LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY
ABOUT ME
I consider myself to be a logical creative. I love exploring ideas and understanding experiences, processes, and constraints as I work to find imaginative yet practical solutions to complex challenges. Meaning and understanding are very important to me, and I pride myself in communicating in a straightforward manner. At the same time, I strive to achieve high aesthetic value in my work by balancing visual and textual communication to achieve project goals. I am highly motivated by purpose, so I choose to work in roles where my values align with my responsibilities.
HOW I DEFINE LEADERSHIP
I define leadership as the ability to inspire confidence in a team and provide others with the skills, knowledge, and opportunities to be successful. This requires careful listening, thoughtful planning, training, frequent and transparent communication, and a commitment to a supportive culture. In this culture, questions are welcome, successes are celebrated, and failures can be analyzed to inform future efforts.
I believe that the best leaders design successful processes that are not dependent on any one person, because the outcome that a process is designed to achieve is more important than the leader’s hand in it. For that reason, I spend a lot of time thinking about how to simplify repetitive tasks in an effort to maximize the time available to tackle creative challenges.
Additionally, leaders must be committed to the well-being of their teams. I care very much about those I supervise, personally and professionally, and consider it my responsibility to foster the development of their knowledge and skills. I also believe that leaders must be committed to excellence across the team and skeptical of indifference, knowing that indifference gives rise to mediocrity. To that end, I provide consistent, quality support to those who supervise me, so that their work will be easier.
I believe these things because I have seen them borne out in my own experiences under the leadership of others, as I lead others, and in my studies. I believe them because I value people and well-designed systems. I believe it is important to understand not simply how things are done, but why they are done. This ability to share in the creation of meaning empowers people to use reasoning and judgment. Furthermore, a supportive culture fosters the ability to think critically and creatively.
EXPECTATIONS OF SELF
I expect from myself that I will give my best in each project and meet my deadlines. Those I work with can expect that I will ask questions, attend to details, and propose comprehensive solutions to problems. I will push for understanding when I feel it is lacking. I will freely contribute my ideas and give credit to others for their ideas, but I will not take it personally if someone does not like my contributions. The successful outcome of any project with which I am involved is more important than my receiving recognition. I will challenge the team with which I work to explore factors I think might have been left unconsidered, and I will seek to confront and resolve conflict when necessary. I am even-keeled under pressure and will be honest when I face challenges I cannot resolve on my own.
EXPECTATIONS OF OTHERS
From my colleagues, I expect commitment to quality work, consideration of differing approaches and opinions, and behavior that aligns with organizational values. I expect to be given reasonable time frames to complete large projects, as well as the autonomy to prioritize projects in order to handle the most pressing assignments quickly. I believe that meaningful work is a shared experience, and I expect my colleagues to approach projects as a team, knowing that we all have something to offer that can contribute to desirable outcomes. I also expect that as a unit, we will not unduly burden any member of our team, and that we will respect and understand the limits we must impose in some areas in order to achieve success in others. I also expect that we will communicate freely and respectfully, without pretense.
IDIOSYNCRASIES
Anyone who works with me long enough will become aware of my idiosyncrasies. I can be decisive about personal choices but am more cautious when weighing issues that affect others, preferring to take time for understanding and reflection before making a decision. I am easily distracted by music and prefer not to have it playing when I am focusing on a task. My least-favorite word is “critique,” because it feels strongly negatively charged, and I see myself more as a coach than a critic for those I lead. I enjoy focusing on one task for a set amount of time, because I know I will be better able to give it my best. I enjoy working with others as well as taking time alone to recharge, so I can maintain creative energy and contribute my best work.
​
NONNEGOTIABLES
Regarding my nonnegotiables, I do not tolerate behavior that threatens others, and I will oppose policies that do not align with organizational values. I cannot abide the consistent, outright rejection of change. Finally, I oppose assigning design tasks at the committee level, as the process drains creativity, makes decisions difficult, and dilutes impact. I once heard author Frans Johansson say, “If you go for consensus, you get vanilla,” and I have found this to be true. Creativity must have a certain freedom to be nourished and brought to life in order to create something that truly inspires. In creative teams, smaller is better for specific tasks.
IN SUMMARY
In closing, I am a process-oriented free thinker, and I find those concepts to be more closely related than they might seem. A good process is itself a thing of beauty, and I aspire to contribute to my field through the creation of living processes that provide guidance where needed and maintain the flexibility needed for growth. I have a spirit of inquiry and a deep desire to understand. I value people and believe that they have the resources to respond to challenges in creative and inspiring ways, and I work to provide a climate in which that creativity is unleashed.
LEADERSHIP TOOLBOX
ABOUT THE TOOLBOX
This toolbox is a collection of theoretical frameworks that inform my leadership philosophy. I have selected three theories that help me articulate my leadership goals and how I view my leadership responsibilities. I invite you to get to know me better by reading my summaries of these theories and how I apply them to my work.
​
First, systems theory excites my imagination because I have long believed that things are more complicated than they appear, and I find beauty and hope in the idea that the interconnectedness of life can be applied to leadership. Second, Level 5 leadership inspires me to embrace my desire to lead for purpose rather than praise and to appreciate the aspects of my introverted nature that lend themselves well to this style of leadership. Third, deliberately developmental leadership speaks to how I aim to lead those with whom I work on a daily basis.
SYSTEMS THEORY
General System Theory (GST), outlined by von Bertalanffy (1968), proposes that complex networks of integrated facets are at work in all of life, and must be viewed in concert in order for leaders to optimize solutions for a given system. GST further posits that the natural order present within a system is self-reinforcing, revealing laws that can be applied to systems across disciplines. Taken to the level of viewing the universe as a system full of myriad systems, GST can bewilder. Yet its allowance for possibilities is also freeing. A powerful example of the freedom of systems thinking is Senge’s (1990) proposition that pursuing the fastest possible rate of growth is counterproductive, because in each system, there exists a slower, optimal rate.
Systems thinking permeates my leadership style, as I avoid being quick to make assumptions about the realities of the challenges I face. I work to understand projects as a whole, making a concerted effort not to tackle problems in isolation from their environment. Senge’s thoughts in particular remind me to set aside time to incubate creativity, because the best approach to a given challenge often results from the exercise of thinking through failed approaches — without having to apply them first. Systems thinking also reminds me that my contributions will not endure unless I help design self-reinforcing systems that enable my team to meet its goals with or without my presence. Therefore, I work to design effective processes that deliver consistent, positive outcomes for those who implement them.
​
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: George Braziller, Inc.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
LEVEL 5 LEADERSHIP
Level 5 leadership, outlined by Collins (2001, p. 21) in Good to Great, refers to a leadership style that Collins and fellow researchers found present among leaders at companies that went from ordinary stock market performance to consistently strong performance after a period of transition. Level 5 leadership posits that greatness requires leaders to go beyond capability, contribution, competence, and effectiveness — the first four levels of leadership — and reach a fifth level. Leaders at this level build greatness by blending humility and ambition; however, the ambition must be for the organization rather than self. Such leaders hold themselves accountable for failures and are undeterred in their resolve to make their companies great. Collins contrasts Level 5 leadership with the popularization of celebrity leadership, which he considers a dangerous trend that values personality over Level 5 qualities.
This theory resonates with me because I aspire to be a Level 5 leader. I do not believe that my leadership abilities lie in my personality, but in my striving to achieving the best outcomes possible for my organization, to the best of my ability. I am highly motivated by the good that my work can provide, and I often think of the people who stand to benefit from my efforts. Likewise, I encourage those I lead to consider the end users of our work. Have we met their needs? Answered their questions? Made their days easier? Because I believe that leadership is most effective when positive outcomes outweigh personal pride, I will humble myself, knowing that I am no more valuable than any other person. I will own my shortcomings, and I will orient my drive toward the success of my team and my organization.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins.
DELIBERATELY DEVELOPMENTAL LEADERSHIP
Kegan, Lahey, Fleming, and Miller (2014) propose that organizational excellence and the personal growth of employees are intertwined. They posit that encouraging employees to acknowledge failures and develop themselves enhances organizational success. They call upon leaders to admit their own deficiencies first in order to set the tone for a Deliberately Developmental Organization (DDO), noting the necessity of strong professional relationships in order to make such a culture work. Implementing a DDO culture involves acknowledging the gap between employees’ actual selves and their professional personas and assigning them to tasks that stretch their known abilities. A limitation of DDO is its unlikely effectiveness in high-turnover or freelance-based organizations.
​
The DDO approach informs my leadership philosophy in that I communicate regularly with the people I lead, asking questions to understand their current level of skill and understanding, so I can challenge them to tasks that will take their skills to the next level. It is important to me that those I lead do not feel the need to present a false self, so I encourage vulnerability by admitting my own limitations candidly. I encourage others to see self-awareness as its own power, because it provides information on which individuals can act and grow.
​
Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Fleming, A., & Miller, M. (2014). Making business personal. Harvard Business Review, 92, 44-52.
An excerpt from
Breaking Glass:
The Feminist Leadership of Madeleine Albright
By Mel Puckett
​
Madeleine Albright made history by becoming the United States’ first female secretary of state, one of the highest offices to which an American woman has ascended. Her service paved the way for future Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton. Examining her leadership style through the lens of communication has inspired me to take greater agency in harnessing my feminine voice and style as a leader.
​
Throughout her service and retirement, Albright has served as a feminist leader, consistently making transparent the woman behind the office with a frankness refreshing for the political realm. She has a way of cutting tension by calmly laying bare the experiences, feelings, and beliefs that influence her approach to foreign policy and domestic politics. She maintains expert knowledge of her field and demonstrates a preference for a conversational tone, rather than theatrics, to convey even the most important messages, a style I admire.
​
At times blunt, Albright tackles tough issues with eagerness and sincerity, and when she makes mistakes, she acknowledges them — not with a brief apology, but with a respectful treatise on how she arrived at her views and what can be done to move important conversations and policies forward. She turns negative media attention into a new conversation, sometimes with fun and sass, as in the case of her famed brooch collection.
​
Albright’s record of engaging in relationships and sharing of herself to address diplomatic issues serves as an inspiring example of how feminism is not an issue for a select few called to action, but for all. She empowers the female voice by harnessing her own, encouraging women to embrace femininity in leadership rather than de-emphasize it. In addition, she apologizes only for behavioral actions, never for who she is or for what she stands.
​
Paper presentation awarded second place at the University of West Florida 2017 Women's Studies Conference