Shopping cart There are no products in your shopping cart. By Peter Alduino. Description The Citizen Leader: Be the Person You'd Want to Follow is a thought-provoking guide to help men, women, young adults and teens explore and respond to the questions: "Who am I? Praise For… "Rarely has a book come along that is so easy to endorse. The Citizen Leader would be wonderful required reading for every high school and college student in America and why not their parents as well.
This thoughtful reflection and action-oriented guide on authenticity, character, and responsibility will stand up to the test of time because it speaks to timeless and fundamental human needs that dwell deep inside each one of us. What Peter says is that leadership is your responsibility as a member of this global community, and that you have the capacity to do it. When you read The Citizen Leader, Peter asks you to confront yourself, take stock of who you are, and what you stand for.
And he asks you to decide the difference you want to make in this world.
- Secrets To Your Top Recovery.
- The Citizen Leader: Be the Person You'd Want to Follow (Paperback) | Bookshop Santa Cruz!
- Shop with confidence.
- Singles und ihre sozialen Netzwerke (German Edition);
- The Citizen Leader: Be the Person You'd Want to Follow (Paperback);
- The Citizen Leader : Be the Person You'd Want to Follow by Peter Alduino | eBay!
The Citizen Leader will help you do just that. The organization may do what it does efficiently and well Obviously, the leader of any organization - as well as any other administrator - has to be a manager at least some of the time. Many are in fact excellent managers, and keep the organization running smoothly on a number of levels.
Praise and Reviews
The issue here is the style that person adopts as a leader. If she sees management as her primary purpose, she's a managerial leader, and will have a very different slant on leadership than if her style is essentially democratic, for instance. A democratic leader understands that there is no organization without its people.
He looks at his and others' positions in terms of responsibilities rather than status, and often consults in decision-making. While he solicits, values, and takes into account others' opinions, however, he sees the ultimate responsibility for decision-making as his own.
He accepts that authority also means the buck stops with him. Although he sees the organization as a cooperative venture, he knows that he ultimately has to face the consequences of his decisions alone. Democratic leadership invites the participation of staff members and others, not only in decision-making, but in shaping the organization's vision.
It allows everyone to express opinions about how things should be done, and where the organization should go. By bringing in everyone's ideas, it enriches the organization's possibilities. But it still leaves the final decisions about what to do with those ideas in the hands of a single person. Some models of democratic leadership might put the responsibility in the hands of a small group - a management team or executive committee - rather than an individual. Democratic leadership, with its emphasis on equal status, can encourage friendships and good relationships throughout the organization.
In more hierarchical organizations, clerical staff and administrators are unlikely to socialize, for instance; in a democratically-led organization, such socialization often happens. It helps people feel valued when their opinions are solicited, and even more so if those opinions are incorporated into a final decision or policy. What a democratic leadership doesn't necessarily do - although it can - is establish staff ownership of the organization and its goals. Although everyone may be asked for ideas or opinions, not all of those are used or incorporated in the workings of the organization.
If there is no real discussion of ideas, with a resulting general agreement, a sense of ownership is unlikely. Thus, democratic leadership may have some of the drawbacks of autocratic leadership - a lack of buy-in - without the advantages of quick and clear decision-making that comes with the elimination of consultation. A collaborative leader tries to involve everyone in the organization in leadership. She is truly first among equals, in that she may initiate discussion, pinpoint problems or issues that need to be addressed, and keep track of the organization as a whole, rather than of one particular job.
But decisions are made through a collaborative process of discussion, and some form of either majority or consensus agreement. Toward that end, a collaborative leader tries to foster trust and teamwork among the staff as a whole. A collaborative leader has to let go of the need for control or power or status if she is to be effective. Her goal is to foster the collaborative process, and to empower the group - whether the staff and others involved in an organization, or the individuals and organizations participating in a community initiative - to control the vision and the workings of the organization.
She must trust that, if people have all the relevant information, they'll make good decisions Collaborative leadership comes as close as possible to ensuring that members of the organization buy into its vision and decisions, since they are directly involved in creating them.
It comes closest to the goal of servant leadership explored in the previous section, and it also comes closest to reflecting the concepts of equality and empowerment included in the philosophy and mission of so many grass roots and community-based organizations.
The Citizen Leader: Be the Person You'd Want to Follow (Paperback)
It thus removes much of the distrust that often exists between line staff and administrators. David Chrislip and Carl E. Larson, in Collaborative Leadership - How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make a Difference, equate collaborative leadership not only with servant leadership, but with transformational see below and facilitative leadership as well. They identify four characteristics of the collaborative leader:. Collaborative leaders also generally foster close relationships among staff members, making for more communication and cross-fertilization in their work, and leading to more effective ways to accomplish the organization's goals.
Why Leaders Lose Their Way - HBS Working Knowledge - Harvard Business School
On the down side, management can be neglected in favor of building a collaborative organization. Even more to the point, collaborative decision-making can be excruciating. Depending upon the group, ideas can be talked to death, and insignificant disagreements about insignificant areas of policy can take hours to resolve. Collaborative decision-making can be democratic - based on a majority vote after discussion - or dependent on arriving at consensus, with a range of possibilities in between. Consensus decision-making is particularly difficult, in that it requires everyone to agree before a decision can be made.
A single determined individual can derail the process indefinitely. Even at its best, a consensus process can take inordinate amounts of time, and try the patience of all involved. It's not impossible to employ, but it takes real commitment to the ideal of consensus, and enormous patience. In practice, true consensus decision-making is most often used in collective organizations, which are significantly different from collaborative ones, and often involve everyone in leadership. A different view, popularized by James MacGregor Burns, contrasts two styles of leadership: transactional and transformational.
Transactional leadership , as its name implies, views leadership as based on transactions between leader and followers. The leader sees human relations as a series of transactions. Thus rewards, punishments, reciprocity, exchanges economic, emotional, physical and other such "transactions" are the basis of leadership. In simplest terms, I lead this organization by paying you and telling you what you need to do; you respond by doing what you need to do efficiently and well, and the organization will prosper.
Transformational leadership looks at leadership differently. It sees a true leader as one who can distill the values and hopes and needs of followers into a vision, and then encourage and empower followers to pursue that vision. A transactional leader thinks of improvement or development as doing the same thing better: an organization that reaches more people, a company that makes more money. A transformational leader thinks about changing the world, even if only on a small scale.
These two ways of looking at leadership style are not mutually exclusive: in fact, it's easier to look at leadership in the context of both. Assuming, as almost all leadership theorists do, that transformational is either better than, or a necessary addition to, transactional leadership, what elements go into creating a transformational leader? What styles are transformational leaders likely to employ, and how? The transformational leader conceives of leadership as helping people to create a common vision and then to pursue that vision until it's realized.
She elicits that vision from the needs and aspirations of others, gives it form, and sets it up as a goal to strive for. The vision is not hers: it is a shared vision that each person sees as his own. Martin Luther King's overwhelming "I Have A Dream" speech derived its power not only from the beauty of his oratory, but from the fact that it crystallized the feelings of all those citizens, of all races, who believed that racism was a great wrong.
In that speech, King spoke with the voices of the hundreds of thousands who stood before the Lincoln Memorial, and of millions of others who shared in his vision. That speech remains as the defining moment of the Civil Rights struggle, and defined King - who had already proved his mettle in Birmingham and elsewhere - as a transformational leader. The conception behind transformational leadership is thus providing and working toward a vision, but also has elements of empowerment, of taking care of people, and even of task orientation.
The job of the transformational leader is not simply to provide inspiration and then disappear. It is to be there, day after day, convincing people that the vision is reachable, renewing their commitment, priming their enthusiasm. Transformational leaders work harder than anyone else, and, in the words of a spiritual, "keep their eyes on the prize". The methods that transformational leaders might use to reach their goals can vary. They'll virtually always include involving followers in the goal, as well as charisma, which comes, if not from personal characteristics, from the ability to put a mutual vision into words, and to move a group toward the realization of that vision.
What style does all that imply? The managerial style is perhaps least appropriate to transformational leadership, since it pays no attention to vision. The autocratic pays little attention to the ideas of others, and is not generally congenial to the transformational leader. On the other hand, there was Hitler, who tapped into the deepest emotions of those he led, and voiced them in a frightening but highly effective way.
There is no guarantee that a transformational leader will work for the betterment of humanity, although he may couch his vision in those terms. The intersection of the transformational and the autocratic is not impossible, but it usually has, at best, mixed results. Fidel Castro initiated and has maintained desperately-needed land, education, health, and other reforms in Cuba, for which he is still revered by much of the island's population.
He also eliminated any vestige of political freedom, imprisoned and executed dissenters and political opponents, and was at least partially responsible for destroying much of Cuba's economic base in the name of ideological purity. As with the four styles described earlier, there is no guarantee that either a transactional or transformational leader will be an effective one.
The democratic and collaborative styles are both better possibilities for transformational leadership. Both allow for input from everyone, and both encourage participation in the realization of long-term goals. It can be difficult for a highly motivated, charismatic leader to operate in the collaborative mode, but it can also be tremendously satisfying.
There is an argument to be made that, because of the high degree of ownership of the vision in a collaboratively-run organization, the collaborative style could be the most successful for transformational leadership. As noted above, David Chrislip and Carl Larson actually see collaborative and transformational leadership as essentially the same.
All that said, it is probably true that any leader, even a highly collaborative one, uses a range of different styles at different times - even, perhaps, in the course of a single day. Decisions have to be made, major and minor crises have to be met, situations and conflicts have to be resolved, often right at the moment.
It is important to realize that different styles may be appropriate at different times, and for different purposes. In an emergency, no one would suggest sitting down and making a group decision about what to do. There has to be decisive action, and one person has to take it as soon as possible. As long as it's clear who that person is, there should be no question about the philosophical issues involved. By the same token, it's counter -productive to make decisions about how people should do their jobs without at least consulting those people about what might work best.
Good leaders usually have a style that they consciously use most of the time, but they're not rigid. They change as necessary to deal with whatever comes up. There are at least two other factors that have to be considered when choosing a leadership style. The first is that leadership style - at least at the beginning - must, to at least some extent, be consistent with what people in the organization expect.
You can try to change their expectations and perceptions of how an organization should be run - that's part of leadership - but you have to start by meeting them at least halfway, or you'll never get close enough to talk about it. If you're trying to turn a system that's been autocratic into a collaborative one, you have to accept that most people in the system not only won't welcome the change, and that some won't even understand what you're suggesting.
You also have to accept that they've probably developed their own methods of getting around the rigidity of the system that they'll continue to use, even if the system is no longer rigid. It can take a long time just to get your ideas across, and longer to help people overcome their suspicions and break old habits. A few may never be able to. You need patience, and the willingness to act occasionally in ways you'd rather not. In the second story at the beginning of this section, the school principal was on the side of the angels: he was trying to be a collaborative, transformational leader who would inspire and support teachers to become the best educators they could, and who would make the school into a model of excellence, learning for all, and collegiality.
The Citizen Leader: Character, Courage and Contribution
The problem was that the teachers expected something entirely different. They wanted someone to tell them what to do, and then leave them alone to do it. They saw the principal's plans as just another way to trick them into doing things they didn't want to do, and to get them to work longer hours.
The more he tried to explain how what he was asking was for their benefit, the more they resisted - they'd heard that line before. If he had started where the teachers were, the principal might have been able to be more successful. That would have meant his "running" the school as his predecessor had, and introducing reforms slowly over a long period. Suggestions to receptive teachers might have started the process; professional development could have helped it along. He might have used incentives of some sort to encourage teachers to try new things, rather than assuming they would be happy to be more independent and creative.
Paying attention to the expectations of the staff might have paid off for the principal in the long run. Finally, your style needs to be consistent with the goals, mission, and philosophy of your organization. As mentioned earlier - and in numerous places elsewhere in the Community Tool Box - an organization cannot remain faithful to its mission if its internal structure is at odds with its guiding principles. An organization dedicated to empowerment of the target population, for instance, must empower its staff as well. For most grass roots and community-based organizations, this consistency would mean using some variation of a democratic or collaborative style.
What kind of leader do you want to be? Perhaps even more important, how would you be most effective as a leader? What kind of leadership style would be of the most benefit to your organization, and would allow you to be the best leader you could be? The leadership styles described in this section aren't the only ways to look at leadership. As we've already discussed, most real leaders use a combination of styles, and there are others that haven't really been touched on here.
It's possible that Alexander the Great was a born leader, but how much are you like Alexander the Great? Be honest now Just about all leaders, even great leaders, have to learn how to lead, and have to develop their skills over a period of time. You can do the same, especially if you have a clear idea of what you think leadership is about, and if you have good models to learn from.
Here are a few things you can do to choose and develop your own effective leadership style:. Use what you know about your own personality, and about how you've exercised leadership in the past. Neither of these has to determine what you choose now - people can change, especially if they believe that what they've done before was ineffective or inconsistent with their values - but it's important to be honest with yourself about who you are. That honesty has two aspects. First, be clear with yourself about what your natural tendencies and talents are. If you want to be a collaborative leader, but you tend to tell people what to do, you have to admit that and think about ways to change it.
If you want to be a directive leader, but you have trouble making decisions, you need to deal with that issue. Not everyone can be charismatic, but almost everyone can learn to distill and communicate a vision that reflects the hopes and needs of a group. Knowing who you are is the first step toward both choosing a style and understanding what you'll have to do to adopt it. Being truly honest with yourself is a difficult task. It also takes an honest self -assessment, which can mean stripping away defenses and facing insecurities.
These few questions are obviously just a beginning, but they should help you think about some important leadership issues. If you have a high need for control, for instance, it doesn't mean you can't be a collaborative leader, but it does mean that you'll have to learn some new behavior, and perhaps a whole new way of looking at things.
If you're not well-organized, it doesn't mean you can't be a good manager, but you'll have to find strategies to keep you on top of everything. Second, acknowledge and be true to your beliefs. If you have a real philosophical commitment to a particular leadership style, it will probably be easier for you to change your behavior to match that style than to live with knowing you're betraying your principles.
A community coalition almost has to have collaborative leadership, or it will fall apart amid turf issues and accusations of discrimination. An organization that responds to situations where it has to act quickly - an emergency medical team, for example - may need more decisive and directive leadership. Some groups may have an impassioned vision, but don't have the practical skills - financial management, scheduling, etc.
You can adapt most styles to most situations, but don't neglect the real needs of the organization in your calculations. You may need to practice a different style at the beginning from the one that you want to assume over the long term, in order to solve problems in the organization, or to get people on board. In the example at the beginning of this section, for instance, the school principal might have had more success if he had started by making very little change and moved more slowly into the role and philosophy he wanted.
Think about how leaders you've worked for or with exercised leadership. What were their styles, and were they effective? How did they handle different kinds of situations? How did what they did make you and others feel? Try to watch others in action, and talk to them about how they see what they do. What do you like about how they operate? What don't you like? What can you incorporate into your own style? Find a mentor. If there's a leader whom you particularly admire, and that person is accessible Nelson Mandela might have trouble fitting you in , talk with her about leadership issues - about how she perceives what she's doing, how she'd handle particular situations and why, etc.
Most people, especially if they're good leaders and conscious of what they do and why, welcome the opportunity to help others develop their own leadership skills. There are lots of resources available on leaders and on both the theory and practice of leadership. Many are included at the end of this section, and there are hosts of others you can find yourself. They 'll give you a lot more ideas about leadership styles, and help you refine your own thinking about what leadership is and what kind of leader you'd like to be.
If you've thought it through carefully, and believe in the way you practice leadership, that will be projected to others. If you believe in yourself, they'll believe in you, too. Although this may seem at odds with some of the above, it is probably the most important element to good leadership. No matter how well you're doing, it's not perfect - it never is, and never will be.
Be prepared to find for yourself or hear from others the negative as well as the positive, to consider it carefully and objectively, and to make corrections if necessary. That way, you can not only become a good leader, but continue to be one. Leadership style is the way in which a leader accomplishes his purposes. It can have profound effects on an organization and its staff members, and can determine whether the organization is effective or not.
Leadership style depends on the leader's and organization's conception of what leadership is, and on the leader's choice of leadership methods. Depending how those fit together, a leader might adopt one of a variety styles, each reflected in the way the organization operates and the way its staff members relate to one another. Some very stereotyped possibilities:.
Another way of looking at leadership is to categorize it as either transactional based on transactions such as pay in return for work or transformational based on enlisting people in pursuit of a vision voiced by the leader, but based on their own needs and aspirations, which aims at real change. Combining this view with that based on the four styles makes it easier to understand how leaders operate and make decisions. It also makes clear that different styles may be appropriate for different purposes, and that most leaders shift back and forth among several in the course of a day, even if there is one that characterizes them.
You can choose and develop leadership styles and skills by assessing your own tendencies and talents; understanding the needs of the organization or initiative; observing others leaders and finding a mentor; believing in yourself, and being prepared to change. The Center for Creative Leadership.
- The Emperors Body: A Novel;
- Koe - The Voice (Japanese Edition).
- The citizen leader : be the person you'd want to follow - Bowdoin College Library;
- The citizen leader : be the person you'd want to follow - Bowdoin College Library.
- Sue, A Little Heroine!
- A citizens’ guide to lawmaking and lobbying in Colorado.
The Center for Strategic Management. Connective Leadership and Achieving Styles. Emerging Leader. The Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership. Idea Bridge. The Leadership Challenge. Leadership styles and problem solving - deBono's Six Hats. The Pew Civic Entrepreneur Initiative. Spokes: Resources for Non-profits. Style of Management and Leadership. Transformational Leadership.