership through training (Northouse, 2016).

In an article by Harvard Business Review, the author highlights additional competencies such as organizational empowerment, creating a sense of connection and belonging, and openness to new ideas to name a few (Giles, 2016). I recall one experience where I had been working for someone who possessed a few good leadership qualities but they often overshadowed others that he needed. He was high in determination, extraversion, and confidence, however, this only meant that he was so confident with his own beliefs that he was determined his way was the only right way to do things. He was certainly not open to new ideas and the end result was that people from different perspectives and backgrounds rarely spoke up at meetings, and their valuable and diverse opinions stayed silent. This team was not functioning well and would often make the same mistakes over and over again because no new ideas were ever given the chance to be acknowledged.

The same article not only mentions additional leadership competencies, it also gives advice on how to enact these concepts within personal leadership through practice and training. For example, to create a feeling of safety within followers, a leader should communicate concisely with a purpose to make individuals feel safe (Giles, 2016). This is essentially telling us to eradicate things or feelings within a group that would cause fear, from the onset. The author goes on to say that empowered teams are good, but that sometimes leaders do not let the groups organize themselves to be empowered because of a fear that they are losing power. The remedy according to the article says that the leader should recognize these emotions and release the tension by talking about that fear with others while keeping in mind that giving up small amounts of power can create influence which can foster more power in the future (Giles, 2016).

Now we know how complex leadership traits can be and that we still cannot pin down a definitive set of traits that can be deemed as appropriate to every leader in every situation. As mentioned earlier, leadership competencies have changed a lot since the past and will continue to change into the future. As business practices change and global leadership continues to increase, it is easy to say that desired leadership traits will resurface from the past and some that we currently employ will be recycled. Because of this ever-changing environment, and since no one can be born with every single desired leadership trait, it is nice to know that with testing and training we can find out where we excel and where we lack and actively work to improve our leadership traits or even develop new ones we did not previously possess.

 

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. [MBS Direct]. Retrieved from https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781483317540/

Giles, S. (2016, October 25). The Most Important Leadership Competencies, According to Leaders Around the World. Retrieved September 03, 2020, from https://hbr.org/2016/03/the-most-important-leadership-competencies-according-to-leaders-around-the-world