Unit_5_Assignment_1_Leadership_Developme.docx

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1
Unit 5, Assignment 1:
Leadership Development Plan
Tom W. Lewis
MBA 6026
The Global Leader
Capella University
June 28, 2015

Abstract
This paper will identify the current global trends driving a typical global leadership
agenda, with the goal of establishing means and method for developing situational awareness of
a global business leader’s organization. It will consider emerging leadership theories that serve
most constructively to guide development in our time, and establish a personal plan for global
leadership competencies. As we consider the complexities of global business in the new era, the
paper will put forward a plan that supports personal growth for the global leader.

Introduction
Our current global business environment requires leadership that can be conscious of
many factors. Such consciousness will assist in effective planning, sustain and support an
organization, allow for its growth, and provide for its continued operations into the future.
Leaders must foster awareness of an organization’s position internally and externally, within its
markets—and, especially, on the international stage. They must also adopt a new way of looking
at how business is conducted, which requires accepting and acting on the responsibility to
develop the self. This will then convert into real change and evolved activity on the part of the
organization itself. Finally, business leaders must be willing to communicate strategic concerns
and initiatives to all stakeholders in the business’ pursuits.
The risks and rewards involved in the new-era context are great, even if we ignore a
simple reality: most businesses were founded on and continue to function under principles that
no longer apply to the twenty-first-century situation in which they operate. If leaders are
unwilling to acknowledge this changed business landscape, their functions as leaders will not
serve their organizations. In the long term, their failure to comprehend the global realities of
business will erode their control of the business, losing out to companies whose leaders do
understand the situation and know how to determine the best path forward, one that will lead to
success and market dominance.
That is ultimately what is at stake when we speak of developing global leadership
perspective and expertise.
The points just mentioned accrete around a single concept—situational awareness—
which forms the nexus of any leadership action to be taken. But how can a leader develop this
situational awareness? We hold that the following activities represent the core of any approach a

leader can take to constructively develop him- or herself and establish the proper mindset for
situational awareness:
1. Understanding of the environment in which the organization operates
(awareness)
2. Recognition of the most appropriate actions/reactions to that environment so
that the organization’s strengths are supported and its weaknesses are
mitigated (recognition)
3. Determination of the best path forward according to the needs of the
organization and the environment in which it operates (decision-making)
4. Communication of the path and its implications to those whom he or she leads
(plan communication, or implementation)
With these activities in mind, the following discussion seeks to identify the current global trends
for driving a global leadership agenda, adopting emerging leadership theories that serve most
constructively to guide development in our time, and establishing a personal plan for global
leadership competencies. As we consider the way global business occurs now, in all its
complexity, chaos, challenge, and great opportunity, we can adopt a development plan toward
business leadership that should yield positive results and responses to any challenge or
opportunity.
Current Global Trends
Any approach to leadership development must adopt a global outlook, recognizing and
responding to concerns for the future as they apply to a global strategy. The current global sphere
of operations poses a significant challenge to leaders at every level. The following description
offers a succinct representation of the stage on which current global leadership operates:

Organizations require leadership that is fluid, not simply positional, dispersed rather than
centralized, and agile not inflexible. . . . [T]he external environment and continuous
advancements in technology are major driving forces underlying change in organizational
leadership. A single leader or leadership team rarely has enough knowledge, information,
expertise, or ability to understand and respond quickly, effectively, and ethically to the
dynamic changes in the environment and adapt or transform the organization and its
participants.” (Hickman, 2010, p. x).
Global trends in business have an impact on all aspects of an operation that seeks to move
beyond the confines of its original home. This expansion leads to concerns with regard to the
“geographic location, scope of operations, revenues, and organizational levels” encountered as
the organization seeks to build trust, efficient realization of goals, and increased market share
beyond the new horizon (Perrin, Blauth, Apthorp, Bonterre, Daniels, Perrin, & Duffy, 2012, p.
196). In this context, situational awareness of the global environment and the capacity to react to
the identified situation within a market will drive any global leadership agenda.
Perspectives on Global Trends
Butner and Lubowe indicate that the transformation of leadership’s perspective is
“essential . . . to any globally integrated enterprise . . . in today’s complex marketplace” (Butner
& Lubowe, 2014, p. 6). They describe four global trends that are hallmarks of this new-era
context in which all businesses with an international perspective operate: globalization, social
networks, big data, and shifts in demography. They find that a globally integrated enterprise that
seeks to transform its strategy and vision must adopt principles that:
 Take a horizontal view of all processes and customer/consumer interactions
across business units and geographies

 Instill a culture of innovation and continuous improvement with collaborative
communications
 Leverage skills and competencies globally with local execution when required
 Build an enterprise-wide culture focused on customer intimacy
(Butner & Lubowe, 2014, p. 6).
By adopting these principles, an organization and its leadership can address each of the
hallmarks of the new era of business.
A different, though congruent, approach to global trends in leadership requirements calls
for a “reflective leader” who can apply “emotional intelligence and a sincere motivation to
examine oneself” in order to reach “greater career success and display greater leadership ability
and better adaptability in an unpredictable workplace” (Perrin et al., 2012, p. 177). This approach
calls for the comprehension of and adaptation to six different “zones” in which a leader operates:
 Reflection: assessment of “motives, beliefs, attitudes, and actions” (Perrin et al.,
2012, p. 176).
 Society: application of “fairness, respect, and [conceptualization of] ‘the greater
good’ to balance individual and group welfare” (Perrin et al., 2012, p. 178).
 Diversity: recognition and acknowledgement of diverse values and the wide scope of
“human differences, including gender, ethnicity, age, physical and mental ability,
culture, beliefs, and work styles” (Perrin et al., 2012, p. 178).
 Ingenuity: execution of “practical ideas” as they reflect “the currency of success in a
capricious global economy” (Perrin et al., 2012, p. 179).

 People: connection with stakeholders, both internal and external to the organization,
in a manner that can constructively harness human capital and “[get] work done
through others” (Perrin et al., 2012, p. 179).
 Business: developing strategies that allow the leader and his or her organization to
“make and execute plans and decisions, organize the work of others, and guide effort
toward predicted results” (Perrin et al., 2012, p. 180).
When combined, these “zones” allow a leader and his or her organization can implement
effective strategies that will guide global activities in the “complex matrix of practices required
for competent responses to rapidly evolving market and human realities” (Perrin et al., 2012, p.
196).
What is Required for Global Leadership Development
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the global business environment requires a
reflective leader capable of adopting “emotional intelligence” capable of leveraging skills and
competencies in a way that addresses the needs of the organization in a flexible, transformational
way. In the business leadership context, emotional or cultural intelligence can be fostered in
order to bridge gaps between the corporate and the market environment using the personal
growth of involved individuals as the basis for interaction. Such a relationship affords new
insights and increased flexibility when encountering different cultural attitudes, which are
essential qualities for new-era, global interaction. As Banerjee states:
We can begin to see that the essential resource of the knowledge era appears to emulate
that of other known complex systems. The dynamics of the cognitive capital available to
individuals and organizations thus reveals a changing resource contingent upon only a
few variables to move from stability to instability to emergent forms. (Banerjee, 2013, p.
265).

We acknowledge that attaining “situational awareness” is the most appropriate goal for a
global leader, in order to respond to “dynamic changes in the environment and adapt or
transform the organization and its participants” (Hickman, 2010, p. x).
This, in turn, can lead to further perspective that allows for recognition, decision-making,
and plan communication and implementation on a global scale. A clear-eyed perspective here is
key to the pursuits of effective global leadership, which will ultimately be the bedrock on which
any global leadership development plan is founded.
Emerging Leadership Theories
When we consider emerging leadership theories that guide leadership development, we
should look for models that allow for the capacity to expand, contract, and innovate based on the
following characteristics. A plan should allow the leader to develop skills to focus on internal
well-being in operations and human resources management, achieve growth (personal and
organizational), and adapt to external challenges and opportunities. This is important, since,
without a clear understanding of the global trends in business—and the needs for action and
adaptation within the global business environment, described above—leaders can make decisions
that are divergent from the true situation in which they find themselves, with grave
consequences.
Any leadership development plan should include collecting valid and actionable
intelligence about the organization and its environment, while also allowing for the transmission
of leadership’s decisions concerning that intelligence (that is, situational awareness and the
capacity to act upon it). Perrin et al. state the questions a reflective leader should ask when
evaluating his or her own approach to leadership like so: ““How can I make sure my own blind
spots and biases don’t cause me to make poor decisions?’ and ‘How can I leverage my strengths
to become a better leader?’” ((Perrin et al., 2012, pp. 176–177). Another way of stating this

approach is as a dual action: first, recognize the situation (“what is going on?”), then react to the
situation (“what is the most appropriate response to what is going on?”). Any version of a
leadership plan will reflect some attempt to undertake answering these questions meaningfully.
The following discussion of leadership theories considers analyzes the emerging
leadership theories that are appropriate for a global agenda, in particular how they focus on
communication in the form of situational awareness and the action called for according to that
awareness.
Leadership Theories: Analysis
As noted in the introduction, attention to concerns as they relate to the organization is key
to leadership’s role in guiding the business to success.
Relational leadership. A model of relational leadership builds on management’s
credibility through its emphasis on “accountability, appropriate moral decision-making, and
trust” (Pless & Maak, 2011, p. 4). As such, the decisions that are made, their consequences (both
positive and negative), and the further actions to be taken as a result must be supported by the
leadership’s position as it impacts the organization’s stakeholders. Employees in this context
should understand what the company is doing, why it is pursuing the initiatives it does, and how
their continued efforts to support manager’s decisions will help sustain the company.
Contingency theories. Based on a principle of duality in the manager-follower
relationship, contingency leadership theories orient workers and their leaders either to the task at
hand or to the relationship between the various participants in the business activity. With these
two motivations as the bases for such activity,
[t]he model purports that task or relations motivations are contingent on whether the
leader can control and predict the group’s outcome (i.e., situational favorability).
(Seyranian, 2010, p. 153).

While the original form of this theory, first formulated in the early 1960s, has become outdated,
its focus on leader-follower relations, task structure, and the leader’s position of authority vis-à-
vis employees (i.e., position power) serve as the focal points for later “consideration[s] of person
and situational aspects in leadership” (Seyranian, 2010, p. 153). These have led to subsequent
models, such as the normative decision model, situational leadership theory, and path-goal
theory.
Of these, path-goal theory retains the most interest in this discussion, as it offers a view
of the leadership-employee relationship where “subordinates accept a leader’s behavior only so
far as they view it as resulting in immediate or future benefit” (BusinessDictionary.com, n.d.).
The original proponents of path-goal theory defend their ideas in this way:
Subordinates with high needs for extrinsic rewards would be predicted to see leader
directiveness or coaching behavior as instrumental to their satisfaction if such behavior
helped them perform in such a manner as to gain recognition, promotion, security, or pay
increases. (House & Dessler, 1974, pp. 31–32).
While still based on a duality (leader-follower), the Path-Goal theory draws its strength from
leadership’s attention to what motivates stakeholders, rather than falling back on management’s
authority as the motivating factor. When leadership can clarify why decisions have been made
and how all participants can effect the positive results expected by implementing such decisions,
this can lead to an improved sense of ownership of both the business activity and any solutions
that help solve a problem or avert a crisis.
Substitutes for leadership. An attempt to address the duality understood to exist
between leaders and their followers resulted in the so-called “substitutes for leadership” model.
Kerr and Jermier describe this alternative theory in this way:

[T]hese theories and models share an implicit assumption that while the style of
leadership likely to be effective may vary according to the situation, some leadership
style will be effective regardless of the situation. It has been found, however, that certain
individual, task, and organizational variables act as “substitutes for leadership,” negating
the hierarchical superior's ability to exert either positive or negative influence over
subordinate attitudes and effectiveness. (Kerr & Jermier, 1978, p. 375).
Such a concept foregrounds the internal drive of individuals to provide the necessary motivation
for their work, the pursuit of business-oriented solutions, and the fulfillment of the business’ (and
their own) goals. This idea challenges the traditional top-down, hierarchical model upon which
most other leadership theories build. The authors conclude their analysis by stating that
a commitment should be made to the importance of developing and operationalizing a
true situational theory of leadership, one which will explicitly limit its propositions and
restrict its predictions to those situations where hierarchical leadership theoretically ought
to make a difference. (Kerr & Jermier, 1978, p. 401).
Here, duality is deemphasized in favor of an intelligent, internally motivated workforce that
understands the business’ goals and knows implicitly how to meet them. In this theory, a
hierarchy must be avoided unless it makes sense in the context of a specific business situation.
for example, if a team requires strong guidance through an individual task, leadership step in to
assist through motivation, goal-setting, and so on.
While not all businesses could follow this model, it is interesting to note that many
companies now focus on hiring self-motivated employees who can make decisions for
themselves, allowing management to focus on system-wide issues instead of day-to-day
operations.

Theory U. The challenges and opportunities that global leaders face in the new era reside
in questions related to where an organization stands within its market, how its operations can be
altered in order to gain a stronger market share, and what steps the company should take in order
to meet such goals. In this way, leadership had the opportunity to employ the “structure of
attention” described by Scharmer:
The turbulent challenges of our time force all institutions and communities to renew and
reinvent themselves. To do that, we must ask: Who are we? What are we here for? What
do we want to create together? The answers to these questions differ according to the
structure of attention (and consciousness) that we use to respond to them. (Scharmer,
2009, p. 14)
According to Scharmer’s Theory U model, a shift in leadership’s attention will allow the
company to address its “blind spot” as it moves from the “inner place” of present operations to
process improvements (the “how”), leading to effective organizational change (Scharmer’s
“what”) that benefits everyone (Scharmer, 2008, p. 53). This shift reflects what the author has
described as a change in the “field structures of attention” where an organization pursues
“radically different outcomes depending on the structure of attention from which a particular
activity is performed . . . [that is,] “I attend (this way)—therefore it emerges (that way)”
(Scharmer, 2009, p. 13).
Selecting an Appropriate Theory
Which of the theories discussed above represents the most appropriate for professional
growth and for guiding an individual global agenda? Since we are seeking a “reflective leader
who can apply emotional intelligence and a sincere motivation to examine oneself in order to
reach greater career success and display greater leadership ability and better adaptability in an
unpredictable workplace” (Perrin et al., 2012, p. 177), Scharmer’s Theory U applied in

conjunction with the multisource feedback mode offers the most effective frame for developing
key global leadership skills, attitudes, and practices.
Scharmer’s approach to leadership development easily aligns with multisource feedback
collection and response, which allows the leader a clear response and reflection on the questions
“Who are we? What are we here for? What do we want to create together?” By evaluating an
individual’s activities in a “360-degree” manner by peer groups and others who have a direct
experience of his or her working habits, interpersonal behavior, and other ratable metrics (cf.
Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005, p. 33). Such evaluations
can help leaders enhance the intrapersonal skill of self-awareness by illustrating the
effects they have on others and by highlighting any discrepancies between various
perceptions of performance. (Day & Harrison, 2006, p. 458).
When employed as part of implementing Scharmer’s Theory U, the multisource feedback
method can pinpoint areas for growth and, potentially, “translate into enhanced leadership” (Day
& Harrison, 2006, p. 458).
Rationale for Selection
Any leader must understand where his or her role in the organization, through deep self-
awareness and reflection, as related to the larger context of the organization, its mission and
goals. Where the organization stands and how it impacts the global business environment aligns
directly with the various intersections of local ecosystems as they encounter the organization and
its activities. The key in developing such deep self-awareness lies in tying objective evaluation to
real-world impacts and authentic plans for change.
Scharmer’s Theory U approach is grounded in activity that “attends with your mind wide
open”:

Observe with an open mind by suspending your voice of judgment (VOJ). Suspending
your VOJ means shutting down the habit of judging based on past experience.
Suspending your VOJ means opening up a new space of inquiry and wonder. Without
suspending that VOJ, attempts to get inside the places of most potential will be futile.
(Scharmer, 2008, p. 56).
Further, Scharmer’s advice to “act in an instant,” based on the thinking of the economist W.
Brian Arthur (Scharmer, 2008, p. 55), comprehends three action points:
1. “Observe, observe, observe” . . . stop downloading and start listening. It means to
abandon our habitual ways of operating and immerse ourselves in the places of most
potential for the situation we are dealing with.
2. “Retreat and reflect: allow the inner knowing to emerge” . . . [go] to the inner place of
stillness where knowing comes to the surface.
3. “Acting in an instant” . . . prototype the new in order to explore the future by doing
. . . etc. (Scharmer, 2008, p. 55)
This “U process” (“because it can be depicted and understood as a U-shaped journey,” Scharmer,
2008, p. 55), requires a deep understanding of self and the way others in an organization relate to
that self in order to be fully implemented. Because of this need for deep self-awareness,
multisource feedback evaluation can be used as a tool to develop a clear understanding of one’s
leadership behavior, how it impacts those around the leader, and what steps can be taken to
improve leadership skills and effectiveness.
In this way, the leader can develop situational awareness of one’s own place in an
organization, the impact one has on one’s followers, and the general state of the organization in
relation to leadership and the employee hierarchy allows for active and open-minded evaluation

of a situation. A complex leadership activity, this process can best be realized through continual
two-way engagement with internal and external stakeholders who play a role in the
organization’s global position.
The core elements of any feedback communication will include awareness, recognition,
decision-making, and plan communication and implementation, as discussed above. When
individual contributors are encouraged to discuss aspects of the leader’s behavior and the
behavior of the organization in general, these factors can be incorporated into the leader’s
environmental awareness, speed and efficiency of response to change and/or challenge, efficacy
of decision-making abilities, and follow-through. This can result in effective course direction
change, mindful strategic development based on the global situation, and communication to all
stakeholders with results-oriented information sharing and instruction.
Ultimately, this implementation of Theory U can yield results that Scharmer identifies as
“presencing,” which
signifies a heightened state of attention that allows individuals and groups to operate
from a future space of possibility that they feel wants to emerge. Being able to facilitate
that shift is the essence of leadership today. (Scharmer, 2008, p. 59).
Presencing, in this context, will allow the leader to adapt to the current global environment,
construct a development agenda that includes “emotional intelligence,” and build on skills and
competencies that will apply flexibility, innovation, and transformation to the decision-making
process. In this way, the leader can develop a strong attitude toward perceiving and acting upon
the global environment, applying recognition, decision-making, and communication skills in the
areas that most need these actions.

Developing a Personal Plan
Adopting a personal plan that will develop global leadership competencies requires a
strong identification with and responses to global environmental factors mentioned above, by
means of awareness, recognition, decision-making skills, and plan communication and
implementation.
Responsibility for Adapting and Growing as a Global Leader
Taking a page from medicine, a global leader should “first, do no harm” to his or her
organization. We can expand on this simplistic idea and note a deeper, though equally relevant,
message: “strive to be a force multiplier.” Such a leader will adopt the skills, attitudes, and
practices needed to build a strong global strategy within a globally minded operation. When the
leader can effectively apply his or her leadership skills to yield the greatest results from a given
situation, that person can be described as a “force multiplier.” Gardner’s “five minds for the
future” offer a clear framework for such development, which will be discussed in detail below.
Discipline as Leadership Philosophy
A “philosophy” supports a leader in his or her actions, whatever the context or task at
hand. Gardner’s description of the “disciplined mind” reflects such a ground for leadership
activity, which he describes in this way:
[A] discipline constitutes a distinctive way of thinking about the world. Scientists observe
the world; come up with tentative classifications, concepts, and theories; design
experiments in order to test these tentative theories; revise the theories in light of the
findings; and then return, newly informed, to make further observations, redo
classifications, and devise experiments. (Gardner, 2006, p. 27).
In the context of business, this translates as all of the steps and “ingredients” for an effective
operation: what planning is involved in implementation, what resources (people, physical/virtual

tools, systems for review and quality control, etc.) are required, and the triggering mechanisms
for each step to move toward fulfillment of the task.
At any level, a leader, should have direct experience of the work that his or her
employees perform. An understanding of the processes, varied points of view of all stakeholders,
and the needs of the organization and the consumers dwelling within its global markets, can be
obtained by an individual to the degree that a leader can offer mindful opinions and guidance to
drive the process to successful completion.
When postulating a disciplined mind in the context of a global leadership development
plan, such a “structure” underlying any business activity can be understood in terms of its
planning, steps, and goals, which a leader can comprehend as part of his or her strategy for its
successful implementation.
Synthesis, Recognition, and Action Within Assumed Structures
Leading on from the disciplined mind (that is, the mind that accepts a structure or ground
upon which to build a sensibility for the context at hand), the synthesizing mind attempts to
define the disparate parts of experience that make up the structure of the business environment.
As Gardner states in a 2012 lecture:
[T]he synthesizing mind says, “What do I pay attention to, and why? What do I ignore,
and why?” And then when I begin to pay attention to it, how do I put it together? If I
can’t put it together in a way that makes sense to me, as I walk out of the room or as I
walk out of the conference, it’s gone, forever. Synthesizing means putting it together in a
way that you can hold onto it. (Gardner, 2012).
This mind calls out the various actors within the organization and its operations (that is, the
structure determined by the disciplined mind) and reflects on how they can interact with each
other.

In order to counteract (or at least mitigate) the potential for blind spots that any act of
perception implies, synthesis as an approach to engaging with the structure of the global business
environment requires an omnivorous approach to data, perceptions, and experiences. This in turn
leads to a richness of perception that each piece on its own would not offer.
The leader who can master synthesis evinces an ability to cast a perceptive net as widely
as possible, minimizing the drive to “select out” the most important factors within a given
business situation. Pieces of information pertinent to the global business environment are sorted
and held in reserve, for future reference, and for application in areas that do not appear initially
relevant. Such mental flexibility allows for a broader and deeper field in which to allow for
synthesis, which is ultimately the ability to draw parallels and develop metaphorical connections.
Such “connectivity” allows the leader to wield “emotional intelligence and a sincere motivation
to examine oneself,” in addition to building a wider perspective on the environment and the ways
the organization and approach challenges and opportunities (Perrin et al., 2012, p. 177).
In this way, the complexity facing a leader in the new-era business operations actually
take on a pattern, which in turn offer new insights and lead to conclusions that will be productive
in the future.
Creation as Active Perception
Discipline (that is, underlying structure) and synthesis (the development of perspective
and analytical consideration of the structure and its implications) can be further elaborated
through developing the capacity to act on environmental factors in a constructive way, “pos[ing]
new questions, offer[ing] new solutions” (Gardner, 2006, p. 156).
Gardner describes the “strong . . . tendency of young children to see, make, and even
force connections,” which he finds

constitutes an invaluable deposit in one’s intellectual bank, an investment that can be
redeemed at many times and in many ways in the future. . . . Celebrate, don’t censor or
curtail, the connections that are effortlessly effected by the young mind. (Gardner, 2006,
pp. 67–68).
How is this distinct from the process of “open-minded” perception associated with synthesis? In
that case, such activity occurs through the identification and connection of different (seemingly
unconnected) elements of our environment (that is, perceiving the structure and its associations
as they relate to the organization). As mentioned above, the creating mind is the force that does
something with those connections.
Gardner’s call not to censor (or edit) the creating mind reminds me of a classic concept
within literature, first named by the poet John Keats in an 1817 letter to his brothers:
[A]t once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in
Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously—I mean Negative
Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts,
without any irritable reaching after fact and reason . . . . (Keats & Scudder, 1899, p. 277).
This idea, “negative capability,” requires the suspension of the judging nature of the mind,
allowing new perceptions and connections to take shape and then lead to a deeper understanding
of the qualities of each piece in relation to all the others.
As with most forms of enlightenment or higher brain function, negative capability is not
something that you can “just do”—it must be adapted as an ongoing practice. However, the act
of pursuing this mind quality seems to be the essence of the creating mind in action.
Respect Can Lead to Clear Perception
When the leader acknowledges the values, needs, and worldview of other individuals and
groups also engaged in the organization’s activities, a respectful approach will account for how

the business affects all stakeholders. According to Gardner, “One can have excellent scientific,
mathematical, and technical education in an environment that is extremely intolerant” (Gardner,
2006, p. 114). While the education (or perception) one receives can be superficially “excellent,”
in reality the biases introduced by an intolerant environment can lead to a clouding of
perceptions, further limiting of the leader’s lens—thereby contributing to the “blind spot”—
rather than offering a valid, truthful perspective on operations and their impact on the global
environment. In other words, bias and intolerance impede the process that the synthesizing and
creating minds seek to perform.
Since “[an intolerant person has a very low threshold for unfamiliarity” and “the default
assumption is that ‘strange is bad,’” such a person’s capacity to open up and truly see the state of
affairs, to make connections, and to construct a productive strategy within the context of the task
at hand will be limited, perhaps fatally (Gardner, 2008, p. 21). While we can never completely
remove all filters in order to see everything with unlimited clarity (much as we can never live
completely in a state of negative capability, with no judgments or opinions in mind), Gardner’s
call for a respectful mind offers us a goal to strive toward, welcoming diverse opinions, attitudes,
and backgrounds as part of what is acceptable in our field of play.
The rules cannot be infinitely variable (a state that would lead to chaos), but the human
experience (whether in business, government, the arts, or other constructs) is broad enough to
accept many variations as valid. Our work in terms of the respectful mind is to learn how such
variations fit into the larger structure.
Ethical Behavior Leads to Broad Benefit
An ethical perspective derives from and extends the opportunities made available by
respect. Where the respect for diversity implies acceptance of other points of view and
experiences as equally valid as one’s own, the respectful mind in and of itself does not allow for

inclusion in a global leadership environment—only acceptance of variable interpretations as
equally legitimate within the given structure.
The ethical mind “includes others actively” in the task at hand. For example, Gardner
describes the cellist Yo-Yo Ma’s “three distinct obligations” for being a leading musical
performer: play the repertoire excellently, work in an ensemble effectively, and “pass on one’s
knowledge, skills, understanding, and orientation to succeeding generations” (Gardner, 2008, p.
151). The last point indicates an active inclusion what is going on, both of current members of
the group and those that will follow. Such an example of “good citizenship” grows the
population of competent participants in the field of play while also encouraging further
development of diverse opinions and innovative solutions, which can ultimately feed back to the
business at hand and increase the support structure.
The ethical mind encourages others to become aware of what is going on, then includes
them in the response to that situation. By creating a safe environment in which the leader can
practice the activities described above, ethical awareness supports diverse, guided thinking
through challenges. In a way, growth through inclusion leads all participants to become fully
formed, competent contributors in the process, active participants in the operation and
beneficiaries of its results.
“Good citizenship,” as described by Gardner, can be seen as the opposite of
“estrangement.” Adopting activities in this regard represents a fuller engagement with the
process that ultimately supports global leadership in all of its various aspects, through the use of
all of the perspectives described here (Gardner, 2008, p. 134), integrating all to reach a common,
constructive purpose in tandem.

Global Leadership Plan: Areas for Improvement
This author’s leadership survey yielded the following results:
Thinking Globally .....................................5.00
Appreciating Diversity ..............................5.00
Developing Technological Savvy .............5.00
Sharing Leadership ...................................5.00
Demonstrates Empowering People ...........5.00
Creating a Shared Vision ..........................4.80
Maintaining Competitive Advantage ........4.80
Anticipating Opportunities ........................4.75
Ensuring Customer Satisfaction ...............4.60
Building Partnerships ...............................4.50
Developing People ....................................4.50
Achieving Personal Mastery .....................4.40
Encouraging Constructive Dialogue .........4.40
Integrity ....................................................4.00
Leading Change ........................................3.60
This set of data points is color coded, showing a range from 5 points (green) to 4.80–4.00
(yellow), and 3.60 (red). This can be depicted visually in a table (see figures 1 and 2).
While we can see several clear leadership strengths in this data (that is, results of 4.8 or
higher), fully half of the leadership characteristics fall below the median level, indicating growth
areas that should be addressed in the leadership development plan to be adopted. More than half
of these low-performing characteristics fall under the general category of interpersonal
relationship:
 Building Partnerships
 Developing People
 Encouraging Constructive Dialogue
 Leading Change
The remaining areas, Achieving Personal Mastery and Integrity, are important secondary
characteristics that should be considered as we construct our leadership development plan.
Recall that we have established the principal goal of our global leadership development
as one that seeks to build “emotional intelligence and a sincere motivation to examine oneself,”

in particular as such qualities reflect awareness, recognition, decision-making, and plan
communication and implementation (Perrin et al., 2012, p. 177). In order to focus attention on
areas for improvement in this plan, we should concentrate our efforts on interpersonal
relationships, communication across teams and within various leadership and follower structures
of the organization.
Further, conversations with key stakeholders inside and outside the organization should
be conducted with emphasis placed on ways that individuals feel their leaders can contribute to a
positive result in light of the organization’s mission and goals. Such conversations, grounded in
multisource feedback techniques, will target “peer groups and others who have a direct
experience of his or her working habits, interpersonal behavior, and other ratable metrics (cf.
Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005, p. 33), in order to determine where deficiencies in
communication and direction exist. Once these areas have been established, steps will be taken to
align the leader’s activities appropriately.
Progress in this plan will be measured through follow-up conversations with the same
individuals, conducted in three-month intervals following the initial contact with stakeholders
(see figure 3). The global leadership inventory survey will be applied following each
conversation, in order to establish that development goals have been met, and measure the extent
of this development.
Remembering that the goal of this activity is to enhance the leader’s situational
awareness in terms of his or her place within the organization, as an effective agent of the
organization’s mission and goals, the key concern in this exercise is one of learning and
enhancing his or her understanding of how best to apply skills and knowledge of the global
business environment, how best to apply leadership practice in the context of operational

efficiency, and comprehension of the organization’s impact on the global markets in which the
company operates.
Conclusion
We have seen that our current global business environment requires leadership that can
be conscious of many factors. Such consciousness will assist in effective planning, sustain and
support an organization, allow for its growth, and provide for its continued operations into the
future. Any leadership development plan must adopt a global outlook, recognizing and
responding to concerns for the future as they apply to a global strategy.
Situational awareness is the core responsibility of leadership at every level of this
process. This quality of deep understanding of the global environment and the leader’s capacity
to react to the identified situation within a market will drive any global leadership agenda.
Comprehension and awareness of environmental factors, response to those factors,
context-driven decision-making, and interpersonal communication align with Gardner’s five
minds concept as well as the “outside-in” transformational leadership model presented by Butner
and Lubowe. The leadership development plan presented here incorporates these elements in an
effort to foster deep self-awareness on the part of the global leader and growth in his or her team,
organization, or business ecosystem. A leader who incorporates recognition, decision-making,
and plan communication and implementation into his or her global leadership agenda should be
capable of addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by the new era of global
business activity.
Such a model for growth will also encourage cultural intelligence by making the leader
aware of global concerns and opportunities, building a pattern of innovative thinking that allows
for the ambiguity that arises from receiving new inputs for unexpected sources. This, ultimately,
is at the heart of the global, new-era business context that has stirred up the corporate world over

the last few decades. When these qualities are approached openly and assimilated in the leader’s
practice, the results can stimulate new ideas while increasing the organization’s stability as it
seeks to develop an integrated global strategy.

Appendix: Figures
5.00
4.00
3.00
Thinking
Globally
Appreciating
Diversity
Developing
Technological
Savvy
Sharing
Leadership
Demonstrates
Empowering
People
Creating
a
Shared
Vision
Maintaining
Competitive
Advantage
Anticipating
Opportunities
Ensuring
Customer
Satisfaction
Building
Partnerships
Developing
People
Achieving
Personal
Mastery
Encouraging
Constructive
Dialogue
Integrity
Leading
Change
Figure 1: Global leadership inventory, survey results.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Figure 2: Global leadership inventory, survey results sorted in descending order.

1
Self-Assessment—Personal evaluation Conduct global leadership inventory (self)
Self-Assessment—Multisource
feedback evaluation
Conversations and deep inquiry into
leader’s behavior and effectiveness as
related to organization’s goals, etc.
2 Planning for Change
Establish clear parameters for change based
on conversations and self-assessment (1)
3 Execution and Reflection
Implement plan (2), with clear
communication of actions to be taken and
means of measuring the results; continued
reflection on activities and impact (through
off-cycle interactions, conversations with
stakeholders)
4 Moving Forward
Establish that activities and
implementations (2 and 3) have been
completed, collect results, evaluate based
on expectations and any unplanned (out-of-
scope) results
5 Shared Learnings
At end of interval cycle, meet with key
stakeholders to discuss final results
(processed in 4), conduct follow-up
evaluation and feedback session to establish
additional benchmarks, course correction,
further areas for improvement, etc.
6 Repeat
Return to 1 and conduct follow-up self-
assessment and multisource feedback
evaluation
Figure 3: Leadership development plan, to be repeated in three-month intervals.

References
Banerjee, S. (2013). Chaos and complexity theory for management: Nonlinear dynamics.
Hershey, Pa: Business Science Reference.
BusinessDictionary.com. (n.d.). Path goal theory. Retrieved from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/path-goal-theory.html#ixzz3bwe0GsTL
Butner, K., & Lubowe, D. (April 15, 2014). Global transformation from the inside out, Retrieved
from
http://public.dhe.ibm.com/common/ssi/ecm/gb/en/gbe03600usen/GBE03600USEN.PDF
Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2006). Leadership development. In Encyclopedia of career
development. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Hickman, G. R. (2010). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era. Los Angeles: SAGE
Publications.
Gardner, H. (2008). The Five Minds for the Future. Schools: Studies In Education, 5(1/2), 17-24.
Gardner, H. (March 21, 2012). Howard Gardner: The synthesizing mind [video]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT-lJN6rhK8
Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hoc and a
priori tests. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches to leadership.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Keats, J., & Scudder, H. E. (1899). The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (January 1, 1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and
measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 3, 375-403.

Perrin, C., Blauth, C., Apthorp, E., Bonterre, M., Daniels, S., Perrin, P. B., & Duffy, R. D.
(March 1, 2012). Factor analysis of global trends in twenty-first century leadership.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 33, 2, 175-199.
Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (January 1, 2011). Responsible Leadership: Pathways to the Future.
Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 3-13.
Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Learning from the future as it emerges : the social
technology of presencing. San Francisco, Calif: Berrett-Koehler.
Scharmer, C. O. (2008). Uncovering the blind spot of leadership. Leader to Leader, 2008(47),
52–59.Seyranian, V. (2010). Contingency theories of leadership. In J. Levine, & M. Hogg
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, pp. 152-156.
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R.R. (2005). Does performance improve following
multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis and review of empirical
findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33–66.

Unit_5_Assignment_1_Leadership_Developme.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Unit_5_Assignment_1_Leadership_Developme.docx

Similar to Unit_5_Assignment_1_Leadership_Developme.docx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Unit_5_Assignment_1_Leadership_Developme.docx