Daily Post

In the spirit of the greatest holiday movie ever released, this week, “I want you to write a theme!”

Write a thematic integration of faith and learning concept paper using a well-rounded approach to the concepts found in Northouse textbook and current scholarly literature. This paper must be submitted in compliance with the instructions found in the Thematic Integration of Faith and Learning Paper Grading Rubric.

The paper must contain the following components:

1. A 2–3-page overview that defines the course (Leadership Theory) as an academic field of study (significance of the course to business).
2. A 3–4-page discussion of the top 5–8 concepts you believe are critical in order to demonstrate that a student who completes this course can synthesize the key concepts in leadership theory and make real-world applications.
3. A 2–3-page discussion that integrates the concepts from the Northouse and Merida texts along with the Bible and other sources to present a cohesive biblical understanding of leadership theory.
4. A minimum of 10 scholarly journal references; each reference must be less than 10 years old.

Score: */150

To read the paper:

No paper available

This week in BMAL 702 was a huge week. We had to get started on writing our literature review outline for what will become our dissertation/project. The topic had to be approved.

I emailed my professor earlier in the week and told him my topic: Expedition Leadership Utilized in a Corporate Training Program. He approved it but said I would need to narrow it down. Boy was he right!

19 scholarly journal articles cited and many more read for a 12 page Literature Review Outine. 15 hours of work, thus far. This is just the outline! At least this will later develop into a full blown research topic that has been in the works for the last several years. Pro grad school tip: Write every single paper that you can, starting in your undergrad program, so that relates to your final dissertation project. I have a bibliography that is 40 pages single spaced of references.

Score: */65

To read the paper:

No paper available

 

This week in BMAL 702 we are studying adaptive and team leadership, and fellowship. I found some interesting articles that apply adaptive leadership an outdoor leadership setting.

Score: 114/115

To read the paper:

No paper available

One of the discussion board replies from a fellow student:

I always love reading your posts like this one, Robert. The experience is described so clearly we get a sense beyond the leadership model. We are immersed in feeling the stress, the anxiety, and the adrenaline prompting quick thinking. We get to see Adaptive Leadership play out in a scenario requiring adjustments of tactics, resource use, and follower responsibilities it appears. Your participants’ confidence levels must grow to an amazing extent as they take on these challenges, pivoting along the way to play a part in accomplishing the team goal. The psychological and social benefits to participants have been well-documented as the empowering experiences and time outdoors provide powerful self-efficacy and mood boosts (Holland et al. 2018).  

Depending upon the scope of the program and the challenges faced, the Adaptive approach will lead to a positive group outcome with lasting impact on the participants. To me, this brings up the blurred lines between Adaptive and Transformational. At first, I viewed Adaptive as the “light” form of change leadership. Followers must be motivated to adjust their actions and behaviors. It may be semantics, but Transformational seems so much more sweeping in demand on the follower and impact of the culture.

While searching for articles, I found an interesting read by Hovey et al. (2016) regarding female body image following outdoor educational programs. There is a documented, positive correlation between participation and body-image improvement among women who previously assessed poorly in body-image (Hovey et al., 2016). The ability to adapt, adjust, and succeed in experiences outside their homes and comfort zones is critical for execution of the goal. The self-efficacy takeaway goes beyond that blurred line to transformation.

It must be incredibly rewarding work. I must confess there’s inevitably a part in reading your posts at which I pause and think, “Well, I ran a mean Zoom session today.” I think I need to step up the assignments I give my clients between meetings.

 

This week in BMAL 702 we are studying authentic, servant and transformational leadership. In our discussion posts I research pseudotrasnformational leadership and how it applies to the Mafia and the recent series, Fear City on Netflix and even compare the story of King Solomon to the Mafia godfathers. I also dive into authentic versus servant leadership and how it applies to an organization.

Score: */115

To read the paper:

No paper available

This week we are studying path-goal theory and the leader member exchange theory and how they apply to leadership. I found some really good articles to support my arguments on the discussion posts and one in particular on how friendly relationship can erode over time in a leader/follower relationship, especially in the outdoors.

Score: 115/115

To read the paper:

No paper available

One of the key components of the discussion board posts is to promote dialogue from other students in our program. Our replies must be substantial and contain new research questions. The following is one example of a great reply to my post about the leader member exchange theory.

Robert,

You stated something that is powerful beyond its words. You stated ” Leadership must be fluid when you are dealing with dangerous situations, a hundred miles from the nearest person and hours away from the nearest rescue”. This statement is the ultimate response of both LMX and path-goal theories. Although the methods of each said theory is different, they should be conducted with the end result in mind,. That end result is that they remember what they learn from their leaders and carry out the duties assigned to them, regardless of factors such as distance. Your example of Jesus to differentiate between the two theories was an excellent portrait for other readers to be able to connect with the differences. Do you feel that it is possible to be able for a leader to devote a significant amount of time with all employees equally?  Is there a specific measured amount of time that has to be put in by the leader for each particular follower? In what way do you feel that the outcomes for each theory can be measured? I ask these question because I think your comment described above holds leaders to a standard and in order for leaders to reach such a powerful stance in each of their followers, it takes time to pour that significant amount of knowledge into another person (Northouse, 2019).

For example, Jesus reported to have spent the equal amount of time with all of his disciples, to include Judah. Why didn’t LMX work in Jesus’ favor when it came to Judas? Did he not receive the same loyalty, respect, and knowledge that the others did? What was different? What could Jesus have done more, as a leader, to ensure that this didn’t happen if he could? Considering Martin et al (2016), is there anything that the leader could have done to better prepare himself for the result of his leadership?

References

Martin, R., Guillamume, Y., Thomas G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and performance. A meta-analystic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67-121. DOI:10.1111/PEPS.12100

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: theory and practice. (8th Edition). Sage Publications, Inc. ISBN:9781506362311.