Week 2 dialogue chapter 2 of good to great | busn470 | Regent University
Your original initial post should be between 200-300 words and 2 peer responses in the range of 75-125 words each. Posts are too brief for a cover page and double-spacing. Otherwise, your posts, references and citations should be in APA format. The rubrics with Biblical Integration determines your grade. It considers:
- Providing a short introduction stating your position and argument
- Supporting your argument (intext citing shows this)
- When all is done, give a brief conclusion
- a reference at the end
In this chapter, Collins begins the process of identifying and further developing from the research those unique factors and variables that differentiated the good and great companies. One of the most significant differences, he asserts, is the quality and nature of leadership in the firm. Collins initially told the research team to downplay the role of top executives in the good-to-great process. It became obvious that there was something different that these leaders did. Collins went on to identify “Level 5 leadership” as a common characteristic of the great companies assessed in the study. By further studying the behaviors and attitudes of so-called Level 5 leaders, Collins found that many of those classified in this group displayed an unusual mix of intense determination and profound humility. Characteristics used to describe these leaders included words like quiet, humble, modest, gracious, and understated. Yet there was also the stoic resolve and an unwavering determination evident. They were low-key executives, rarely appearing in the media, who demonstrated a relentless drive for results. These leaders often had a long-term personal sense of investment in the company and its success, often cultivated through a career-spanning climb up the company’s ranks. The personal ego and individual financial gain were not as important as the long-term benefit of the team and the company. As such, Collins warned of the liability involved in employing a bigger-than-life charismatic leader —personalities often brought in from outside the company or organization by a board seeking a high profile figure. The data suggested that a celebrity CEO brought in to turn around a flailing firm was usually not conducive to fostering the transition from Good to Great (Collins, 2001).
Why is this important?
Collins was asked and did not want to use “servant leader” for the Level 5 leader (Lichtenwalner, 2012). The team chose the term, “Level 5 Leadership” over Servant Leadership, in part, for fear readers would misinterpret the concept as “servitude” or “weakness.” In his mind, this position looked like something else. And so a new leadership phrase was born. What is interesting is that many but not all of the leaders profiled had a faith background. Lichtenwalner, (2012) in his research suggests that Servant Leadership is a key aspect of Level 5 Leadership. But perhaps it is not the technique but the heart and faith of the leader that had such a significant impact. How do the faith and the heart of the leader differentiate the follower of Christ from other leaders in the marketplace? Are those who serve as Christ only classified as servant leaders?
Some contemporary descriptions of the leadership style of Jesus have included the following:
• Jesus the Selfless Leader (Kimball, 1977)
• Jesus, CEO (Jones, 1995)
• Jesus the Strategic Leader (Martin, 2000).
• Jesus: Shepherd Model of Leadership (Starling, 2009; Foster, 2010)
But perhaps we need to find new terms for classifying a Christ-following leader and not be locked into the expected vernacular. Take some time to examine this topic. Respond to these thoughts by posting a detailed initial thread on this topic in the Blackboard Discussion Board. Some researchers and authors have suggested that the purest form of leadership demonstrated by Jesus was that of Servant Leadership (Blanchard and Hodges, 2003; Harris, 2010; Grahn, 2011, among many others).