Biodiversity and Leadership Richness
I just returned from a trip to British Columbia, on the west coast of Canada. Geographically, it is part of the Pacific Northwest Rainforest, and the biodiversity offers a multi-sensory experience of wonder and joy. I love all the ways the topography, flora and fauna contribute to a way of life for those who reside in BC. Even in the major urban city of Vancouver, the interplay of the built environment and the natural environment reveal a bustle of play, enjoying nature. It is a picture of thriving in a diverse environment. And this can serve as a metaphor for flourishing in leadership.
In Leadership: Theory and Practice, Peter Northouse gives a comprehensive review and analysis of many different leadership theories. There is no common definition of leadership among them, but rather, a rich diversity that spans time, as well as cultural, gender and generational differences [1]. This forms a kaleidoscope. Northouse carefully expands each leadership model by describing and offering examples and instruments, that allow for applications in the real world.
He lays out four components:
(a) Leadership is a process,
(b) leadership involves influence,
(c) leadership occurs in groups, and
(d) leadership involves common goals.
And based on these, offers his definition of leadership: Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal [2]. No matter which particular theory of leadership you adopt, there is a process of engagement that influences a group, and leads to the advancement of shared objectives. I experience this openness as culturally and generationally intelligent, so that there is room for new models that emerge in cultural contexts, and continued validation for ones that have initiated some time ago, but which still have a strong following.
As my NPO research for this degree is dealing with ‘cultural intelligence’ in leadership cultures, there are some of Northouse’ leadership models that present challenges to addressing my NPO, while others lend strength to help. I will now interact with three of them.
I will start with a challenge. The Team Leadership model speaks to processes that are work through by the team to provide solutions to problems. Northouse’s assessment is that this model is “appropriately complex, providing a cognitive model for understanding and improving organizational team [even while admitting that] this approach is limited in that it does not include all the factors and skills related to team effectiveness [3]. Set against the intercultural reality that some cultures function with “high power distance” [4] the recommendation for decision-making by team through the use of surveys becomes a threat to people from cultures that are inherently hierarchical and deferential to those in power over them, because of greater power distance. Therefore, the issues that would be brought forward by the team would be skewed towards low-power distance culture voices, and therefore, the solutions as well. This is important within a multicultural context like Canada.
The Inclusive Leadership Model brings out the necessity of valuing differences that provide opportunities for growth and full contribution from a diversity of individuals. The authors use a Model whose axes are uniqueness and belongingness. The Inclusion quadrant… characterized by high levels
of both belongingness and uniqueness, describes individuals who feel they
belong and are valued for their unique beliefs, attitudes, values, and back-
ground. This quadrant represents the optimal way to address diversity [5]. This theory will be directly incorporated into my NPO research.
The Transformational Model explored by Northouse also lends strength to my NPO research. I was first introduced to this model through the work of James Kouzes and Barry Posner, at a time when I was moving from local congregational leadership to coaching and networking within my denomination [6]. Northouse states,
transformational leadership is a process that changes and
transforms people. It is concerned with emotions, values, ethics, standards, and long-term goals. It includes assessing followers’ motives, satisfying their needs, and treating them as full human beings. Transformational leadership involves an exceptional form of influence that moves followers to accomplish more than
what is usually expected of them. [7].
As I reflect upon the way I am wired, I am not surprised that this model resonates with me. I care deeply about these values, and want to see people from many cultures experience greater recognition and fulfillment in the Church. Transformational approaches provide a healthy future-orientation that invites people to join an impossibly complex journey for the sake of a better, more culturally-aware church.
All of these models impact my NPO. I definitively will return to this book to mine it for other insights in the course of my NPO research. Like an eco-system, a diversity of leadership models coexisting will provide a rich environment for the Church to thrive, not just in BC, but right across the country.
_____________
[1] Peter Guy Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice, International student edition, Ninth edition, Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne: SAGE, 2022, xv.
[2] Leadership, 6.
[3] Leadership, 495
[4] Geert Hofstede’s work in this area has given us a model based on 6 dimensions of culture, one of which is ‘Power Distance’. “The 6 Dimensions Model of National Culture by Geert Hofstede.” n.d. Accessed December 7, 2024. https://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan-hofstede/6d-model-of-national-culture/.
[5] Leadership, 327.
[6] For more on this, read Chapter 2 on Credibility. Here, Kouzes and Posner connect transformational leadership with the charisma and enthusiasm of a leader whom others are inspired by, lifting them up to achieve extraordinary things. James M. Kouzes, and Barry Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge : How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations, Newark: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2017, Chapter 2.
[7] Leadership, 185.
About the Author
Joel Zantingh
Joel Zantingh is a catalyst for peacemaking and intercultural teams, speaker, theologian and consultant. He is the Canadian Coordinator of the World Evangelical Alliance's Peace and Reconciliation Network, and the Director of Engagement with Lausanne Movement Canada. He has served in local and national roles within the Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada, and led their global mission arm. He has experience teaching in formal and informal settings with Bible college students and leaders from various cultures and generations. Joel and Christie are parents to adult children, as well as grandparents. They reside in Guelph, Ont., situated on the treaty lands and territory of the Mississaugas of the Credit, and home to many past, present and future First Nations peoples, including the Anishinnabe and Hodinöhsö:ni'.6 responses to “Biodiversity and Leadership Richness”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Joel, Thank you for your blog post. I appreciate how you highlighted ‘power distance’. Although the term is unfamiliar, I am acquainted with the reality. This week I wrote about adaptive leadership and in that model leaders create a sense of safety for individuals utilizing many strategies. One of the strategies is to give space for marginalized or voices from the edge. From your work, what can you add as helpful ways to give space for marginalized voices?
Hi Julie. So this is complex because you’re asking about the interplay of two issues. First, the centring of marginalized voices, and second, the cultural range related to power-distance.
For leaders, asking “whose voice is missing from this conversation?” is a way to pull together a better constellation of perspectives. From Indigenous / non-Indigenous reconciliation, the principle is “no conversation about us without us”, because it has not always happened. This gets trickier in high power-distance settings, because people live with more fear that expressing opposition to those in authority could bring shame upon them or their family if they are removed from their positions.
I commend Hofstede’s work as a way to see that in high power-distance cultures, those who are of lower status have far more deference to those with higher status. In North America, where we have low power-distance, people may feel more emboldened to state their contrary opinions and perspectives on issues. But another factor must be considered.
Finding a shared table in a neutral space which is not associated with either the dominant or marginalized group allows for a better chance of successfully bringing together marginalized voices with a dominant group. The posture of those facilitating can set the tone of equality and create the sense of safety for those who feel vulnerable.
Does this enhance your growing Adaptive Leadership framework? Let’s keep the conversation going.
Hey Joel! Thanks for your post. I really enjoyed Northouse as well. As we have talked and you shared about your NPO, you mentioned how you were passionate about creating space. In your post, you state you “want to see people from many cultures experience greater recognition and fulfillment in the Church.” What would you say are the biggest factors preventing this from happening?
Daren,
Great question. I refer to you Julie’s question as there is some overlap.
Some big factors:
Fear.
WYSIATI (Kahneman)
Ignorance about harm of unchecked ethnocentrism and racism
Propensity towards the ‘Homogeneous Unit Principle’
What are your thoughts?
Love you blog, Joel. Also looking forward to the development of your research project. As you processed Northouse, which leadership style do you think is most prevalent in the Canadian church context? How is this both positive and negative in a multicultural, and at the same time, highly secularized western context?
Hello Graham, Glad to dialogue with you about leadership models timely for our Canadian church contexts.
I would distinguish that even within polities that are more hierarchical (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Pastor-as-CEO or Board Chair), that Team, Servant, Adaptive, Transformational, and Authentic Leadership Models seem more valued in our secularized, highly-educated contexts.
The multicultural dynamic is that the latest waves of immigration are coming in with more theistic worldviews, more communitarian decision-making views, and less openness to models that come from a lower power-distance, such as Team Leadership or Inclusive Leadership.
Thus, I have a sense that Agile (you mentioned this in our Syntopical chat Monday), and Adaptive Leadership models are able to cut through these complexities with a bit more effectiveness.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this as well.