weLEAD Online Magazine

leadingtoday.org

Copyright 2006 ã weLEAD, Inc.

 

 

November 2006 Editorial

 

The Epistemology of Leadership

 

 

 

Shannon Flumerfelt, PhD.

Editor of the E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership

 

 

The epistemology of leadership can be best described as ‘thinking about leadership thinking.’ Webster’s defines epistemology as “a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge.”1   In other words, the epistemology of leadership requires the engagement of cognitive and meta-cognitive processes to develop more sophisticated understandings of the essence and experiences of leadership.  As one contemplates both the simplicity and complexity of leadership and engages in “sense-making” as a leader, several types of learning behaviors are used.  In fact, as leadership learning behaviors are identified and studied, the epistemology of leadership is greatly enriched.  And while some may consider the epistemology of leadership a purely academic endeavor, advocacy is growing for such approaches to leadership development in organizations.

 

Epistomological approaches to leadership development have become more popular in recent times.  Many organizations and consulting firms provide evidence of leadership development initiatives engrossed in epistemology.  While customer-centered models of leadership development are promoted that focus on organization goals and client needs, there is also a growing tendency to relate epistemological approaches to those required benchmarks.  Connected to the use of common metrics and customized measures of performance effectiveness, a system of learning experiences are also often provided emphasizing epistemological development.  Leadership learning experiences such as reflective practice, self-assessment, 360° feedback, mentorships, and manager-lead coaching, are examples of such techniques.2,3 

 

Leadership development is now becoming more strategically focused on current goals and benchmarks of the organization coupled with an emphasis on increased understandings of the philosophical and contextual underpinnings of personal leadership practice.   Jenlink (2006) describes this as bricoleur, “. . . a construction that arises from the reflexive interactions of different types of knowledge . . . in relation to social contexts, cultural patterns, and social actions and activities that comprise the daily events  . . . .” (p. 54). 4   An examination of workforce trends shows a rapid growth of jobs that rely on high level analyses of complex interactions.  Described as “tacit interaction” jobs, these now make up 70% of the new jobs created in the last decade.5   Tacit interaction-based employees benefit from understanding their behavior patterns and metacognitive thinking as stakeholders in the organization.  

 

In using epistemological methods for leadership development, organizations engage in leadership development as a knowledge management initiative.  This means that promoting learning and growth for leaders is based on knowledge that is both explicit and tacit.  Under these conditions, leadership is understood as effective performance and demonstrated potential for positively impacting the organization, and also as the leader’s emotional intelligence.  Goleman’s (1995) research describes how emotional intelligence, in fact, surpasses technical competence at a progressive rate as a leader moves up in the organization.6  In this regard, Bennis relies on the epistemological side of leadership as he describes it as “qualities of the heart.”7   Kouzes and Posner highlight the importance of the tacit aspects of organizational knowledge that serve to enhance employee development initiatives. 8  Thomas (2006) explains how important it is for  emerging leaders to lead from a well-formed philosophical base.9  Duffy (2006) describes how educational leaders need to develop the tacit aspects of trust, commitment and collaboration to effect change.10  Blanchard and O’Connor (1997) describe the importance of taking time to understand oneself and one’s thinking about leadership.11  

 

These ideas represent breakthrough thinking about leadership as a system of learning.  Such evolved approaches move leadership development beyond traditionally-conceived checklists of competencies, which solely focus on what the leader does.  What is being discovered is that what a leader thinks and how a leader develops and learns is intricately connected to what they do.

 

For the last seven years, I have been studying the learning processes of leaders in order to enrich the epistemology of leadership.   Emerging leaders sincerely engaged in becoming more committed and more effective reveal some surprising learning behaviors.  Understanding what leadership learning behaviors are and how they connect as elements of a leadership learning system has been helpful to these leaders and to me as I facilitate various learning processes for them.  Initially, I was not sure if I would find out anything of value regarding the epistemology of leadership since understanding leadership learning processes was not a common topic in the field.  I was not even sure if these leaders would be able to “think about their leadership thinking” in an intelligent way and then articulate those processes to me.  Fortunately, my fears were unfounded and they were able to tell me what their learning looked like.  I also found that as I talked with them about their individual leadership learning systems, they were able to focus more specifically on strategies that built on their preferences and developed their weaknesses. 

 

To date, I have found three major ideas regarding the epistemology of leadership and leadership learning behaviors:

 

1.                        Leadership learning is not a linear process.  It is a systemic process with several interactive elements operating in relation to each other. 

2.                        Some leadership learning behaviors are more risky than others.

3.                        Leadership learning processes are not generic.  Leadership learning is not random.  Leadership learning processes are deliberate, specific, individualized and based on preferences. 

4.                        There are common metrics of leadership learning in the general areas of knowledge development, values development and application development.

 

These findings proved substantial as I considered how I “taught” leadership.  Namely, I had to recognize that taking the traditional approach of presenting knowledge in the field was not enough to support the learning process.  I had to find ways to integrate knowledge development with values development, values development with application, and application with knowledge. Furthermore, since emerging leaders used preferred sequences of learning, differentiating learning experiences were appropriate.  In addition, when emerging leaders understood how they preferred to learn, they could consider the costs/benefits of using alternative approaches to their leadership success.

 

The epistemology of leadership surely requires systems thinking, engaging in discovery of the important inputs and essential outputs of the system as well as the processes of the system, the journey of learning.  Such approaches find little in common with traditional leadership development training. 

Moore states,

 

The biggest change in mindset that today’s leaders can make is a shift from conceiving their businesses as hierarchical organizations to envisioning themselves as participants in a world of complex evolving systems. The new strategic paradigm involves exerting leadership—not control—over communities of individuals and organizations. It involves respecting and taking advantage of the intelligence of others around you, and working together to create new innovation. It involves shaping the future, rather than simply defending the enterprises of the past. (1998, p. 167) 12

References:

1Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1986).  Avenel, NJ:  Random House Value Publishing, Inc., p. 480.

2Corporate Executive Board (n.d.).  Learning and development roundtable:  Aligning L&D strategy with business strategy.  Retrieved November 5, 2006 from http://www.ldr.executiveboard.com/TD/1,2847,0-0-Public_Display-133885,00.html

3Forum (n.d.)  Leadership development:  Capabilities overview.  Retrieved November 6, 2006 from http://www.forum.com/leadership_development/capabilities_overview-81.aspx

4Jenlink, P. M. (2006).  The school leader as bricoleur:  Developing scholarly practitioners for our schools.  NCPEA Education Leadership Review, 7(2), pp. 54-69.

5Johnson, B. C., Manyika, J. M. & Yee, L. A. (2005).  The next revolution in interactions.  The McKinsey Quarterly:  The Online Journal of McKinsey & Co., 4.  Retrieved November 4, 2006 from http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/article_page.aspx?ar=1690&L2=18&L3=30&srid=6&gp=1

6Goleman, D. (1995).  Emotional intelligence:  Why it can matter more the IQ.  New York:  Bantam Books.

7Bennis, W.  (1999).  The leadership advantage.  Leader to Leader, 12.  Retrieved November 5, 2006 from http://leadertoleader.org/leaderbooks/L2L/spring99/bennis.html

8Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z.  (1995).  The leadership challenge:  How to keep getting extraordinary things done in organizations.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

9Thomas, G. L. (2006).  52 leadership tips:  That will change how you lead others.  Livermore, CA:  WingSpan Press.

10Duffy, F. M. (2006).  Trust, commitment and collaboration:  Necessary conditions for leading whole-system change in school districts.  School Leadership Review, 1(2), pp. 11-19.

11 Blanchard, K. & O’Connor, M.  (1997).  Managing by values.  San Francisco:  Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

12Moore, J. F. (1998).  The rise of a new corporate form [Electronic version].  Washington Quarterly (21), 1, 167-181.

 

 

 

Comments to: flumerfe@leadingtoday.org

 

 

 

About the author:

 

Shannon Flumerfelt, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at Oakland University. Previously, she worked in public school administration and teaching, which included leadership development initiatives, restructuring schools with the Coalition of Essential Schools’ principles and other various change issues related to traditionally-based settings. Her scholarly interests include organizational leadership change and development and technology.