While the results of leadership are identifiable, the means of these results are as dynamic as the constituents themselves. As much as we would like to describe how to be a leader deterministically, it cannot be prescribed. Empirically, leadership is the ability to inspire work; the greater the degree, the greater the leadership. However, such a simple observation ignores the nuances and multitude of factors that insight such work. It is here where we must examine the perspectives on leadership to define our understanding and begin our journey.

Leadership begins in oneself. It starts with the ability to value and trust one’s thought processes, placing less weight on external variables like knowledge, experience, and intelligence (Castelli, 2016). In a sense, you must discover who you are before you can lead others. Kouzes and Posner attempts to explain this process as the ability to establish a credo by identifying and clarifying your values and developing competency (2011). The credo you generate through your internal reflection is the foundation of your leadership; it informs and guides your decisions. Furthermore, parts of this process were echoed by LRNT 525, in which our group was task with coming to a consensus of which values are the most important for a leader in a digital environment (Royal Roads University, 2021). 

During this process, two perspectives were accounted for: (1) leaders’ general values in our occupational-specific environments and (2) leaders’ values in digital environments (Rowe et al., 2021). In our first ranking system, attributes like supportive, competent, and cooperative were at the top of the list. However, after a lengthy discussion and a narrowing of the scope, our second ranking changed these attributes to honesty, credibility, communication, and adaptability, while supportive fell to the ninth rank. At the forefront of this change is the realization that relationships are the heart of leadership, and if a leader violates the relationship’s trust, it is rarely restored (Castelli, 2016; Chughtai et al., 2015; Grover et al., 2014; Klaussner, 2012). Moreover, honesty instills trust in the relationship: honesty with oneself, one’s capabilities, and honesty with their followers. Without honesty, no matter how great a leader’s vision or how supportive they are to their constituents, followers will withdraw from the relationship because if they do not, it erodes their self-esteem, diminishing their value (Kouzes & Posner, 2011). Furthermore, this change in ranking further establishes the importance of a leader being adaptable.

The world is in constant flux, and the rate of this flux is increasing. When people envision a prosperous future, few are enticed by allowing the status quo to continue (Kouzes & Posner, 2011). To meet the needs of this dynamic target, leaders need to be adaptable. “Adaptive leaders do not just make changes, they carefully recognize potential changes in the external environment and consider the best path that will positively affect the organization” (Khan, 2017, p. 179). From an exterior perspective, an adaptable leadership style can contradict the value-based credo established above as it is a supposedly static acknowledgment of one’s values, limits, and capabilities. It is the foundation of why we act; the means of this action is what is adaptable. Likewise, a credo can change, just as a person’s views and perspective change over time. The credo guides our actions; it is the stability we need in the chaos around us and reminds us of who we are and what we want to achieve.

Leadership is not something we can define, not because we do not understand what it looks like, but because the goal post used to determine a good leader changes from person to person and organization to organization. It is a personal journey that is as unique as each individual. By understanding this, we first must start by looking inwards, acknowledging and identifying our values, goals, and capabilities. Once a foundation has been established, we can move towards adapting to reach our constituents’ needs. However, this adaption does not mean we change our foundational credo but acknowledge theirs and develop means to cohabitate and thrive towards a common goal. 

  

Reference

Castelli, P. A. (2016). Reflective leadership review: A framework for improving organisational performance. The Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1108/JMD-08-2015-0112

Chughtai, A., Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2015). Linking ethical leadership to employee well-being: The role of trust in supervisor. Journal of Business Ethics128(3), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2126-7

Grover, S. L., Hasel, M. C., Manville, C., & Serrano-Archimi, C. (2014). Follower reactions to leader trust violations: a grounded theory of violation types, likelihood of recovery, and recovery process. European Management Journal32(5), 689–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.01.002

Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or transactional leadership in current higher education: A brief comparison. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(3), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.3294

Klaussner, S. (2012). Trust and leadership: Toward an interactive perspective. Journal of Change Management12(4), 417–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2012.728766

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2011). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it (2nd ed.). Wiley. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/9781118983867

Rowe, C., Carpenter, J., Guichon, P., Haley, C., & MacKay, M. (2021, February 6). Admired leadership attributes. Christopher’s Blog.

https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0162/admired-leadership-attributes/

Royal Roads University. (2021, January 25). Unit 1 | Leadership todayhttps://malat-coursesite.royalroads.ca/lrnt525/schedule/unit-1/