Running head: LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY

Forming a Leadership Philosophy

For Partial Fulfillment of the Leading Change Comprehensive Examination

Allyn Decker
Azusa Pacific University

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
Forming and enacting a coherent leadership philosophy may take me a lifetime, but this
is a good time and place to collect my ideas, reflect on who I am, what I may have to offer, and
evaluate whether or not I am putting my leadership ideas into action. Three courses, in
particular, in the Higher Education PhD program at Azusa Pacific University have provided a
leadership laboratory, exposing me to prominent thinkers and key theories, and given me
opportunities to build leadership skills through applied projects. In this paper, I will discuss
some of the theories and ideas gleaned from Strengths-Based Leadership (HED 701), Higher
Education Administration (HED 725) and Leading Change (HED 712) that have most shaped my
leadership philosophy. Secondly, I will explore my leadership profile in light of known
personality preferences, character qualities, core values and priorities, and my faith experience. I
will also discuss my leadership praxis the areas of my life where my emerging leadership
philosophy is put to the test.
My Leadership Philosophy: Key Theories and Models
Leadership theories abound and I could spend the rest of my life reading about them.
Using leadership as a search term yielded 124,282 book titles at Amazon.com! So I will begin
with what, and with whom, I am familiar. I wrote my leadership theory paper for HED 701 on
Emotional Intelligence theory (EI). Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) contend that a
leaders primal task i.e., that which is first and most important is emotional awareness and
self-management. Leaders must be able to monitor their own emotions and sense the emotional
climate around them so that decisions can be informed by what matters most to people how
they feel about any given situation. Goleman, et al. (2002) claim that effective and emotionally
intelligent leaders practice four competencies under the domains of personal competence and

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
social competence: (a) self-awareness, (b) social awareness, (c) self-management, and (d)
relationship management (p. 39).
EI theory resonates with me because as a follower I just expect my leaders to have
technical intelligence, but I deeply desire them to have emotional intelligence, and am far more
apt to follow enthusiastically when they do. I rate leaders as more effective when they lead from
their heart, as well as from their head. Goleman (2004) found this to be true after studying
nearly 200 large, global companies. Qualities such as intelligence, determination, technical skill,
and vision were required for leadership success, but were insufficient. Goleman (2004) found
that it was only when these threshold qualities were combined with emotional intelligence that
people were regarded as truly great leaders.
During the Administration course (HED 725), we were exposed to two important texts:
Reframing Academic Leadership (Bolman and Gallos, 2011) and Leading for a Lifetime: How
Defining Moments Shape the Leaders of Today and Tomorrow (Bennis and Thomas, 2007). The
Bolman and Gallos frames were very instructive and provided categories for thinking through
the various leadership challenges that leaders face, and will face, in higher education. The
Structural frame encourages leaders to reflect on an issue in light of the institutions rules, roles,
policies, and procedures that channel resources and human talents into activities that support
campus goals (p. 47). The Human Resources frame addresses the complexity of human nature
and [strives to] create work environments that facilitate creativity, satisfaction, and productivity
(p. 47). The Political frame acknowledges that human differences are often complicated by
conflicting priorities, power struggles, and the constant need to manage scarce resources. The
Symbolic frame speaks to the need for stories and icons that inspire a cohesive and unifying

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
campus culture. I found these four frames very valuable for analyzing various sides of a
complex issue and will use them as I face leadership challenges in the future.
Bennis and Thomas (2007) interviewed 43 Geezers and Geeks to try and determine if
there are leadership constants across the generations. While the authors discovered some key
differences between the two groups of leaders, they also discovered four enduring qualities of
effective leaders, regardless of age: (a) Adaptive capacity, (b) Engagement through shared
meaning, (c) Distinctive voice, and (d) Unshakeable integrity. Leaders must be willing to
change, and lead change. They must also find ways to communicate the need for change in a
compelling way, as well as a game plan for achieving a better tomorrow. The most effective
leaders are also those whose word can be trusted and whose lives are authentic and aligned with
the core values they espouse.
I am somewhere between a Geezer and a Geek. I am 52 years old and can relate to the
Baby-boomers and those belonging to Generation X. Knowing that young and old leaders have
been effective because of these four enduring qualities gives me a roadmap for my leadership
journey. At the same time, I can also lead in ways that are distinctive to my own era and to each
prevailing situation. Freedom within a structure is what produces great art, music, architecture,
literature -- and great leadership.
Change is a recurring them in the leadership literature because leadership is critically
important during times of upheaval. Adaptive Leadership is another theory that is informing my
philosophy. I was exposed to this theory in Leading Change (HED 712). Heifitz, Grashow, and
Linsky (2009) challenge leaders to not only apply technical solutions to problems, but to get off
the dance floor and on to the balcony (p. 33) often enough to see the big picture and determine
if adaptive change may be necessary change that requires moving from the known and familiar

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
solutions to unknown and untested approaches. Adaptive leaders know that as in nature, a
successful adaptation enables an organization or community to take the best from its traditions,
identity, and history into the future (p. 23). Heifitz, et al. (2009) make a distinction between
authority and leadership and contend that true leadership goes beyond just doing ones job in an
excellent and consistent manner. A true adaptive leader dances on the edge of authority into
leadership territory (p. 25) gently nudging individuals and the organization toward scary,
adaptive solutions. Adaptive change is disorienting, and these authors make no promises that the
process will be easy. In fact, they endorse moving toward a Positive Zone of Disequilibrium
(PZD) (p. 30) during times that require adaptive change. The PZD is that messy place between
a persons threshold of change and limit of tolerance where new methods are tried and tested,
mistakes can be made, and risk-taking is rewarded.
I dont like the PZD. I dont particularly relish upheaval, mess, and uncertainty.
However, I know it is necessary for growth. I observed this when my daughters were young and
ready to move into a new developmental stage. For the week or so before arriving at the new
plateau, they would often be grumpy, weepy, and intolerant of frustration. It was almost as if the
brain knew what they should be able to do, but the rest of the body wasnt cooperating. I have
also seen this in myself and my students when starting a new academic program. The first few
weeks are exhilarating but so scary and unfamiliar. Lots of doubts creep in, and emotional
reassurance and support are necessary during this period of time. Adaptive leadership, informed
by emotional intelligence, is critically important for successful transitioning to the new normal.
For those of us who dont particularly love wandering aimlessly through times of change,
John Kotters model in Leading Change (Kotter, 2012) is especially valuable. I have used his
earlier work, Our Iceberg is Melting (Kotter and Rathgeber, 2005) as collateral reading for a

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
course I teach to adult learners called The Dynamic Organization. We study organizational
change and I ask my students to personalize the topic by reading this little allegory about a
colony of emperor penguins who must abandon their home for a frightening new nomadic
lifestyle. Students apply the eight step model for leading change to a personal or professional
life situation. After reading hundreds of these application papers over the years, I can attest to
the value of Kotters model across a variety of change initiatives. The model provides a
somewhat linear approach to managing change, but also allows for flexibility. The eight steps
are: (a) Establishing a sense of urgency, (b) Creating the guiding coalition, (c) Developing a
vision and strategy, (d) Communicating the vision for change, (e) Empowering employees for
broad-based action, (f) Generating short-term wins, (g) Consolidating gains and producing more
change, (h) Anchoring new approaches in the culture.
One of the models strengths is its ability to predict and control for opposition to a change
initiative. I believe this is often overlooked when an organization (or an individual) prepares for
a major change event. Not anticipating fear and pain of loss, anger, resistance, and (self)
sabotage can derail even the most brilliant and well-intentioned plan.
Models and theories provide an important foundation for constructing a leadership
philosophy. When a leaders individual personality, values, and faith-building experiences are
added to that theoretical foundation, the leader can adapt fundamental leadership principles to his
or her unique leadership praxis.
My Leadership Profile and Praxis
My personality type, as measured by the Meyers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), is ENFJ.
As an extrovert, I draw energy from the outer world of people and experiences, I process
information and make decisions using intuition and the feeling mental function. I prefer

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
structure, closure, and planning. My top five strengths, according to the Clifton StrengthsFinder
instrument are Maximizer, Individualization, Strategic, Learner, and Communication. The VIA
inventory revealed my top five character strengths as Judgment, Creativity, Social Intelligence,
Gratitude, and Love. I think I possess a combination of attributes and strengths that equip me
quite well for academic leadership. I can understand and communicate abstract concepts
effectively. I can also organize tasks in such a way that students can get to work quickly. I
know how to think through a complex process and break it down into manageable chunks. I also
have a natural enthusiasm for working alongside and mentoring others. I am task-oriented but
also high in empathy, so I can sense pretty well when people need additional instruction or
encouragement. I am thorough and decisive but also willing to give people room to fail and try
again. I think I can see a bigger picture when I am leading people and can focus on the more
important activities vs. getting overly focused on minutiae. So what makes me unique? I can get
things done, but I am also creative and people-centered.
I value authenticity and integrity, hoping that those I lead feel secure in knowing that I
will make decisions based on good information and with the needs of individuals and our end
goals in mind. To me, integrity means that my life is authentically integrated; that I am doing
more than playing roles. I can be trusted to do what is right, not just what is expedient. I value
productivity and achievement, continual learning, developing others, and having a moral
compass that guides my thinking and actions.
My moral compass has been formed by my family and faith experiences. My father was
a pastor and an outstanding father, providing an excellent (but not perfect) model for me to
follow, and my four siblings are also effective leaders in their own domains. I am also privileged
to have had several other godly mentors in my life, including the man I currently work with and

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
for. We have worked together now for nearly thirty years and my philosophy has been shaped
by his patient, positive, and student-centered approach to educational leadership. My pastor
(Kent) has also modeled faithful leadership to a small flock of believers. Right out of seminary
he helped form the church we attend and has been our only senior pastor for over thirty years.
However, Kent freely shares authority and the pulpit with the churchs elder board and they give
him freedom to minister in other venues, as well. Kent has taught me to embrace suffering, to
believe that God is bigger than my past, my present circumstances, my culture, and my
understanding of Him, and that God often chooses to do his best work in the context of
community. I believe that we co-exist in overlapping communities and must embrace our roles
in each of those communities. At times I will lead, other times I will follow, but I must always
be engaged along the way. God exists in community: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each has
their own unique set of roles and contributes collaboratively in the hierarchy. The Trinity
provides a model for the various forms of leadership I must assume within and among the
communities where I live, worship, work, and play. At times I must assume primary leadership,
directing the activities of others toward an overarching goal and delegating tasks. At other times,
I am called to serve and to sacrifice for others. Redemptive leadership can help others reclaim
their place within Gods order of things. Other times, I must just come alongside and encourage
through gentle confrontation, instruction, or by interceding on someone elses behalf. I must
lead with a sense of brokenness and humility, always ready to confront my own sin in the
process of leading others. I am not perfect, but I am forgiven; I am something, but I am not
everything, and I can move forward in Gods grace and extend His grace to others.
My leadership praxis exists within three primary spheres of influence: college,
community, and family. In my teaching and administration, I am committed to increasing

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
students knowledge and building their competencies so students can grasp important concepts
and perform better in their personal and professional lives. I also want to equip students to take
on new and increased responsibilities, thereby broadening their scope of influence in the world.
As a doctoral student, I feel I must be a good example of a responsible and engaged learner. I
also want to be mindful of ways I can encourage fellow students and faculty through my words,
and also just through my presence when we are together for intensives or interacting long
distance.
As a leadership academy moderator, I am consciously helping to build leaders who can
appreciate our countys assets and address its liabilities. I help these community leaders select
meaningful community-improvement projects and connect them to agency leaders and elected
officials who can provide guidance and direction for these projects. As a father and husband, I
aim to provide a safe environment where we all can thrive physically, intellectually, emotionally,
and spiritually. I must help my wife and daughters best utilize their strengths, and make sure we
stay connected to our church family, extended family, and other supportive communities. As a
son and brother, I co-lead with my siblings to help our parents adjust to the new realities of
declining health and diminishing independence.
Conclusion
Developing my leadership philosophy is certainly a work in progress. However, I believe
my thinking is much more refined after three years of coursework and much reflection. Theories
such as Emotional Intelligence, Lifetime Leadership, and Adaptive Leadership helped refine my
thinking. Kotters eight stage model also provides a workable template upon which to overlay
almost any change initiative I may encounter. Reflecting on my personality preferences,
character qualities, strengths, values, and faith journey also helps to sharpen my leadership

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
philosophy as I consider the unique contribution I can make as a leader within my own circles of
influence. Leading myself and others through change will be a lifelong endeavor and I am
thankful for the many individuals, ideas, and experiences that have helped contribute to my
leadership development thus far.

10

LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
References
Bennis, W. G. and Thomas, R. J. (2007). Leading for a lifetime: How defining moments shape
the leaders of today and tomorrow. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Bolman, L. G. and Gallos, J. V. (2011). Reframing academic leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee A. (2002). Primal leadership: Learning to lead with
emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Heifitz, R., Grashow, A., and Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and
tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Review Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

11