BRILLIANT ANSWERS ONLY

Razor69

ModelLead.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >BRILLIANT ANSWERS ONLY

Model Leaders and Leadership Models: Worldview Types and Worldview Frameworks.

Dr. John Valk Renaissance College,

University of New Brunswick

International Leadership Association Conference Los Angeles, California

November 12-15, 2008

Valk, John, Model Leaders and Leadership Models: Worldview Types and Worldview Frameworks, Paper, Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Leadership Association (www.ila-net.org) Conference. Global Leadership: Portraits of the Past, Visions for the Future,

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

Introduction

Much has been written is the past decade and more concerning the relationship

between leadership, spirituality and religion. An entire new area of leadership study has

focused on the impact of spirituality and religion on leaders, managers, and the

workplace. Some fear its influence and power and the potential for manipulation and

exploitation (Elmes & Smith 2001, Cavanagh & Bandusch 2002). Others acknowledge

its importance in a post-material search for deeper meaning, calling and community in the

workplace. Yet others recognize its centrality to authentic leadership (Klenk 2007),

leadership education, and organizational transformation (Neal 1999).

In all of this, four things stand out. One, there is almost no unanimity regarding

the impact of spirituality and religion embraced in private spaces and sanctioned in public

places. Second, there is little unanimity regarding definitions of spirituality, let alone

classifications of religion (Zinnbauer et al 1999). Third, there is some unanimity

regarding the relationship between spirituality, religion and leadership, with research

continually enhancing understanding on this front. Fourth, there is almost complete

unanimity regarding the notion that whatever else leadership entails it also involves

beliefs that sustain, values that guide, principles that motivate and visions that inspire.

Our diverse global cultures, and the leaders that emerge from it, embrace a variety

of beliefs, values and principles – in essence, worldviews or visions of life. Many come

to us from the past, engage us in the present, and shape our visions for the future. These

worldviews guide and direct private lives but also hold sway in public places

(Juergensmeyer 2005, Bellah 1985, 1991, Berger 1999, Zinnbauer et al 1999). They

influence individual and corporate beliefs and behaviours (Valk 2007, Smith 2001, Loy

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

2003, Nelson 2001, Cox 1999, Fort 1997) as much as they shape leadership values and

visions ([Lindsey 2007, Hamilton 2005, Fry 2003).

But what are we to make of these beliefs, values, and visions that affect

leadership, the workplace or the marketplace? Sometimes they are directly identifiable

but not given sufficient description (Wallace 2007, Bethke 2006, Varma 2006, Delbecq

1999, Frew 1974). Frequently they come to us rather undefined and unclear as the search

for meaning in life and community in the workplace increases. But vague references to

spirituality and religion, beliefs and values, leave many questions unanswered. Broad

and general notions of their link to leadership eventually become unsatisfying if not

unhelpful (Klenke 2007, Ciulla 2006, Parameshwar 2005, Strack 2002, Thompson 2000).

At certain junctures beliefs, values and principles require specificity. Not all are

the same, yet we know they are linked to leadership visioning and implementation.

Hence a large question looms over us individually and/or collectively: which beliefs or

values, which spirituality, which worldviews are at play and hold sway? Which will be

pursued to enhance individual and corporate search for meaning and purpose in life and

work? Which authoritative sources and model leaders will be propagated?

Leader, manager and worker alike will increasingly wrestle with these questions

as individuals and organizations seek greater clarity on the bigger questions of life. As

such, discernment of these matters will assist in enhancing our awareness and

understanding of the diversity of beliefs, values, and principles – religious, spiritual and

secular – that impact workplace, marketplace and leadership. But how might this be

done?

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

I suggest that an exploration of four worldview types (monotheism, polytheism,

exclusive humanism, and consumer capitalism) and four worldview frameworks

(ultimate/existential questions, primary/secondary level beliefs, religious/spiritual

dimensions, ontological/epistemological categories) will assist us in this area. The four

worldview types will categorize the variety of beliefs, values and principles that surround

us and ground us individually and/or collectively. We know these worldviews are “out

there” and that they are very powerful. But they are at times difficult to classify, let alone

describe. The term worldview itself is used with increasing frequency, but also with

increasing vagueness.

The four worldview frameworks will assist in deepening our understanding of

various worldviews – religious, spiritual and secular – by approaching them from a

number of different angles of impact. This will allow us to see both similarities and

differences, but also level the religious/secular playing field, resist uncritical assumptions

of objectivity and neutrality, and avoid annoying reductionisms, distortions and

misunderstandings regarding faith and belief, religion and spirituality. I begin with the

first of the four worldview frameworks.

Worldview Frameworks

1. Ultimate/Existential Questions

One way to identify and give expression to our beliefs and values is to ask what is

often referred to as life’s ultimate or existential questions. Paul Tillich (University of

Chicago) spoke of our ultimate concern in life and formulated specific questions in that

regard. We all wrestle with these questions and concerns to greater or lesser degrees.

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

Philosophers and theologians bestow detailed reflection on them. Novelists give creative

expression to them. Spiritual and religious leaders establish precise if not exclusive

teachings for them. The rest of us embrace what we garner from them.

Our responses, individually and/or collectively, to these ultimate questions shape

our worldview and the thoughts, ideas and actions that flow from it. Increasingly people

seek meaning in their work, strive for self transcendence, embrace a being or power

greater than themselves, and hope for future fulfillment beyond the grave. As the

workplace consumes greater time and commitment, these concerns demand greater

attention and specificity. Leaders and managers, reaching beyond workplace efficiency,

shareholder profit and global expansion, will need to articulate responses to these

ultimate questions so that employer and employee alike are clear on them and can

respond accordingly.

2. Primary/Secondary Level Beliefs

There are beliefs, values and principles people the world over hold in common. I

refer to these as primary level beliefs. They are general and basic but there is wide

consensus. No matter where one goes, with whom one speaks, or the particular context,

one finds people embracing values such as honesty, equality, justice, and respect. Yet we

do not all share the same worldview.

When primary level beliefs are concretized in context and circumstance they form

what I call secondary level beliefs and clear distinctions become discernable. A primary

level belief in justice may suddenly translate into a secondary belief that entails just us.

Leadership in a human resource recruiting firm from New York or Toronto may, for

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

example, have etched in its mission and vision statements hanging on the boardroom wall

primary level beliefs alluding to justice, but may not think twice about secondary level

beliefs and practices that entice the best minds from developing countries to fill shortages

for doctors in developed countries. Those from developing countries with similar

primary level beliefs in justice might be inclined to call this an act of injustice and a new

form of colonialism. Leaders in these particular contexts may articulate certain primary

level beliefs and receive sufficient buy in, yet cause incongruence for some and result in

rejection by others when secondary level beliefs are enacted. Leaders ought to recognize

that different worldview perspectives easily agree on primary level beliefs but diverge

completely on secondary level beliefs.

3. Ontological/Epistemological Categories

Our understanding of worldviews can be deepened by adding another layer. This

framework encourages reflection on the nature of being or reality (ontology) and asks

what we can really know (epistemology). Wrestling with these age-old questions,

especially if a plurality of perspectives is at play, may not be easy. Questions pertaining

to a higher power or a non-material realm will receive different responses from secular

and religious perspectives, as will questions regarding the extent of human knowledge.

Workplaces that understand knowledge to be limited to human reason, logic and

scientific methodology will reflect a worldview quite different than one which embraces

creative intelligence, scriptural revelation or spiritual connection.

Leadership theories or workplace contexts may implicitly or explicitly assume or

articulate particular ontological and/or epistemological beliefs. A leader who seeks to

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

give vision to an organization may wish to reflect on his/her particular beliefs, their

grounding and how these may or may not resonate with others or with the organization

itself. Those giving leadership to organizations which emerge from specific religious,

spiritual or secular traditions may have employees who find such views too inclusive for

genuine community or too exclusive for authentic dialogue.

4. Worldview Dimensions

Not only do worldviews (religious, spiritual, secular) have common primary level

beliefs they also have common features or dimensions – stories, narratives, teachings,

rituals, and social organization. Yet, the content and expression given to each of these

differ widely. Grounding organizational meaning and purpose in narratives emerging

from Native Spirituality, for example, will give it a different flavour than grounding it in

Judeo-Christian narratives. Building organizational community from beliefs and rituals

grounded in a consumer perspective will differ significantly from those grounded in an

Eastern perspective.

Here similarities and distinctions between religion and spirituality frequently

surface. Some feel that the two, though related, are not the same, arguing that spirituality

is “broader than any single formal or organized religion with its prescribed tenets,

dogmas and doctrines” (Fry 2003, 705). We know that today spirituality receives much

more currency, not least because it is perceived as more inclusive, pertains to an inner

experience or journey and is more individually oriented (Klenke 2007, Schmidt-Wilk et

al 2000). Yet, others claim that spirituality has historically been rooted in religion.

Cavanaugh argues that “it is difficult to develop depth in any spirituality without a

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

religious foundation” and that many people are “simply not aware of the wide variety of

profound and time-tested spirituality traditions within Christianity” (Cavanaugh 1999,

191). One could add many if not most of the other world religions.

One could also make the observation that organizational search for purpose, self-

transcendence, the sacred and meaningful community closely parallels that which has

historically constituted traditional religions, but expressed through different narratives,

teachings, rituals and social interactions. According to Fry, the spiritual lessons extolled

by some high profile corporations are those “usually doled out in churches, temples and

mosques (Fry 2003, 702, Mitroff & Denton 1999). Individuals dissatisfied or

disillusioned with church, temple and mosque and beliefs and practices emanating from

them may simply choose to organize themselves within corporate structures with

different beliefs and practices (Zinnbauer et al (1999). This worldview dimensions

framework assists in recognizing that while clear differences exist between the

multiplicity of religious and spiritual beliefs, clear structural parallels exist in the manner

in which those beliefs are given expression.

The abovementioned four worldview frameworks assist in delineating beliefs

arising from ultimate questions, recognizing structural parallels in narratives, rituals and

social engagements, highlighting differences in ontological and epistemological

understandings, and distinguishing between primary and secondary level beliefs. What

we distill using these frameworks needs now to be categorized into some meaningful and

comprehensive schema of worldview types. I suggest the following four.

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

II. Worldview Types

1. Consumer Capitalism

The consumer capitalist worldview holds powerful sway, appeal and allure today

on a national and global level. It focuses on prosperity and wealth generation, with

money and material goods and service as its highest values. Customers or clients have

priority, profits and lowest prices are the law, and authority figures assure us that

unregulated markets will bring prosperity to all.

Consumer capitalism, according to its advocates, has proven itself as the moral

system most able to make personal flourishing possible and life, liberty, and property an

individual right (Younkins 2007, Saunders 2007). While “secular corporate spirituality”

and consumer temples clearly compete with other worldviews for the hearts, minds and

souls of people, consumer capitalism at its best encourages ethical behaviour, corporate

responsibility, the common good, individual freedom of choice, and of late a post-

material search for meaning, self-transcendence and mutually fulfilling social

relationships. That its power and sway parallels that of traditional religion is reflected in

writings alluding to “the Market God” (Cox 1999), “the religion of the market” (Loy

2003), “economics as religion” (Nelson 2001), and “why capitalism is good for the soul”

(Saunders 2007). Yet, its supplanting of holy days, “shock doctrine” (Klein 2007),

market meltdown, and environmental degradation not only reveals imperialistic

tendencies but also an alarming shadow side.

2. Exclusive Humanism

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

In his book, A Secular Age, Charles Taylor states that exclusive or self-sufficient

humanism “accepts no final goals beyond human flourishing, nor any allegiances to

anything else beyond this flourishing.” “A secular age is one in which the eclipse of all

goals beyond human flourishing becomes conceivable” (Taylor 2007, 18-19). The place

of fullness is located in human flourishing and in the here and now.

With the erosion of traditional religions, especially Christianity, exclusive

humanism and its various sub-types has gained tremendous appeal in the West. For the

first time in human history exclusive humanism has become a viable option for many and

may have become the default option in the public square. For many in learning

organizations, the workplace, and leadership studies, models and theories, the search for

meaning, fulfillment, identity, and community takes place within exclusive humanistic

parameters. Spirituality plays an important role in fostering higher levels of commitment

and productivity. Individual or collective beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours are

linked to creating and establishing organizational vision and culture but not in a manner

transcending the human. Leaders and followers get in touch with “universal spiritual

values of humility, charity and veracity”, but these are understood exclusively within the

horizons of the saeculum and as such distance themselves from organizational structures

where the search for the sacred extends beyond the here and the now.

3. Polytheism

Leadership that embraces spirituality today find degrees of richness and fervency

unheard of in the history of the West. Plurality of belief is an accepted reality and people

individually and collectively have freedom to pursue fulfillment in a manner they find

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

most meaningful. Disillusionment or disappointment with traditional organized religion

has led many to pursue new and creative paths. But in each there is the desire for

connection with a reality beyond or greater than the human: a reaching for relationship

with a being, force or power that fulfills the search for meaning and purpose.

Theisms of various types, ancient and modern, have gained popularity and their

works fill the bookshelves of the spiritually inclined literati. Eastern Spirituality, Native

Spirituality, Mother Earth Spiritualities, Eco-feminist Spirituality all focus on balance,

peace and harmony with self, others, and nature in a manner some regard as new or

unique. A regard for the sacredness of all living things, encouragement to walk gently

with others on the earth, and connecting with a life force, power, or universal spirit

greater than the human characterizes those spiritualities which see all as sacred and

divine or the sacred and divine in all things.

Spiritualities of East and West have gained prominence today within leadership

and their impact on the workplace is felt increasingly. Spiritual leadership that embraces

such perspectives on the sacred and divine encourages the development of organizational

vision and calling that reaches beyond an exclusive economic or human focus and sees

life and work as a larger calling into meaningful relationship with a beneficent sacred or

divine being or force in the universe. Within this type one finds prominent leaders who

through their sacrifice, resolve and concentration on human fulfillment beyond the here

and now have attracted a huge following.

4. Monotheism

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

Monotheism, with its subtypes Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is the most well-

know within the Western world, though its adherents extend far beyond the West. The

common element in these three religious traditions, and which distinguishes them from

all others, is their monotheistic affirmation and belief in human fulfillment through

relationship with God. In addition they also focus on the sacredness of human life,

preservation of God’s creation, the importance of community and service to others, a call

to live morally and ethically, and the desire for religious freedom and expression – all of

which resonate also with many non-monotheistic traditions. Beyond these common

beliefs, each has their own particular emphases which define their uniqueness, which in

turn does give particular interpretation to each of the common elements. Spirituality in

the monotheistic worldview has specifically to do with finding meaning and fulfillment in

a close relationship with God and providing service to one’s community, be that the

workplace, the public square or the gathering of the faithful.

From the Christian tradition in particular have emerged numerous well-know and

well-respected model leaders which have given inspiration to many. That inspiration has

generated, for example, the well-known servant leadership model which today undergirds

many organizational mission statements. The literature is replete with examples of

organizations that embrace beliefs, values and principles that are grounded in the

Christian if not monotheistic tradition and its affirmation of a transcendent God. Some of

these organizations will refer to these beliefs only implicitly in order to be intentionally

inclusive while others will intentionally articulate them to make explicit their orientation.

Conclusion

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009

The longing for deeper meaning, purpose and community in one’s workplace

signals a desire to make work serve a greater purpose than satisfying immediate material

needs. Fulfilling that longing and desire entails a search within the depths of one’s being

but also a reaching beyond the self to embrace transcendence and establish community

with peers and colleagues. But the beliefs, values and principles which shape and

determine thoughts and actions require specificity for they vary significantly. To avoid

misunderstanding, manipulation, and exploitation organizations, leaders and managers

advance their cause and that of their employees when they make more rather than less

explicit the content of those beliefs, values and principles.

One way to advance that process is to examine the worldviews that implicitly or

explicitly shape an organization and/or its leadership. A better understanding of those

worldviews is gained by means of four worldview frameworks. Those frameworks in

turn clarify beliefs, values and principles embraced and distinguish them others. Typing

or categorizing them serves to illuminate paths to greater meaning and purpose and

encourages congruence in thought and action.

Works Cited

Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 81-217.

12 Nov. – 15 Nov., Los Angeles, CA, USA. CD-ROM. College Park, MD: ILA 2009