Moral purpose must transcend the individual (Fullan, 2005). Martin Luther King is the exemplar of this concept. He forced this country to look into its soul and reflect on its basic assumptions and values of how we should treat each other. This brought about a fundamental change in our behavior that started with his “I Have A Dream” speech. As Warren Bennis (2003) points out, a guiding vision is essential to lead. The speech set the tone for our journey of change in this country. After fifty years this journey culminated with the election of Barak Obama.
People who oppose what you are trying to accomplish are usually those with the most to lose by your success (Heifetz and Linsky, p. 89). The enormity of Dr. King’s journey that he set this country on created great dangers for himself and his followers. Dr. King demonstrated the ability to bring disparate groups together to confront the issues of war and peace, poverty, and race. Even with the constant threats to his life and his fundamental commitment to his moral compass, he consistently focused on bringing people together. He created relationships with poor, rich, power brokers, and across religious boundaries. He asked all to give something up in order to create his shared vision for this country. Sadly, this commitment cost him his life but not the vision.
In thinking about Dr. King’s leadership in building knowledge and creating a coherent voice, Bennis’ essential competencies are exemplified by his life. The four are: 1) engage others by creating shared meaning, 2) have a distinctive voice, 3) integrity, and 4) can respond quickly and intelligently to relentless change (Bennis, pps. xxi – xxii). His actions, whether it was leading non-violent protests, national marches, or giving uplifting speeches, built a repertoire of knowledge for all of us to utilize. He was a transformational leader. He caused this nation to look at itself, and in the process set into motion generational shifts in thinking about who we are as individuals and a society.
Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader. New York, NY: Basic Books
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press
Heifetz, R. and Martin Linsky (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston. MA: Harvard Business School Press
About Me
- drhinarded614
- Born in Port Jervis, New York, I am the oldest of 3 children. My sister is a chemist for Dow Corning, and my brother is nuclear engineer who left running the Nuclear Evacuation Program for Orange County, NY to be the MIS Director for the county.
Hello Dawn,
ReplyDeleteWhen our class first posted a list of heroes some rather unsavory characters emerged: Hitler, Mao, Stalin to name a few. When we examine any of our readings-Bennis, Fullan-we see a common trait they list in their definition of a leader: integrity and moral purpose. For me, these are first and foremost before I would consider any person a leader of any kind.
The four essential competencies you list from our readings in the Bennis text also relate well to Dr. King's leadership capacities. His actions-I believe-were a direct reflection of his Christian values. I believe it was his strong religious convictions that made him the non-violent leader that he was; taking such an approach In an era of upheaval and violence of the Civil Rights Movement required discipline and control that I believe his pastoral training gave him. His was a voice of change that needed no violence to be heard.
Hi Dawn
ReplyDeleteDr. King was the prime example of the leadership capacity of moral purpose. He wanted to create a positive influence in the lives of not only individuals of African-American decent but anyone who was not treated equally in our society. He was also very adept at using the leadership capacity of developing relationships. You note his ability to foster relationships with individuals from various socio-economic and cultural backgrounds.
Randy Pausch had these two leadership abilities. He was an educator which a strong moral purpose to cause students to learn class material as well as life lessons. As a promoter, he was warm, friendly, flexible, and creative. This leadership behavior enabled him to develop both personal and professional relationships.
Hi Dawn,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love the comment made by Heifetz and Linsky related to opposition and loss. Your connections to this point and the relationship to moral purpose are critically important. As Jenny said the first night we had some characters of very questionable moral character. Dr. King obviously had right on his side and as such was able to overcome the horrendous opposition with which he dealt. His persistence and singular vision to the task at hand are also critical characteristics that made his movement successful.
I often wonder,"Would I have the same persistence that our great leaders have demonstrated"? Sadly, I do not know that I would have in facing the obstacles and opposition that Dr. King did. He truly was a great leader and he lead with high moral character.
Martin Luther King Jr. shares many leadership capacities with Oprah Winfrey. They have both acted with the intention of making a positive difference in society. Their moral purpose has driven them to make a difference while they used their public position to make these changes. People who lead with their moral purpose may find it easier to find followers. When driven by moral purpose, leaders also have a better capacity to understand change and to develop relationships.
ReplyDelete