Please re-write the original one “clearly and concisely.” I uploaded the example one. The contents are different but I have to write like the example one.You are expected to write 3-4 paragraphs s

Original Question:

For this week's Forum, respond to the following

Examine the document showing the table of comparisons and answer the following:

1. In what ways are the two sources suggestive of similar theoretical concepts and/or presentation?

2. How are they different?

3. What are your conclusions about the thinking of these leadership scholars as expressed in the table and with regard to additional sources you may elect to include in your discussion.

This forum is reflective (No citations/references required). First person is acceptable.

Reply to the following response with *** 125 words minimum, including direct questions to the post ***. (please make response as if having a conversation, respond directly to some of the statements in below post. This is not providing an analysis of the original post. Respectfully address it and even ask clarifying or additional questions.)

** These responses are to be informative and contribute to advancing the knowledge of the topic **.

1.

When comparing Kouzes and Posner’s Five Exemplary Practices of Leadership to Senge’s Five Disciplines, it can be noted that there are both similarities as well as differences in their approach to leadership principles. Authors of both methods have the common themes in that one should set the example for others to follow, are future-oriented, challenge the norm and desire change, promote a collaborative environment, and view contributions of others collectively rather than independently. Both approaches to effective leadership can be considered a form of collective leadership in which there is "a dynamic process that involves multiple individuals collaborating in leadership toward the attainment of their common goals" (Mendez, 2015, p. 675) and transformative because it is "ethically based…that integrates a commitment to values and outcomes by optimizing the long-term interests of stakeholders and society and honoring the moral duties owed by organizations to their stakeholders" (Caldwell et al., 2012, p. 176). It is the approach to these ideas that differ from one style or the other, even concerning collective and transformative leadership; which will be discussed later in this post.

Setting the example (Values/Actions Congruence) is similar to both styles in that it is imperative that leaders communicate with others their vision/values and perform actions in accordance with the words they use. Mike Evans, in his video lecture ofExemplary Leaders Model the Way states "people will tolerate what you say but will follow what you do" and proceeds to demonstrate this conclusively through a clapping exercise (Evans, 2011). Despite his instructions to the crowd, many people followed his actions even though those actions contradicted his words. The difference between the authors that I noted was that Kouzes & Posner focused on self-awareness concerning values as well as the guidance of others whereas Senge concentrates on self-awareness with consideration more focused on one’s competency.

Both approaches to leadership are future-oriented (Shared Vision). They are so similar that it is difficult for me to discern any real differences between the authors’ viewpoints on this element. Both envision a future-state and want the individual’s willingness of others rather than their compliance to achieve such a goal. They accomplish this by inspiring others. Additionally, I was not able to discern any real difference between the two methods on the subject of challenging the norm and desiring change (Questioning the Status Quo). Inherently, they both seek to create an environment that promotes a paradigm shift within the individual concerning standard way of thinking or processes already in place. Creativity, innovation, and risk-taking are common threads between the authors.

Kouzes & Posner as well as Senge both call for an environment that promotes collaboration among leaders and peers (Learning Together through Collaboration) to determine ways to achieve the shared vision/goal, overcome personal assumptions, and to have an open mindset. The most notable difference between the two approaches concerning this area is that Kouzes & Posner focus on relationship and trust building as well as applying that trust through empowerment of others; whereas Senge seems to emphasize a learning environment so that others will be able to expand their horizons and knowledge levels through dialogue.

Lastly, these pathways to leadership are similar in that the view the contributions of the individuals collectively rather than independently (Integration of the Whole). It is this element I find the most significant distinction between the two methods. Kouzes & Posner promulgate the positive results individual and group accomplishments through recognition, awards, and praise; while continually providing motivation to move towards the goal. Senge’s style appears to be geared towards acknowledging how an individual fits in the scope of the system and how their actions can affect others within that system (Bruma, 2010).

As mentioned earlier in earlier in the post, I briefly discussed collective and transformative leadership and how each of the approaches includes both of these to varying degrees. Collective leadership can be broken down into two subsets to include distributive and shared leadership roles. Distributive leadership assigns leadership roles explicitly to individuals based on their strengths. Shared leadership is where there is no role designation but rather shared by the group (Mendez, 2015). I believe that Kouzes & Posner’s approach is based on shared leadership whereas Senge’s tends to be more distributive. Mendez discusses in her paper Beyond the unidimensional collective leadership model, centralization and density as part of collective leadership. Centralization is "the extent to which a given leadership behavior is concentrated in one person or shared by all members of the group" (p.678) and density is defined as "the average leadership influence between any two members of a group" (p. 679). It is my perception that Kouzes & Posner focus more on density and less on centralization and Senge is reciprocal. There are elements of both represented in each of the leadership models, but the prioritization of centralization or density varies between the two.

Transformative leadership is also inherent to both models presented, but there are several leadership styles under the ‘transformative’ umbrella. The six transformative leadership styles are transformational, charismatic, level-5, principle-centered, servant, and covenantal (Xu, Caldwell, Glasper, & Guevara, 2015). Although each may exist at variable levels within each method, the degree to which they are applied varies. It is my perception that Kouzes & Posner primarily employ transformational, principle-centered, servant, and charismatic leadership styles. In retrospect, I believe that Senge makes use of transformational, level-5, and covenantal leadership techniques. I believe that Senge leans more towards a learning environment that focuses more on centralization and utilizes the art of distributing leadership roles and conclude that he also embraces the competency models. The competency model "focuses on how behaviors as well as knowledge, skills, abilities, traits, and motives contribute to one’s ability to successfully perform a task or excel within a role" (Seemiller & Murray, 2013, p. 33).

All in all, both leadership models presented have validity. Kouzes and Posner’s approach tends to be more socially developed in nature and can apply to all aspects of life, even outside of the organization. Senge’s method appears to be more formalized,  organizationally focused, centering on the betterment of one’s level of competency, and how they can improve the system for which they are a direct part of.

References

Bruma, T. (2010, April 25). The fifth discipline handout. Retrieved October 6, 2018, fromhttps://www.slideshare.net/traianbruma/the-fifth-discipline-handout

Caldwell, C., Dixon, R. D., Floyd, L. A., Chaudoin, J., Post, J., & Cheokas, G. (2012). Transformative Leadership: Achieving Unparalleled Excellence. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 175-187. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1116-2

Evans, M. (2011, September 23). Exemplary Leaders Model the Way. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from Youtube.com:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wsuWY9ya5Q

Mendez, M. J. (2015). Beyond the unidimensional collective leadership model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 36(6), 675-696. doi:10.1108/LODJ-11-2013-0141

Seemiller, C., & Murray, T. (2013). THE COMMON LANGUAGE OF LEADERSHIP. Journal of Leadership studies, 7(1), 33-45. doi:10.1002/jls.21277

Xu, F., Caldwell, C., Glasper, K., & Guevara, L. (2015). Leadership roles and transformative dutes - preliminary research. Journal of Management Development, 34(9), 1061-1072. doi:10.1108/JMD-12-2014-0156

2.

Both models have an element in common, for starters they talk about 5 elements or disciplines which are similar regarding how there must be an inherit value or a congruence set as a foundation for a great leader, however there are other differences that must be taken into consideration. I think that Kouzes and Posner's practices are a mode into how to practice being a better leader and Senge’s is more about learning how to adhere to the five discipline elements in a daily basis, both have a common vision about the environment. In a 2008 study authors talk about Kouzes and Posner's model, there are some differences when it comes to culture “substantial gap in understanding of the influence of societal culture and context on educational leadership” (Abu-Tineh, Khasawneh, & Al-Omari, 2008). I like Kouzes and Posner's approach better in particular Model the way in the book the leadership challenge authors talk about clarifying your values and that to me is the foundation of a great leader someone who can find their voice and affirm shared values. The ability to fully comprehend those values will allow you to express the authentic self and that is where a great leader start (Kouzes & Posner, 2017). Our preferences of values, economic, technological, political and social are the ideals leaders must have a future vision. These goals must be long term and it is the declaration of the ideal objectives we are looking to accomplish by using measured practices (Kouzes & Posner, 2013). In another book from Kouzes & Posner they talk about hot leaders tend to lose it primarily due to low credibility as a leader one must build and maintain credibility. The process of building and sustaining credibility requires you to take the following steps: Discover yourself, appreciate constituents, affirm shared values, develop capacity, serve a purpose, sustain hope.

References

Abu-Tineh, A. M., Khasawneh, S. A., & Al-Omari, A. A. (2008). Kouzes and posner's transformational leadership model in practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 29(8), 648-660. doi:10.1108/01437730810916613

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2013). Great leadership creates great workplaces. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations (Sixth ed.). US: Jossey Bass Ltd.

Kouzes, J. M., Posner, B. Z., Posner, B., Books24x7, I., & Soundview Executive Book Summaries. (2011). Credibility : How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

3.

** Please don’t just rephrase their info, but respond to it. Remember to answer question at the end if there is one. **