Session Type: Paper Presentations Accepted by MIG(s): Scholarship Time Allotted: 75 Description: This session will provide attenders with a number of theory-based conceptual and practical models for leadership in a variety of contexts and communities. What might a well-considered developmental view of authentic altruism look like for leaders and leader developers? What might be said about the implications for leadership when we consider the theories empathy together with extant theories of leadership? What might be learned about creative leadership by paying attention to innovations undertaken in North American and African by leaders in selected Faith-communities? The Compassionate Leader Description: This paper introduces a substantive and conceptually nuanced account of altruism, its development and its relevance to the challenge of understanding and promoting authentic moral leadership. A developmental Model of Authentic Compassionate Leadership will be presented. Abstract: The proposed paper consists of four sections, as follows:
Section I: The Human Condition and the Compassionate Leadership Imperative
This section provides a critical diagnosis of the "human condition" to demonstrate the need for compassionate leadership.
Section II: Human Altruism and Compassionate Moral Agency as a Field of Study
The paper provides a substantive and conceptually nuanced account of altruism and its relevance to the challenge of understanding and promoting authentic moral leadership. More specifically, this section of paper will:
1.Be clear about the meaning of altruism and compassion and the relationship between these two concepts and the concepts of empathy, sympathy, care, and love.
2.Ground the understanding of altruism/compassion in a discussion of the nature of human nature. The basic question here is: Do human beings have the capacity, or potential, to engage in truly altruistic/compassionate behavior or is it the case that, when all is said and done, when you "scratch an altruist you may watch a hypocrite bleed?"
3.Provide an account of the current state of knowledge in the study of altruism/compassion and to argue for the relevance of this knowledge for understanding and promoting compassionate moral leadership.
Section III: An Integrative Model of the Development of Altruism/Compassion
This section serves to introduce the Integrative Model of the Development of Altruism/Compassion (Dennis Krebs and Frank Van Hesteren) as the backbone for a model of authentic compassionate leadership. The model maintains that there are seven kinds of altruism/compassion which differ qualitatively as a result of different motivations and intentions for helping/caring that give rise to them.
Section IV: Toward a Model of Authentic Compassionate Leadership
This final section depicts the authors’ Model of Authentic Compassionate Leadership which represents an integration of the Krebs and Van Hesteren model and the portrait of the Ideal Altruistic Personality created by Frank Van Hesteren. The model is presented in a propositional format. The fundamental proposition emphasizes the central significance of self-identity in understanding the moral meaning-making processes engaged in by the Authentic Compassionate Leader. The remaining propositions address the following eight questions pertaining to the development of the Authentic Compassionate Leader's capacity for full functioning as a moral agent.
1.What is the nature of the constructive-developmental growth/change processes involved in the formation of a compassionately spirited self-identity?
2.How does the ethic of compassion come to constitute the animating core of the Authentic Compassionate Leader's self-identity?
3.What developmental factors/processes serve to explain the heightened self-knowledge and highly developed capacity for self-reflection on the part of the Authentic Compassionate Leader?
4.How does the Authentic Compassionate Leader maintain a sense of integrity as a moral agent?
5.How do thinking and feeling (i.e., cognition and affect) interact in the moral meaning-making engaged by the Authentic Compassionate Leader? More specifically, how is empathic emotion brought into the service of Authentic Compassionate Leadership at high developmental levels?
6.What is the role of self-conscious emotions, such a guilt and shame, in the self-regulated integrity maintenance processes engaged in by the Authentic Compassionate Leader?
7.How is the Authentic Compassionate Leader able to resist "moral disengagement," particularly in situations of high risk or danger?
8.What is the role of "gratitude" in the motivation and moral agentic functioning of the Authentic Compassionate Leader?
Keith Walker, University of Saskatchewan
Bio: Keith Walker is a professor of educational administration and leadership at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada.
Frank VanHesteren, University of Saskatchewan
Empathic Leadership: Strengthening the Leader-Follower Bond in the Midst of Constant Change Description: Empathy is a key leadership attribute. A leader can strengthen the bond with a follower by first being empathetic and then communicating that empathy. A conceptual model will be presented that combines theories of empathy with models and theories of leadership to address gaps in leadership theory and research. Abstract: The Purpose of the Paper
The paper presents a conceptual model that combines theories of empathy with models and theories of leadership to address gaps in leadership theory and research. The paper is based on the premise that leadership is a process wherein the leader influences the efforts of individual followers (Yukl, 2009). The role of the leader in this interactive relationship is critical because the leader not only initiates the relationship, but also “carries the burden for maintaining (it)” (Northouse, 2007, p. 4). Hence, the role of the leader in the leader-follower dyad is a building block of leadership that is worthy of research.
Therefore, the purpose of the paper is to research the process through which the leader engages with an individual follower and builds sufficient rapport to then influence the follower to assist with accomplishing shared goals. It is important to seek a deeper understanding of this process because the leader’s influence is at the heart of leadership and “without influence, leadership does not exist” (Northouse, 2007, p. 3). The paper researches the role that empathy plays in building the leader-follower rapport and in facilitating the leader’s influence. It also proposes a model to develop and communicate empathy.
Limitations in Current Theory, Research and Practice and Problem Statement
The leadership literature is robust with regards to the relationship between empathy and leadership influence (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2009). One difficulty with this breadth of scholarship, however, is the resulting plethora of definitions of the construct of empathy. It has been defined as an emotion (Spiro, 2009), a communication skill (Hojat, 2007) and a process (Barrett-Lennard, 1981). Hence, there is no widely accepted definition of empathy as it relates to the leader-follower relationship. In addition, there is also a lack of theory and research into how a leader can enhance his or her influence by actively seeking to be more empathic and then manifesting that empathy through empathic communication.
Definition of Empathic Leadership and Description of the Model
In response to the lack of a widely accepted definition of empathy in the field of leadership, the paper engages in an interdisciplinary literature review to determine an operational definition that is effective for the leader-follower dyad. It also distinguishes empathy from sympathy and compassion, and posits that empathy is a relational process.
To investigate how empathy can build the leader’s influence in the leader-follower dyad, the paper introduces a multi-disciplinary model. The model seeks to answer the question of how a leader manifests empathy and thereby strengthens the bond with the follower. It is based upon existing empirical and theoretical research and incorporates precursors to empathy (Strayer, 1987; Hoffman, 2008; Decety & Jackson, 2004), the process of empathy (Stotland, 1969; Batson, 2009; Brothers, 1989) and how it is communicated to the follower.
As a building block upon which the authors build their model, the paper introduces the empathy cycle model created by Barrett-Lennard (1981), first presented in the Journal of Counseling Psychology. This model encompasses a sequence of three distinct stages in the empathic process. The authors characterize these three phases as empathic listening, empathic communicating and empathic connection. The model was originally developed to provide an understanding of how empathy is developed and then communicated and is based on two foundational elements. One is Barrett-Lennard’s (1981) interest in describing the phenomenon of empathy, and the second is his on-going work to measure it. The model’s background, therefore, makes it particularly relevant to helping the leader to not only understand the essence of empathy, but also develop an empathic relationship with the follower.
The literature has many different models and definitions for empathy. This paper develops a model based upon empathy as a process since that is the most useful for a leader seeking to be empathetic.
To further adapt the Barrett-Lennard (1981) model to research in the leader-follower dyad, the paper updates the nomenclature to make it more consistent with the leadership field. In addition, the paper’s model streamlines the graphical presentation to enhance its open-system aspect and emphasize the impact of the environment on the leader-follower dyad. Lastly, the model incorporates the precursors necessary for empathy to be manifested.
How the Model Adds to the Body of Knowledge on Leadership
The model strengthens ties between those who practice, study and teach leadership by clearly illustrating the component parts of the empathic process and how each can be better researched. The model can also be utilized by a leader or coach to build empathic capabilities. It is particularly suited to assist with training leaders to be empathetic because it has broken down the process into discreet sections.
References
Barrett-Lennard, G. (1981). The empathy cycle: Refinement of a nuclear concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(2), 91-100.
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research & managerial applications (3rd Ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Batson, C. (2009). Two Forms of Perspective Taking: Imagining How Another Feels and Imagining How You Would Feel. In Markman, K., Klein, W. & Suhr, J. (Eds), Handbook of Imagination and Mental Simulation (pp. 267-279). New York, New York: Psychology Press.
Brothers, L. (1989). A biological perspective on empathy. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 146(1), 10-19.
Decety, J. & Jackson, P. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3, pp 71-100.
Hojat, M (2007). Empathy in patient care: antecedents, development, measurement, and outcomes. New York: Springer.
Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership Theory and Practice (4th Ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Spiro, H. (2009). Commentary: The practice of empathy. Academic Medicine, 84(9), 1177.
Stotland, E. (1969). Exploratory studies in empathy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267-279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Strayer, J. (1987). Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. In Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (Eds), Empathy and its development (pp. 218-244). New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, M. (2008), Empathy and prosocial behavior. In Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J. & Barrett, L. (Eds), Handbook of Emotions. New York, New York: The Gilford Press.
Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in Organizations (7rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Joe Stackhouse, George Washington University; Land O'Lakes, Inc
Bio: Joe is a doctoral student at George Washington University. His research focus is in the area of leadership theory with a current focus on empathy. Joe has over twenty years experience as a leader in large organizations. He currently works as Director of Supply Chain for Land O'Lakes, Inc.Mark James, George Washington University
Bio: Mark is a doctoral student at George Washington University. Mark's current research interests are leadership and family businesses. Mark is an accomplished attorney and author.Innovation in Practice: Creative Leadership Models among Faith Communities Description: Faith communities frequently create innovative leadership models that can be of value to other organizations. This paper explores the reasons for this innovation and looks specifically at three innovative models (shared leadership, bivocational leadership, and consultative leadership) in use by faith communities in both African and North American contexts. Abstract: Faith communities frequently create innovative leadership models that may be of value to other organizations. The reasons for this innovation stem from both practical and theoretical foundations. In practice, many faith communities function with severe resource limitations; if "necessity is the mother of invention," such organizations invent out of financial necessity. Another, more strategic practice-based reason for innovation is the driving force of mission, which re-frames all leadership structures as means to that end and thus reduces the normative power of inherited structures. But theoretical considerations also come into play, as faith communities and their leadership models are informed by theological foundations that sometimes challenge the conventional wisdom of their social context.
Joseph Rost (1991) defined leadership as "an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes." Using this definition and its four components as our criteria for evaluation, we examine three innovative leadership models that are practiced or at least experimented with by faith communities in both Africa and North America, and determine the degree to which they are expressions of effective leadership and their relative value to other, non-faith-based organizations.
Those three models are bivocational leadership, consultative leadership, and shared leadership. These three models were chosen because of their varying and complementary relationships to the organizations or communities they serve. In the first model, the bivocational leader has one foot in the community and one outside, and thus is able to translate from one to the other; in the second model, the consultative leader stands entirely outside the community but speaks into it with an authority that supersedes that of the traditional understanding of an organizational consultant; in the third model, the leadership position at the center of the organization is shared by two or more individuals, which challenges the traditional Western understanding of senior leadership exercised by a solo individual.
For each model, this paper addresses the following questions: 1) What is innovative about this model? 2) How does this model fit Rost’s definition of leadership? 3) Why have one or more faith communities created and practiced this model? 4) How can this model be illustrated through a case study organization? 5) What benefit does this model offers to other organizations? 6) What disadvantages should one should consider if attempting to borrow or adapt this model for another context? and 7) What additional research questions should be explored?
The joint authors of this paper are all experienced leaders of faith communities who are also leadership scholars. One is Ethiopian, another African-American, the third a Caucasian American female, and the fourth a Caucasian American male. The innovation that is explored here thus represents multiple contexts, with their varying practices, cultural assumptions, and theoretical frameworks. This blending of viewpoints adds a multi-layered evaluative lens to the study as well as a broader pool of current practices from which to draw than might be uncovered by a study drawn from a single context, and thus provides encouragement that such models may have application beyond their original social context.
“Leadership 2.0” is a call for innovative practices, patterns, and models that belie the old assumptions; it is an invitation to look in unexpected corners to find creative ways of doing leadership from which both scholars and practitioners in the twenty-first century can learn, on which they can build, in which they can even play or experiment. This paper uncovers a mere sampling of the myriad ways that faith communities are experimenting with leadership models, suggesting that most can be adapted, utilized, and appropriated by organizations or communities of many other types and functions. Anthony Blair, Hosanna Christian Fellowship; Eastern University
Bio: Anthony L. (Tony) Blair is a bivocational leadership scholar and practitioner, with a quarter century of experience leading faith communities...churches, faith-based nonprofit organizations, and denominational entities. He is a member of the leadership faculty and a former administrator of Eastern University. He has published on historical practices of leadership in faith communities and on higher education. Lidetu Kefenie, Eastern University
Bio: Lidetu A. Kefenie is currently a full-time PhD student in organizational leadership at Eastern University. Being an ordained church minister in Ethiopian Full Gospel Believers’ Church for more than 15 years, he was also the former National Office Coordinator for CBMC (Christian Business Men’s Committee) Ethiopia. While he was serving in his church as an evangelist, he was also serving as an associate minister in Great Commission Ministry Ethiopia (an affiliate of Campus Crusade for Christ in Ethiopia) in different capacities. He is pursuing his doctoral studies to assume a teaching position at the Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology, Department of Leadership and Management while at the same time involving in teaching and preaching ministries in different denominational churches in Ethiopia. A. Brian Leander, Institute for Organizational Leadership; Eastern University
Bio: A. Brian Leander is the Senior Planning Consultant for the Institute for Organizational Leadership a not-for-profit educational institution that specializes in strategic planning, organizational development, and executive development. The Institute serves a wide range of clients, including businesses, schools, churches, and missions organizations. Certified in Servant Leadership by the Robert Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership and holding a Masters degree in Organizational Leadership from Gonzaga University a Jesuit university, he has greatly benefited from a tradition of educational excellence. Brian is currently a doctoral student working on a Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership at Eastern University.Jo Ann Kunz , Hosanna Christian Fellowship; Eastern University
Bio: Jo Ann Kunz is an experienced leadership practitioner who also serves as adjunct instructor in the Master of Arts in Organizational Leadership program at Eastern University. A trainer, pastor, spiritual director, and retreat leader, she also teaches and practices spiritual formation and spiritual direction at several Pennsylvania institutions. Return to complete program |
