Running head: PERSONAL LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 1

Personal Leadership Philosophy

Yesenia Navarro

Loyola University Chicago

PERSONAL LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 2

My Personal Leadership Philosophy

In many ways, I had not put much thought into what defines leadership prior to this

course in Leadership in Higher Education. The leaders I knew about growing up were the great

leaders that made the cut in historical textsthe ones most of us learn and have surface-level

discussions about throughout elementary school and high school, such as Martin Luther King Jr.,

Malcolm X, United States Presidents, among others. What little I did know about leadership and

internalized in my core values came from key figures in my personal life. My definition of

leadership was heavily influenced by the traits that make up a leader, such as humility, servitude,

care, perseverance, knowledge, hard-work, initiative, flexibility, and many other traits. I saw all

these traits in action through my interactions and observations of my parents and partner. As a

Christian, I also perceived Jesus Christ as the ultimate example of leadership and the many ways

He lived to embody the qualities I had perceived.

I always understood leadership as a social constructiona lesson also learned from

history class and popular culture, exemplified through the various infamous dictators, cult

leaders that have and continue to plague our world. Although I could not conceive how some

leaders could come to hold so much power, there are faithful followers that to various degrees

buy in to their approach. Ethical considerations and abuse of power aside, less extreme

examples exist where the line between good and bad leadership is often blurred by subjective,

biased considerations influenced by our stocks of knowledge.

I have gained much exposure to leadership concepts throughout the length of Loyola

University Chicagos Masters in Higher Education program and this course has caused some

dissonance in my leadership philosophy. Although, I am not sure my initial understanding and

thoughts on leadership could have been called a philosophy; I knew I had a lot of foundational
PERSONAL LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 3

learning ahead of me and anticipated significant learning gains. Needless to say, my largely

ungrounded philosophy shattered a class discussion surrounding good and bad leadership. I

quickly realized that leaders I perceived as bad could have most, or even all of the qualities I

perceived as good leader traits. While I do not believe my initial assumptions of leadership

were flawed, I do believe they were greatly incomplete and much more complex than I had

anticipated. Even if I attempted to generate an exhaustive list of leadership qualities, I would

still be limiting what leadership is.

I also did not consider how authority, or the right to direct others in the pursuit of a

specified, and typically shared, outcome (as cited in Dugan, 2017, Ch. 1, p.13), was

distinguished from leadership. The everyday leaders I perceived were the individuals who were

granted authority through their high-ranking titlesthat is, the vice presidents and CEOs of

corporate America, and the like. Prior to my collective experience at Loyola, I had worked as a

retail assistant manager for several years, followed by working at a small business as a recruiter

and coordinator. Both of these work spaces, were driven by competition, merit-based promotion,

and hierarchy. Although, I remember my time in my retail days with nostalgia due to the team-

based work culture, I cannot say that I have such fond memories of my former job. I often

reported directly to the CEO and Director of Operations. The work culture was toxic, largely

cultivated by the tyrannical executive-level management, who demonstrated a complete

disregard and lack of concern for the personal and professional development of their employees.

The previous example also highlighted two very important areas I had not considered in

my leadership definition: the dynamic between leader and follower and leadership development.

Retrospectively, I would not have referred to my former bosses as a true leaders since they very

clearly were an authorities who abused their power and created a shame-prone work culture. I
PERSONAL LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 4

ultimately left my job to continue my graduate education, but felt instantaneous relief when I

handed in my resignation. However, the experience left a bad taste in my mouth and had me

wondering why my bosses had not been the leaders we had all longed for and needed. For me,

the collective experience also served as a lesson and a great bad example of what not to do as a

leader. Although I will not spend time pinpointing all of the examples of bad leadership, I

wanted to acknowledge that this particular experience greatly impacted the way I perceive

leadership theory and informs the way I would like to practice leadership.

Dugan (2017) stated that the conflation of leader and leadership makes it easier to create

an additional false dichotomy around the terms leader and follower (Ch. 1, p. 12). I fell prey to

these misconceptions and inextricably linked the concepts of leader and leadership together. For

me, leadership was primarily about the leader and the leaders development; I did not

acknowledge the leader-follower relationship and ignored the role that followers play in

leadership.

In my revised understanding of leadership, there is an emphasis on the importance of the

relationship between leader and follower (also referred to as group member), with a focus

on the process centered on the interactions of the dyad (as in the Leadership-Exchange Theory;

Northouse, 2016). The relationship between leader and a group member can be impacted by

power dynamics. Power is defined as the ability to shape others behavior (as cited in Dugan,

2017, Ch. 1, p. 13). I believe that good ethical leaders use their power to motivate, empower,

coach, and foster leadership development, ultimately impacting the group members behavior.

Leader behavior is also just as important to the leader-follower relationship, as informed by the

Situational Leadership Approach. This approach focuses on leader behavior and leadership in

situations; it informs how leaders should adaptively interact with followers based on the demand
PERSONAL LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 5

(Northouse, 2016). However, a leader can only begin to accurately perceive the need for any of

the aforementioned if they know the members in their group, which requires building a quality

relationship.

I believe that continued respect and trust are foundations needed in developing quality,

mutually beneficial leader-follower relationships. Authentic Leadership Theory, characterized by

self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced

processing, can propagate those foundations (as cited in Northouse, 2016). Leading

authentically sets an example and a sends a message to group members that they are not expected

or required to do anything a leader is unwilling to do. Although the theory is aimed at leaders, I

believe that the same components should be enacted by group members. Standards of

authenticity from both leader and group members are essential in developing a positive

reciprocal relationship.

I believe that leadership should be shared and group members should be empowered to

lead. Hills Team Leadership model is based on the interdependent relationships between group

members and leaders (as cited in Kogler Hill, 2015). Within the model, functional leadership

relies on the leaders ability to discern opportunities for intervention and action in in-group and

out-group dynamics to ensure team effectiveness, which may require a leader to step-back and

share leadership responsibility. Although this theory focuses on team dynamics, the

interdependent relationship that exists in the leader-follower dyad also resonates. A leaders

ability to identify and trust in their followers individual strengths may foster shared leadership.

Social Justice Principles

I believe that the primary purpose of leadership is generally concerned with micro- and

macro-scale change and growth and that social justice should the guiding principle. Change and
PERSONAL LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 6

growth, however, is not a one-person process; it is collaborative and involves multiple

constituents. The Social Change Model of Leadership is based on the assumption that leadership

is socially responsible; a process, not a position; inclusive and accessible; values-based; and

involves the community (as cited in Cilente, 2009). Gleaning from these assumptions, Cilentes

Seven Cs for Change Model has three dimensions: community/societal values (citizenship),

group values (collaboration, common purpose, controversy with civility), and individual values

(consciousness of self, congruence, commitment). Most importantly, the interrelationship

between these values are necessary for change to occur.

Positionality and Leadership Philosophy in Practice

My positionality has informed the way I have understood leadership theory and what I

have chosen to include in my philosophy statement. While my identities have informed the way

I aim to practice leadership, they have also presented some learning edges in my own leadership

development. I am person of color from a working class background and have lived in

neighborhoods that have experienced collective issues of inequity and lack of access all my life.

As a result, I struggled to find the leader in myself. Throughout my secondary education, I did

not have access to many leadership development opportunities and, due to general

inaccessibility, was naively unaware that leadership development was even a thing.

Throughout my undergraduate experience, when I suddenly became aware that leadership was a

much desired trait, I opted to refrain from engaging in leadership opportunities. At the time I

had been experiencing issues related to with my target identities and my primary focus was on

just getting through my education. As a graduate student, I have made it a priority to begin my

leadership journey and tackle areas of improvement such as my leadership self-efficacy.

PERSONAL LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 7

My experiences in connection to my multiple target identities have humbled me. This

humility has impacted the type of leader I want to be and how I plan to engage with diverse

constituencies. I want to be a leader that works with, not for others in achieving social justice.

Those same experiences have also presented me with many hurdles, many of which I have been

able to overcome. Reflecting on those experiences, has allowed me to develop a sense of pride

and generated confidence in my ability to be resilient. The pride I feel also serves as a driver for

social justice in my leadership approach.

There is a saying, to the effect, that says, Be the change you wish to see in the world

(source unknown). I often relate this saying to the work I would like to do in my neighborhood

and work higher education, which directly relates to my own leadership practice. As I previously

mentioned, my interactions with bad leadership highlighted some of the things I would have

wanted from leaders. In many ways, my personal leadership philosophy is guided by the type of

leader I would want and the type of leader I would like to be.

Although much of my philosophy is grounded in theory, I will practice it with caution. I

made a decision during this graduate program, that I would only use theory as a guidepost

because I do not want to become limited by theory. In the spirit of authenticity, I decided some

time ago that I will use theory to inform my practice but that my own lived experiences

(including my positionality) and the experiences of others hold greater weight. I believe in many

ways that lived experience can inform theory and I anticipate that my personal leadership

philosophy has the capacity to evolve.

I envision my leadership philosophy will translate to practice through a series of promises

I have made to myself: I promise to build trust and respect as a leader or group member. I

promise to be a life-long learner and give myself the space to reflect on what I learn means for
PERSONAL LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 8

me and others. I promise to remain authentic to myself and others. As a self-proclaimed

anxiety-ridden introvert, I promise to work on my leadership self-efficacy, be bold, take more

risks, and say yes to leadership opportunities. I promise to step-in as a leader when my

contributions are required or needed. I promise to step-back as a leader when I need it (i.e., self-

care) or when others feel empowered to lead. I promise to work on my resilient leadership and

learn to sustain critical hope. I promise to work toward social justice, acknowledge power

dynamics, and hegemonic structures. Lastly, I promise to add to or revise this list as my

philosophy evolves.

References
PERSONAL LEADERSHIP PHILOSOPHY 9

Cilente, K. (2009). An overview of the social change model of leadership development. In S. R.

Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding

the social change model of leadership development (pp. 43- 78). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass

Dugan, J. P. (2017). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Kogler Hill, S. E. (2015). Team leadership. In P.G. Northouse (Ed). Leadership: Theory and

practice (7th ed.) (pp. 363-396).

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.