Institute Dale Carnegie Training Personal Leadership Journal To complete the Personal Leadership Journal Assignment, compose a cohesive document that addre

Institute Dale Carnegie Training Personal Leadership Journal To complete the Personal Leadership Journal Assignment, compose a cohesive document that addresses the following:Reflect upon the overall results of the LPI Self: Leadership Practices Inventory and how this helped develop your inner leader.Looking back at your Week 1 journal entry, how has your perspective on your leadership style changed throughout this course?How will you continue to use the knowledge you gained in this course to further develop your emerging inner leader?Be sure to support your Personal Leadership Journal using this week’s readings or other credible and relevant resources. You may also include quotes from the weekly Discussion that you think support your journal entry. LEADERSHIP
HUMILITY
Lead with Humility
Build trust and inspire others!
from the team.” As leaders mature,
they need to ask the right questions—
not assume to have all the answers.
Humility says, “I’ve made a mistake,
but am ready to move forward.” It does
not look for blame—it takes responsibility.
by Merwyn Hayes and Michael Comer
• Humility is keeping your accomplishments and talents in perspective—viewUMILITY IN TODAY’S GLOBAL BUSINESS ing yourself as no better or worse than
world? Really? Jim Collins in his others, assessing yourself accurately.
best-seller Good to Great was surprised You might still note your experiences
and accomplishments in order to marto find that great leaders have a common attribute—fierce resolve coupled ket your organizations or communicate
your background—but you communiwith personal humility. He called the
concept Level-5 leadership. Based on our cate great acts without self-exaltation.
interviews with leaders, we’re conWhat Humility Is Not
vinced that practicing simple humble behaviors make good leaders into great leaders.
Humility is often wrongly affiliated
Humility is a key attribute of leadwith humiliation or lack of confidence. The
ership because it connects the leader to original Greek word for humility means
followers through the common bond
not rising far from the ground. The word
of humanity. Leaders who
has come to mean having a
have humility build trust,
low estimate of one’s imporand trust is the essence of
tance, worthiness, or merits;
leadership. Of course leadmarked by the absence of selfership also requires vision,
assertion or self-exaltation.
competence, communicaSadly, the emphasis is
tion, courage, and other
placed on the absence of
traits. But understanding
self-assertion, not on the
absence of self-exaltation.
humanity and reacting with
humility directly affect trust.
• Humility is not weakWe are often asked, Can
ness. Leaders who maintain an unpretentious
humility be learned, or is it
innate? We assumed that
disposition inspire a sense
humility is a product of heredity and
of camaraderie and esprit de corps
environment and comes more natural- because they inspire trust. Confident
ly to some people than to others.
leaders act in the best interest of the organiHowever, as we worked with leaders, zation, freely accept accountability for the
we realized that certain behaviors can team’s actions, and admit fallibility when
be learned, implemented, and sustained. in error. Humble leaders view success as
Leaders who behave in arrogant,
all about team and we, not you and me.
self-serving ways may still get results;
Humble, effective leaders know that
however, these leaders push and pull
the success is for the organization, not the
followers rather than lead and motivate. individual.
• Humility is not lack of confidence,
What Humility Is
low self-esteem, or absence of ego. Ego
Humility often gets a bad name—a is necessary for leadership because it
result of not understanding what it is. brings self-confidence and self-esteem.
• Humility is humanness. Humility
But coupling of humility with a healthy
connects leaders and followers at their ego builds self-confidence and self-esteem
core—their humanness. You may be a without a projecting self-importance.
leader, but you’re not the only VIP. With Humility and confidence are not opposites. In fact many confident leaders are
perspective, you see the importance of
others’ ideas, stop, and listen to them. comfortable with themselves because
• Humility is vulnerability. Humility they are humble, and the humility is
projected in their humble behaviors—
is a mindset of, “I have not arrived,
or in the absence of arrogant behaviors.
I’m teachable.” It says, “I don’t have
all the answers, and I want to hear
They have no need to prove anything by
H
L e a d e r s h i p
E x c e l l e n c e
telling people how good they are. Humility
enables leaders to openly admit mistakes and move on—not spend time
blaming others, hoarding the credit, or
surrounding themselves with yes men.
• Humility is not the lack of assertiveness, ambition, or speaking out. Humble
leaders are ambitious—for the organization. They are assertive—but with tact
and timing. They have good judgment
as to when and how to speak out and
when to be quiet and reserved.
The Humility Dynamic
The word dynamic refers to a driving
or energizing force. Adding humble behaviors to your leadership can exponentially expand the trust factor, leading to
respect for your leadership and followers who are engaged and inspired.
1. Humanness/authenticity. Leaders
who are humble keep in perspective
they are not superhuman or more special. These behaviors show the human
side of the leader. Humanness helps
leaders to realize they face the same
obstacles and triumphs as everyone.
2. Humble behaviors. Most humble
behaviors are easily identifiable and with
effort can be developed. These behaviors
include: admitting mistakes, saying
when you don’t know, pushing decision making down, communicating at
all levels, being transparent, being
empathic, not being defensive, and
being open and approachable.
3. Trust. Being humble and exhibiting associated behaviors contributes to
being trusted as a leader—and perceived
as trustworthy. In Trust in the Balance,
Robert Shaw contends that trust is
built with followers because of caring,
fairness, and getting positive results.
4. Inspired followers. Inspired followers
imply that they want to perform and
give the additional effort to offer high
performance. Followers are inspired by
humble leaders because they trust what
they say and believe they will get results,
keep their best interests in mind, and give
the credit to others who perform well.
Effective leaders understand the
humility dynamic. They’ve learned,
through crucible moments, observations of
other leaders, or excellent mentoring how
to use humble behaviors to build trust
and inspire followers. Learning and
applying these behaviors starts with
accurate self-assessment and understanding authentic leadership. So, to be the
best leader—start with humility!
LE
Merwyn Hayes and Michael Comer work with The Hayes
Group Intl. and are coauthors of Start with Humility: Lessons
from America’s Quiet CEOs on how to Build Trust and Inspire
Followers. Visit www.startwithhumility.com.
ACTION: Lead your team with humility.
S e p t e m b e r
2 0 1 1
13
Copyright of Leadership Excellence Essentials is the property of HR.com, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Springer 2009
Journal of Business Ethics (2010) 93:91–101
DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0184-z
Love, Forgiveness, and Trust: Critical
Values of the Modern Leader
ABSTRACT. In a world that has become increasingly
dependent upon employee ownership, commitment, and
initiative, organizations need leaders who can inspire
their employees and motivate them individually. Love,
forgiveness, and trust are critical values of today’s organization leaders who are committed to maximizing value
for organizations while helping organization members to
become their best. We explain the importance of love,
forgiveness, and trust in the modern organization and
identify 10 commonalities of these virtues.
KEY WORDS: love, forgiveness, trust, ethical leadership, caring
The ability of leaders to resonate (Boyatzis and
McKee, 2005) with others at the affective level
(Staub, 2002; Steinbrecher and Bennett, 2003) is
well acknowledged as an important element of
emotional (Rybach, 1998; Weisinger, 1998) and
social intelligence (Albrecht, 2006; Goleman, 2006).
Great leaders transform the lives of the people
whom they serve (Kouzes and Posner, 2006, p. 10).
‘‘Leadership is a reciprocal relationship’’ (Kouzes
and Posner, 2003b, p. 1), and leaders who honor
their highest ethical duties (Caldwell et al., 2002)
empower others to become their best while laying
the foundation for creating a new world (Bennis,
2009).
We suggest that the virtues of love, forgiveness,
and trust are critical foundation values of leaders in
transforming lives and revitalizing relationships
(cf. Boyatzis and McKee, 2005). In this article, we
define love, forgiveness, and trust as leadership
constructs and identify 10 commonalities about these
three constructs. We conclude by identifying the
contributions of this article for individuals and
organizations.
Cam Caldwell
Rolf D. Dixon
Love, forgiveness, and trust
Organizational research in recent years has acknowledged the importance of a leadership philosophy that
treats people as valued assets rather than simply ‘‘as
labor costs to be reduced or eliminated’’ (Pfeffer,
1998, p. xix). Goleman (2006) explained that people
respond at both the conscious and unconscious levels
to authentic leadership and observed that effective
leaders had a profound influence on those whom
they led as well as on the organizations that they
directed. Leaders who treat colleagues with dignity,
respect, and a commitment to others’ best interests
have found that the pay-off from that treatment
comes in improved performance (Cameron et al.,
2004), and leadership behaviors that ‘‘encourage the
heart’’ have increased employee initiative and
responsibility (Kouzes and Posner, 2003b, pp. 3–4).
Several management scholars have suggested that
when leaders consistently exhibit love, forgiveness,
and trust in relationships, their employees respond
with increased commitment and loyalty (Covey,
2004; Cameron et al., 2003; Pfeffer, 1998). In this
section, we define love, forgiveness, and trust as
organizational constructs that are freedom producing,
empowering, and vital to enhancing employee selfefficacy.
Love in an organizational context
The concept of love is increasingly being recognized
as a responsibility of leaders in organizations. James
Autry (1991, p. 17) wrote that ‘‘Good management
is largely a matter of love. Or if you’re uncomfortable with that word, call it caring, because proper
management involves caring for people, not
manipulating them.’’ Autry’s perspective on the
92
Cam Caldwell and Rolf D. Dixon
relationship between leadership and love is shared by
others, including retired Marine Corps major and
author of two books on quality, Townsend (1982,
p. 24), who observed:
Perhaps the most obvious thing that leadership and
love have in common is the act of caring about the
welfare of others – an act that is central to both. One’s
love for another implies caring for the well-being,
physical and mental, of the other.
Leadership philosopher, Koestenbaum (2002,
pp. 194–195), describes love as the surrender of
one’s freedom to another, an act he calls ‘‘the ultimate act of love’’ because freedom is ‘‘the greatest
gift you can ever give.’’ The notion of love as the
gift of one’s self mirrors the idea of the leader as
servant that is advocated by Greenleaf (1998a, b,
2003).
Several scholars describe love in terms of caring
and an unconditional commitment to the welfare
and happiness of others. Baer (2007, Chapter 1)
describes this caring about others and a commitment
to their welfare as ‘‘Real Love.’’ Dering (1998) had
observed that the relational element of transformational leadership encompassed ‘‘stewardship, caring,
servant leadership, and even love.’’ This caring for
the welfare of others and a commitment to a servant
leadership model changed the entire culture of the
North Mississippi Medical Center and instilled a
culture of caring that enabled that organization to
earn the prestigious Malcolm Baldridge Award
(Goonan, 2007). Pellicer (2008) has emphasized the
importance of caring in moral leadership, and has
observed that caring leadership reflects not what one
does but what one becomes.
Autry (1991) has suggested that caring leadership
adopts the philosophy that ‘‘Everyone gets special
treatment around here.’’ Caring leadership is fully
authentic in its commitment to each individual and
treats others as valued partners rather than as a
commodity or an inconvenience (Pfeffer, 1998). As
DePree (2004, pp. 53–54) has explained, leaders owe
a series of ‘‘covenantal’’ duties to their employees in
demonstrating that they care about their welfare and
are committed to their success – as well as to the
success of the organization. Pellicer (2008, Chapter
22) called this commitment to others of caring
leadership a sacred trust that transformed the leader,
and for Autry (1991) the notion of love and caring
leadership were identical.
In his book, The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm
explained that love requires that we treat people
with an eye toward our ‘‘oneness’’ with them,
thereby respecting them as valued ends in and of
themselves rather than as a means to achieve
our desires, our sought after outcomes, or our selfgratification (Fromm, 1956, p. 14). In describing the
gift of love, Fromm (1956, p. 23) wrote:
What does one person give to another? He gives of
himself, of the most precious he has, he gives of his
life. This does not necessarily mean that he sacrifices
his life for the other—but that he gives of that which is
alive in him; he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of
his understanding, of his knowledge, of his humor, of
his sadness—of all expressions and manifestations
of that which is alive in him. In thus giving of his life,
he enriches the other person, he enhances the other’s
sense of aliveness by enhancing his own sense of
aliveness. He does not give in order to receive; giving
is in itself exquisite joy. But in giving he cannot help
bringing something to life in the other person, and this
which is brought to life reflects back to him; in truly
giving, he cannot help receiving that which is given
back to him. Giving implies to make the other person
a giver also and they both share in the joy of what they
have brought to life. In the act of giving something is
born, and both persons involved are grateful for the life
that is born for both of them.
By giving, love becomes a paradoxical power
which creates connection with others while enabling
each person to retain their integrity and individual
identity (Fromm, 1956, p. 19). At the same time,
love and accountability go hand in hand and one
of the characteristics of love is to teach others selfdiscipline, self-respect, and self-control (Peck, 2001,
pp. 76–77). Kouzes and Posner (2003a, p. 235) note
that leaders establish credibility and connection
‘‘when people believe that another person understands them… Developing others, helping others,
increasing others’ self-esteem, and expressing genuine concern are all behaviors of credible leaders.
Could it be that love is the ultimate act of earning
credibility?’’
In leading by example, Batten (1999, p. 14) has
suggested that great leadership integrates love with
other virtues in a complex combination that differs
from the old command-and-control paradigm:
Love, Forgiveness, and Trust
The enlightened leader of tomorrow will be committed
to moving from pushing to leading, from telling to
asking, from hating to loving, from directing to
expecting, from low expectations to high expectations
of self and others, from adequacy to excellence, from
getting to giving, from negative to positive, from doubt
to faith, from expedient morality to integrity, from
competing with others to competing with self, from
preoccupation with weaknesses to building on
strengths, from role orientation to goal orientation.
Understanding and integrating these leadership
behaviors requires an organizational perspective that
acknowledges that people must be treated as ‘‘Yous’’
rather than as ‘‘Its’’ (Kaufmann, 1970), and as valued
ends rather than simply as a means to achieving
organizational goals (Hosmer, 2007).
When leaders demonstrate caring or love, they do
so in very practical ways. Nestle USA, ITT Automotive, Cambridge Industries, and Guardian Glass
are just some of the corporations that have sought to
create a caring culture that emphasizes the relationship between love and leadership (Williams, 2004,
p. 8). Covey (2004, p. 98) emphasized the personal
commitment and caring of leadership, writing that
‘‘leadership is communicating to people their worth and
potential so clearly that they come to see it in themselves’’
(Italics in the original). Adding that the essence of
leadership is that it ‘‘influences and truly endures,’’
Covey (2004, p. 99) observed that great leaders treat
others in the same way that grandparents love and
care about their grandchildren, communicating
‘‘in as many ways as possible, the worth and potential
of their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.’’ Leaders who love those with whom they
work recognize that authentic caring creates higher
commitment, greater synergy, increased creativity,
and improved quality (cf. Cameron, 2003).
Hunter (1998) framed successful leadership in
terms of an unconditional self-sacrificing love for
others without regard to personal self-interest. To
love others requires that we first love ourselves – but
after we love ourselves we then put our efforts at risk
by caring about another, working for their welfare,
and doing so without attempting to manipulate or
control another’s choices or behavior (Fromm,
1956, pp. 14–15). Although love may disapprove of
another’s actions and hold others accountable for
those actions, the intention of love is always to do
that which ultimately achieves the best interests of
93
the other party (Peck, 2004, pp. 150–158). Ferris
(1988, p. 42) described love as ‘‘a consciously chosen
mind-set that allows us to see others differently – a
deep respect based upon a oneness with others.’’ We
define love as the unconditional acts of respect,
caring and kindness that communicate the worth of
others and that promote their welfare, growth, and
wholeness. Great leaders recognize that investing in
others by demonstrating a commitment to their best
interests not only strengthens relationships and
enriches lives but improves organizations along the
way (cf. Goleman, 2006; Caldwell et al., 2002).
Forgiveness and freedom
Although organizations rely upon people to perform
tasks accurately and efficiently to accomplish
intended goals (Grant, 2008), Roberts (2007,
pp. 44–45) noted that mistakes result due to the
failure of planned action or the use of an imperfect
plan. Forgiveness, the choice to accept and to look
past the faults of another and to reconcile a relationship despite a perceived betrayal (Caldwell et al.,
2009), has been acknowledged as a noble quality of a
compassionate and effective leader (Ferch, 2004).
Forgiving another person for failing to honor a
perceived duty allows that person to regain selfesteem and restores the ability of people to work
together comfortably. Lennick and Kiel (2008,
pp. 106–108) explained that a leader’s responsibility
to serve others flows into compassion and forgiveness – but emphasized that compassion and forgiveness do not mean excusing followers from being
accountable. Forgiving others and forgiving self
when one makes a mistake help to create a safe
culture where taking risks and being creative are
encouraged, expected, and acknowledged as critical
for organizations and individuals to achieve their
potential (Lennick and Kiel, 2008, pp. 110–113).
Forgiveness means both letting go of one’s own
mistakes and letting go of others’ mistakes while
learning from and addressing those mistakes both
short and long term (Lennick and Kiel, 2008,
pp. 109–110). Covey (2004, p. 179) defined true
forgiveness as including ‘‘forgetting, letting it go,
and moving on.’’ Enright (2001) suggested that
forgiven…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment