The Shepherd Leader: Orienting, Harnessing, and Adapting the Collective Intelligence of the Team Philip L. Fioravante, Walsh College

The Shepherd Leader: Orienting, Harnessing, and Adapting the Collective Intelligence of the Team

Philip L. Fioravante Walsh College

ABSTRACT

As organizations look to its leadership to set the direction of the entity, there is a model by which the leader does not actually get out in front. Rather, in this leadership methodology, the leader looks at the organization “from the back” perspective and assesses threats and opportunities and helps to encourage, orient and direct the organization in a manner that optimizes performance outcomes. Akin to the servant leadership approach, the shepherd leadership methodology requires authenticity, mentoring, the communication of a shared vision and commitment to the greater good. Shepherd leaders are often not clearly seen as distinctive from the organization [the flock]; however, these action-oriented leaders are providing cohesiveness, clarity of direction, reassurance and a sense of belonging to all of employees [and other stakeholders]. The intentions are to ensure the team members and the organization, as a whole, are on course and atspeed in terms of achieving the mission and objectives.

Keywords: shepherd leadership, adaptive, orienting, harnessing, observant, servant leadership, authentic

Introduction

The notion of shepherd within organizations was popularized by the renowned South African leader, Nelson Mandela (1994), as proclaimed, “a leader…is like a shepherd. [The shepherd] stays behind the [team], letting the nimblest go out ahead, whereupon the others follow…being directed from behind” (p. 22). Similarly, Mandela purported that leading [the organization] from behind enables individuals to move forward with the guidance orientation of the leader. There is no denying that shepherd leadership is a fascinating and unexplored phenomenon in the realm of leadership models in business. Shepherd leaders must have

observant eyes, listening ears, open minds and be focused on emerging trends. Shepherd leaders make course adjustments at intervals through the journey and should not be reluctant to take [calculated] risks. However, they also might need to stand firm to achieve a greater outcome. In addition, pursuing and capturing new opportunities while working tirelessly to evoke team member ideas are unparalleled objectives and must be nurtured. Significant literature attention will be one of the focal points in this study and has been centered on a myriad of leadership approaches: authentic, dark side, positivist, servant, transformational and now, shepherd. Consequently, questions exist of whether room exists for a new approach and can it [shepherd leadership] contribute to the furthering of leadership studies in business application (Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn and Wu, 2018). The second focal point of the study was open discussions with business CEOs and elements of the discoveries are presented throughout the paper. Shepherd leadership is fundamentally about bringing all of the constituencies into a cohesive orientation, with a common set of objectives and catapulting to greater success. A quote that seemingly fits the postulated description of the shepherd leader approach is: “Study while others are sleeping; work while others are loafing; prepare while others are playing; and dream while others are dreaming” – William A. Ward (1970). As stated in Brady and Woodward (2005), “Helping to guide others…is the secret to collective greatness and organizational victories” (p.xii). So, how does a shepherd leadership process model stimulate creative thinking, motivate as well as provide a disciplined process coexisting with humility and trust? A famous and well-known quote by Henry Ford that is corollary reads as, “Coming together is the beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success”. Clearly impactful in the early 1900s, as it is in the 21st century, as a set of principles in the leadership imperative. This leadership process model is yet to be fully studied and as a result, this manuscript will educate and stimulate self-reflections for consideration among leaders. Fischer, Dietz and Antonakis (2017) used the term process in their research to describe the mechanism, which explains the inputs (i.e., the behavior of the leader) and outputs (i.e., resultant outcomes) in the causal relationship between the leader and team members. In their article, The Work of Leadership, Heifetz and Laurie (1997) put forth an idea in practice of, “get on the balcony”. In

this scenario, the leader doesn’t directly get in the “mix”, but rather views the situation from the “balcony” and can more readily view emerging opportunities and [adaptive] challenges alike – clearly correlating to shepherd leadership idealism. However, this is not always appropriate, due to context and instead lends itself to preferring a balance of the “balcony and the [accessible] mix” as required to lead most effectively. In support, Goffee and Jones (2006), suggested the leader will “rely heavily on intuition” in regards to the cadence and necessity of actions to ensure success. Leaders aim at identifying critical business imperatives based on their prior experiences, as they work to balance today’s tactics with tomorrow’s strategies.

Literature Review

Let’s take a step back and observe several noted expert offerings on what leadership is. Several bodies of leadership seem to conjoin on the fact that leaders provide a shared picture of an envisioned, ideal future, and then motivate people to follow them based on the chosen and agreed to orientation. Similarly, Savage and Sales (2008), put forth the anticipatory leader theory which evokes the discussion of leaders being “futurists, strategists [as discussed earlier] and integrators”. Aligning with this theory, it is logical to see how each of these descriptors can be used within the shepherd leadership approach. Can the shepherd approach be interpreted as our people can see the picture, we are creating for them and then we point them in the direction that will provide the greatest amount of success? Shepherd leaders have the innate ability to see the envisioned path and can move the team to experience the journey, endure setbacks, and to herd together in times of trouble. An excerpt from Isaac Asimov adds some value here, a he professed that to succeed, simply planning as a standalone, is not adequate. Leaders must improvise as well. Continuing, Keith (2017), put forth, “Leadership is ultimately about creating a way for people to contribute to making something extraordinary happen” (p.2). Contributions in the shepherding approach mobilize and allow individuals to explore, test, and rationalize their own ideas – within the confines of the shepherd’s mental picture. This is not to say, there is strictness, but rather all activities, even if innovative-based, within an organization should be aligned with

the culture and mission. Maxwell (2003) proclaimed, “Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less” (p.64). Straying from the core of the business can bring distractions or even greater challenges that disallow high performance outcomes. Consistent and constant influence must remain true to the direction set and is paramount to achieve efficiencies and overall effectiveness. Keller and Meaney (2017) purported organizations should focus on and harness people talent who deliver to or above expectations as part of their reference to “timeless truths”. Not all team members will have superior intellect, a capacity for large amounts of data processing or the aptitude for calculating ROI or IRR. It takes a village to create an organization – the key is to have the collective expertise and shared experiences working in unison. In the shepherd leadership metaphor, there will be those who run faster, enjoying moving sideways more than forward and those that will move, stop, reflect and start moving again. It is incumbent of the shepherd to observe and orient, while harnessing intellect both at the individual as well at the organizational level. Furthermore, the leader is endowed to protect and nurture those who seemingly are in distress – educate, train and empower. If after all of these and one’s performance does not add value, it might be time to move on. In the end, the leader must make the right decisions for the organizational on a whole – while difficult to separate one of the team members, it takes courage and empathy to do so. Organizations that have consistency of direction, maintain people orientation and strategic execution have been recognized as best in class.

For example, take Apple and its relentless pursuit of consumer loyalty in the way it designs and commercializes new products. Also, firms that uphold the adherence to their core business have endearment in the eyes of investors and consumers alike – Coke, Dyson, JPMorgan Chase, Middleby, Oracle and others. The [shepherd] leaders and others in these organizations remain steadfast in protecting and emulating the brand equity and possess an enduring dedication to the future. Under the four criteria conceptual framework developed by Wong & Page (2003), the one most relevant herein is: people-orientation. In this criterion, the query is, how does the leader relate to others? The key attributes are due care for team members, authenticity, empowerment and developing individual performance success metrics. There are a number of shepherd

leadership common traits or habits exhibited during team engagement: 1) encouragement 2) anticipatory [based on lessons learned] 3) seek cohesiveness and sharing 4) share experiences and teach and 5) trustworthy and loyal. Avolio and Gardner (2005) supported the notion of “authentic leadership” as centric to servant and transformational. Based on the research and the suggestions put forth, shepherd leadership gracefully correlates. Shown in Figure 2, authenticity is depicted as the common theme across the three chosen leadership approaches. Barna (2002), suggested, “Leadership is the process of motivating, mobilizing, resourcing and directing people to passionately and strategically pursue a vision…that [the organization] jointly embraces” (p.17). Along this theme, Wieand (2002), discussed the importance of [communication] authenticity and stated, “The authentic [leader] communicates trust by being genuine and nondefensive…leaders must be emotionally flexible, paradoxical, emphatic and values driven” (p.36). In this sense, shepherd leaders are seen as providing safe passage and knowledge-based perspectives in the pursuit of the trusted and optimal outcomes for the individual and the organization. Being authentic is a fundamental characteristic of a leader regardless of the style – transformational, servant or shepherd. Both Barna (2002) and Maxwell (2003) aligned with the concept of authentic influence as sine qua non to leadership strategy while Nonaka (2007) referred to knowledge creation in terms of ideals and ideas. In particular to the notion of shepherd leadership, the presence of influence and teaching knowledge is evident in the leading of the team from the back, seeing the “edges of the flock” in that outside threats and opportunities both can be rationalized, strategies and tactics developed – all to further the productive direction and knowledge of the organization. Understanding data, assessing possible changes required, institutionalizing analytics, and synthesizing innovation into the decision-taking process adds to the thought of science and its role in leadership methodology. Many researchers also suggest that there simultaneously exists the need for softer, more [artful] “left brained” thoughtfulness. There needs to be "focusing on organizations as communities of knowledge, practice and learning" (Cunliffe & Hatch, 2006, p.34). Thus, art can also find its way into shepherd-style leadership and rightfully manifests itself in terms of creativity, vision – seeing the whole picture and lastly on the supposition that art is created [by the leader] to represent and stimulate social psychology and elicit emotion.

In support, Bennis (1989) proclaimed four themes within leadership as: trustworthiness, vision, inspiration, and empathy. Each of these can elicit a followership, artful, and emotional connection, in an organizational sense, and must be ethically measured and harnessed by the leader to benefit the organization. Establishment of ethical and moral boundaries and in some cases, unethical and immoral boundaries, as history has shown us, is within the rights, responsibility and in a sense, reciprocity of all leaders. These so-called “boundaries” or “rules of engagement”, ultimately frame the relationship with followers [the flock] as a means of defining style, character and expectations of one another in the relationship. [Reflection point: Think of historical leaders that people have heard/aware of such as Genghis Khan, George Washington, Madame C.J. Walker, Jack Welch and the famous explorer, Ernest Shackleton, to name a few]. Leadership by its parts – “Leader” and “ship” are, in perspective, analogous and deeply rooted in direction and the collective group on a journey (i.e., Endurance) towards an expectation and goal. Fundamentally, leadership is about consistency and remaining focused on continuous execution. Effective and efficient strategic communication [function and time] is paramount in sharing the importance of the moment throughout the organization and aligns with shepherd leadership. Utilizing varying approaches of communication (hand signals, verbal, and written) drives the best outcomes when selected and fit to the specific situational context. Not adhering to a “one size fits all” is crucial to meet the dynamics of the business challenge. Savage and Sales (2008) purported extraordinary leaders have compelling capacities and intuitive instincts that associate with the shepherd leader approach. Maximizing these two leader traits can have a profoundly positive effect on the organization in terms of repositioning, adaptation, and adoption of new technologies to win in the market.

Methodology

The two foci of the study were: 1) a qualitative approach provided the opportunity to interview fifteen CEOs from various industries – transportation, healthcare, financial services, packaging and building products and 2) a thorough literature review and applications in use today as identified during the interviews. The axiological philosophical assumption is evidenced

throughout the explanatory narrative and the open-ended interviews focused on values, while discussing the nuances of shepherd leadership. In addition, admittance of some bias was discovered, and the interpretations were a center of the participant interviews. Furthermore, a systematic computer-based and a manual search was also conducted based on the various leadership approaches as outlined in this research. The research brings currency and relevancy to some of the legacy descriptions and suppositions of shepherd leadership. As Brady and Woodward (2005) suggested, “Smart leaders never stop learning about their organization’s environment and ways to enhance it” (p.126). For example, look at the recent COVID-19 pandemic situation or what Bennis and Thomas (2002) referred to as “crucibles”. Leaders who have “been here and done that”, coupled with seeing the envisioned future, can more aptly and strategically guide the organization. Ensuring there is cohesiveness – playing to each other’s strengths and challenges (weaknesses) invariably creating a better organization was discovered to be thematic. Figure 1 depicts a relationship of three leadership inputs - pedagogy, behavioral sciences, and importantly, business practices have a role in how leaders think, socialize and put into action to guide and win. In a recent Bain & Co. article, Saenz and O’Keeffe (2020), suggest that CEOs must guide decisions that answer that most critical queries, in order to protect and position the organization - move toward asking higher order questions to achieve higher order thinking. Under this premise thirteen of the fifteen interviewees felt this resonated with their perspectives as well. In fact, it was stated, “this is why I am the CEO”. Again, with a look at the Heifetz and Laurie’s 1997 work, the various leader’s responsibilities have a distinctive fit to the nature of situation. Is it a pandemic? or perhaps, a competitive threat or an opportunity for new technology? The CEOs principally agreed they must be change agents – adaptive, adoptive and relevant. The crucibles defined as “severe tests” require leaders to reflect, make disciplined adaptations or adoptions of new approaches, construct shared meaning of the problem/opportunity and lastly, forge a sense of belonging with the team. Under this premise, shepherd leaders can also operate “in the trenches”, the “mix” or in a better description, as disciplined field commanders with their troops [picture George Patton or General Maximus Decimus Meridius of Gladiator lore]. They are ever-present to observe and direct as changes in conditions bring forth variables of the marketplace, changes in personnel and

the achievements or failures recognized. All of the CEOs interviewed felt compelled to be everpresent as they observe and react to contextual [financials, customers and personnel] demands. Collins (2001) talked about discipline as an essential aspect of leadership. He put forth subsets of leadership in relation to: people, thought and action and subsequently, Bennis and Thomas (2002) added, “The skills required to conquer adversity and emerge stronger and more committed than ever are the same ones that make for extraordinary leaders” (p.65). Shepherd leaders described herein nicely fit this description. Being in the so-called, “pasture or field”, the CEOs agreed when in the midst of the action they align with leading the team, “from behind”, while advancing the mission even in the face of competitive threats or industry head winds. As Fischer, Dietz and Antonakis (2017) stated, “Leadership is a social and goal-oriented influence process, unfolding in a temporal and spatial milieu” (p.1727). A central emphasis of shepherd leadership is fostering awareness of each other in the process of moving forward – organizationally and in performance. Cialdini (2001) discussed “harnessing the science of persuasion”. As such, the [shepherd] leader needs to take into consideration a myriad of interpersonal principles i.e., reciprocity and consistency, in terms of clarity and efficiency. Understanding how to persuade by showing value to others is quintessential. Having the vision, communicating the mission and providing authentic guidance, provides team members the opportunity to make commitments and the leadership to influence the outcome. The leaders interviewed all agreed on influence by listening, talking, doing, adapting, orienting, team building, learning, and trustworthiness. It goes without saying, emotional intelligence as a leadership input provides stability and consistency in the face of the “herd”. Charisma and character are also important foundations of shepherd leadership, as leaders must be steeped in both to endear those around them. Intellectual motivation, a healthy followership and self-awareness are also fitting to the shepherd leadership model. It’s seemingly about learning from our team and less about judging. Leaders can shape the development of the individuals, while leveraging the full set of internal and external resources available to the organization (Fischer, et. al, 2017). Acting as much as a facilitator as a leader, shepherd leaders broadly scan the environment and conceptualize through reflection and communication what is required to move forward with earnest and speed. Shamir (2011) referred to “leadership takes time” and the milieu in which the

organization resides will provide opportunities, challenges and reward. With any leadership approach, it is about the disciplined and stimulating journey together with one’s team.

Results and Findings

An emphasis within this discussion is two-fold as viewed through an “adaptive work” lens - defined as focused on adapting and orienting to the environment and also, keenly fixed towards protecting. First, “protection” in the sense of the [shepherd] leader tending to the team [herd/flock] and shielding from threats that may be presented along the journey or during the execution of the business plan. Secondly, Heifetz and Laurie (2001) put forth, “orientation” – the leader can and should challenge the team, while resisting the burden of ineffectiveness that may be a result of trial and error or customer demands. For instance, look at Creative Foam Corporation (Fenton, MI), which was included in the interviews, continually exploring new, accretive opportunities. The pivot from automotive supply to also manufacturing healthcare products has provided the leadership with many challenges – people, processes, and products necessary for sustained growth. The CEO, acting as a shepherd leader, has skillfully oriented the functional teams to challenge the status quo within each industry and empower people to take calculated risks and move forward with gamechanging, competitive new products. The CEO simultaneously leads from the balcony and in the trenches with authenticity, keen attention and discipline – allowing the teams to determine optimal ways to win. All fifteen CEOs wholly subscribed and reflected. One CEO suggested that “considering the shepherd model might create some increased harmony among the team”. A few others were centric on the notion of being behind the team or watching from the balcony and also unique situations that call for getting into the details to influence the decisions. Leading from behind does not equate to not actually leading the organization. It is about the self-confidence and approach to demonstrate capability to lead. Goleman (1998) introduced “social skill” in his emotional intelligence study on “what makes a leader?” and the bottom-line purpose of social skill is to move and orient people in a desired direction, regardless of the orientation or symbolic “position” of the leader. In relation to this shepherd leadership style, the approach or leader employed process is parallel to making sure the organization’s team members

stay on the intended course or put another way, the shepherd needs to anticipate and restrain the direction and tempo in which they may alter movement off the planned path [the mission] of the organization. For example, consider the case of the EVP in charge of a healthcare division within a larger business. It was recognized that the technology and innovation team was developing product with no commercialization plan or brand strategy for that matter. Utilizing social skills, especially persuasiveness, a [re-orientation] meeting was quickly called with the senior team. The outcome was a greater collaboration amongst the stakeholders, which also included extensive networking and enabling of other industry companies to form a technology alliance to fast-track the new product. As Drucker (2004) postulated, the belief that reputable executives must spend a good portion of their time with keen attention towards future opportunities, rather than yesterday or today’s snags, is exactly what the EVP did. Under the shepherd leadership approach, the leader can clearly look across the business milieu and identify the need to alter direction, pull the team together and make an impactful contribution to the outcome. Though all agreed, this point was filled with personal biases during the interviews as each CEO had a particular perspective based on social psychology influence and work experiences. Who in the “herd” is making an impact? Collins (1989) suggested the role of “catalytic mechanisms” as enablers to realizing the [performance] results of organizational goals [and objectives]. In a similar construct, mechanistic [organizational] systems are those that "operate like machines in that they consist of specialized parts that can be re-engineered into a highperformance system" (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006, p.110). Typically, these organizations are centralized in nature and have a high degree of formalization and standardization relative to rules, procedures and strict behavioral norms. Over two-thirds of the interviewees shared this supposition. One comment was, “having protocols and consistency allows us to be nimbler and calculated at the same time.” Alternatively, organic systems are those that "need to adapt to their ever-changing circumstances" (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006, p.110). This notion of adaptation leads to the necessity of an organization to have less specialization in terms of tasks and departments as well as being typified by having an organizational structure that is far less hierarchal as compared to the

mechanistic system. As seen earlier, over two-thirds of the CEOs also resonated with this statement, though not fully practiced. In shepherd leadership, it seemingly is a perfect setting for situational leadership methodology - an amalgam referred to as, mechanistic-organic. Relevant here is the opportunity for each team member within the organization to experience an “elevated level of empowerment” (Kantharia, 2012, p.7) by adding their knowledge, experiences and expertise to the greater good. A key point here is the emotional intelligence of the leader to create and promote these participation and contribution opportunities. Each of the selected traits provide the leader chances and in fact, an imperative or responsibility to “share the path”. Selecting the environment, building habits and providing a “call to action” to the team are seemingly inherent in establishing followership. The essence of principled shepherd leadership in most settings is to harness the power of the team members [followership] and to ascertain the richness of contributory potential. Strategically and thoughtfully assisting the team, and equally, the units of the team helping each other, is essential to collective high-performance of the organization. Rooke and Torbert (2005) developed seven types of “action logic”. They defined this as how the leaders interpret their environment and how they react to trials and [opportunities]. Of the seven types the one that closely resonates with the shepherd leader is strategist. All of the interviewees agreed with this idealism and in fact resoundingly supported. Let us look at this example - a new customer creates a demand for an innovative technology. The organization is not sure where to start – do we invent, adapt an existing product or do we establish a joint venture for swiftness to market? A [shepherd] leader should first look at the team, assess its strengths and challenges and then secondly, create cross-function working groups to drive enterprise-wide, collaborative performance. A dynamic here is the question of the leader’s ability to affect performance through developing resources, both internal and external (i.e., supplier partners) or leveraging them as earlier profiled. In 2019, GT Technologies, a powertrain precision products business recognized its automotive business was facing competitive and technology head winds. Underlying characteristics were collaboration, specific, measured, achievable, realizable and time-bound objectives (think of the acronym - SMART) and a willingness to thoughtfully challenge existing

protocols. The leadership scanned the situation and quickly set up SMART objectives for the company to diversify and have 15% of its business in the heavy-duty and agriculture market. The strategist-style leader constructed a vision enabling and orienting the technical team to develop new products that changed valvetrain efficiencies and low and behold, the company secured new customers and new revenues.

An essential recognition that leaders must enact is the commitment to balancing today’s needs with tomorrow’s wants and desires. A keen understanding of today is responding to crisis or in a positive vein – securing new business, as well as sustaining the continuity and stability of the organization. Establishing prerequisites for acceleration and speed, while positioning the organization for a [possibly] different tomorrow is sine qua non. Tightly correlated is “relational transparency” and defined by Avolio and Gardner (2003) and Ilies, Morgenson, and Nahrgang (2005) subscribed to openness and transparency in which leaders share information about themselves in terms of personal values, weakness and limitations of their experiences and emotional intelligence. An essential fundamental here is the alignment of people. Kotter (1999) suggested this is defined as communicating direction and gaining alignment and commitment to the task at hand. Take the necessities of a recession and the need to ensure the team understands

the bigger picture of the other end of the challenge. Invariably there will be barriers to the changes necessary, as all the CEOs agreed, and this is where and when the shepherd leader must drive for effectiveness and efficiency throughout the organization. As Brady and Woodward (2005) put forth, “True leadership can bring radically positive change…it can revitalize poorly performing organizations and under-achieving individuals” (p. 111). Looking at shepherd leadership, the leader can observe lackluster in the organization’s performance. Then taking measures to improve outcomes results may result in the cruel reality of a team member being separated from the organization resulting in the betterment of the whole – a unexpectedly, but conferred theme during the interviews. Shepherds [by definition], within the new American Standard Bible (2000) defines shepherd as, “a caretaker or tender of sheep and goats”. Understanding this is to be effective in shepherding, the leader must believe in himself/herself as providing a service, while having authority and influence over others. In fact, Michaelson & Michaelson (2010), offered the importance of leaders concentrating on their own strengths as a way to achieve superiority.

Leadership is commonly thought of as a command and control situation and this was validated during the interviews. In this vein, the leader maintains control of the team and has ultimate authoritative role to command the decision-taking. The research shows social capital distinguishes top leaders from others with specific attention to mobilizing and influencing others.

Discussion

To better understand shepherd style leadership, we can also turn to servant leadership, more commonly known for decades in business circles. Appropriately, a compare and contrast of the two leadership styles is shown in Figure 3. [One quick reflection point: Seek to understand before you are understood]. It can be purported that both servant and shepherd leadership have values as their foundation and as such, the herd can be emotionally attached for mutual success (Russell, 2001). Additionally, Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003) purported, that there is a distinct and significant emphasis contrast between servant and transformational leadership approaches. Servant leaders are centric on themselves and transforming leaders are keen on organizational outcomes and team member inspiration. Along these focal points, shepherd leaders are right in between as they are keen on providing orientation and also know they need to be ever-present to best serve. One CEO mentioned, “I am here to support my team. I want to provide opportunities and encouragement and for them to listen, be engaged, invested and meet objectives.” It possibly can be reasoned that shepherds must begin as servants, since serving others is a first step recognition and importantly, an imperative. Shepherding begins with the leader’s self-efficacy, mindfulness and extends to abilities and skills to further an organization’s evolution. Based on captures during the interviews at least half of the CEO’s stated anticipation, observing and experiential were noted as key descriptors. In fact, ten of the fifteen CEOs agreed that leaders must take a look at their organizations and do a check on the culture and how would a shepherd approach improve performance. In the end, one CEO stated, “we must continually assess our organizations for opportunities to improve what we do and how we do it”. Let us now pivot to the descriptors of the shepherd characteristics as noted in Figure 4. Each characteristic that was identified throughout the research seemingly represents and are distinctive within shepherd leadership. These were discussed at length during the interviews. For

example, observing – the shepherd has the responsibility and the essential role to observe the team and be attentive to business environments. One CEO mentioned, “listening, being authentic and sharing past experiences is what I do best.” Closely affiliated is the importance of anticipation and how this characteristic defines how the shepherd leads by being a proactive, fact-based and a sound decision-taker through turbulent and prosperous times. Moving to examination of the qualities of shepherd leaders, there are eight identified in the Bible, John 10:1-18. MacDonald (2016) put forth these as such: 1) Boundaries 2) Example 3) Trustworthy 4) Provision 5) Sacrificial 6) Invested 7) Relational and 8) Visionary. I would straight off add to this extraordinary list and advocate for authenticity and communication – both which are vital to organizational growth. Alternatively, Maxwell (2003) and Barna (2002) would steadfastly purport, influence as a required quality. The ability of the [shepherd] leader to move others to be productive and aligned with the business imperatives manifests itself as a fundamental characteristic of leadership at all levels. An appropriate excerpt from a Theodore Roosevelt 1913 biography: “We need leaders of inspired idealism, leaders to whom are granted great visions, who dream greatly and strive to make their dreams come true; who can kindle the people with the fire from their burning souls – that is what it means to lead.” It can be concluded shepherd leadership is centered on the ability of the leader to use a disciplined process, with a hint of contingency planning, to influence, and empathetically orient others. As put forth by Lowney (2006), “greater love than fear” (p.37) as it pertains to creating an environment steeped in positivity and encouragement. Brown (2019) suggested we as organizations require braver leaders and also there is a rising requisite for companies to have “more courageous cultures”. In alignment with Fielder’s seminal Contingency Theory Model, leadership control and effectiveness…is “contingent upon the interaction of the leader’s orientation and the favorableness of the group [herd, flock] task situation” (Rice & Chemers, 1973, p. 281). Therefore, under this leadership model, the leader must enable the team to take calculated risk, develop contingencies and make an impact every day. Andersen (2006) offered a supporting supposition, “Human [bravery] behavior reflects continuous interaction of many forces both in the person and in the environment or situation” (p.1086).

Bravery does not solely reside in the leader – it must be throughout the organization. Based on organizational theory research and discovered during CEO interviews, the relationship among the constituents, including the leadership, is fundamental to sustaining a healthy, vibrant and growing business. One CEO supposed, “an empathetic and authentic are clearly descriptors that resonate with shepherd style”. The environment in which the organization resides creates the opportunity to deploy leadership-learner approaches with intention and full consideration of necessary contingency plans to ensure achievement. According to Koehn (2003), one of the utmost challenges in leadership is the need to create strong followership and for the leader, as such the shepherd leader “to play to your stronger suit… and also play to others’ stronger suit” (p.1). In this leader approach there exists an assumption of bestowed power – an endowment. This is created by the reliance and importantly, the alliance created between the shepherd and the organization. In a sense, the shepherd must teach and train the organization to manifest distinct competencies. Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) purported in the modern theory, a focus on increasing efficacy, productivity, and other performance measures. Each participant develops contingencies and adjustments as they learn, and work together to achieve objectives – customer delight, operational excellence and marketplace presence, to name a few resulting in organizations must continually learn to adapt to environmental influences in order to have long-term sustainability.

Concluding Remarks

Shepherd leaders must lead with intent and are endowed to do so. Kouzes and Posner (2017) suggested in their discoveries that people are able to perform well and reach extraordinary heights by freeing up the leader in us all - this surely resonates with many of us. In specific, shepherd leaders act as the primary “pacesetters” while they work to instill and protect organizational norms and decorum. Organizations must become and support the belief of being a “learning organization” and in fact being able to diagnose issues as they arise. Galbraith and Lawler (1993) suggested that organizations essentially adapt learning as a first and foremost action. The concept of organizational life-cycle management is critical here, as organizations will ebb and flow with changing customer demands, marketplace relevancy and financial pressures. The recognition by the shepherd leader to adjust, change direction [re-

orientation] and insist on synchronicity throughout the team is paramount. Brown (2019) also alleged the importance of lifelong learning and getting it correct – learning to ask thoughtprovoking questions, being curious and ensure recognition of organizational contributors. In today’s business settings, it is imperative to create and innovate all the business practices - the way we market and sell, the manner in which we monitor our fiscal metrics and also in how we foster individual growth for the betterment of the individual and the organization. Creating a shepherd leader-based ethos by which the organization perseveres is sin qua non to how a shepherd style is evoked and justified. As Kotter (1999) distinguished a difference between leading and managing, the latter is more about treatment of change in the relationship of the actors within the situational context. Leading is about direction and vision alignment. In the principle of reciprocation, the team members perform to greater levels as the shepherd leader, acting in an authentic consultancy manner, provides encouragement and praise. The ethos of a shepherd led organization is rooted in transparency, adaptability, flexibility, and a powerful sense of belonging. Brady and Woodward (2005) purported, “Leadership can also be recognized by the results it generates” (p.20). Setting clear and definable expectations is essential and can be viewed [metaphorically] from the “back of the pack” in an effective and efficient manner – seeing the big picture unfolding. Hamel and Prahalad (1994), stated, “Seeing the future first requires not only a wide-angle lens, it requires a multiplicity of lenses” (p.79). This theory closely aligns with the basis of shepherd leadership at its core and was discovered during the interviews. Objectives include providing the team members the occasion to trial and error different ideas, allow and empower them the opportunity to succeed and yes, to fail. One CEO stated, “we don’t fail until we stop trying”. Shepherds should assist the flock in viewing through interchangeable lenses (Kantharia, 2012), in order to mitigate biases, broaden scenario analyses and fine tune decision-taking processes. Avolio and Gardner (2003) suggested within the auspices of authentic leadership is balanced processing and relational transparency, both of which can be found intrinsically in shepherd leadership. Creating highly energized team member behavior under the shepherd leadership model is about 1) orienting: bringing the team close, 2) harnessing: empower and inspire the team, and 3) adapting: clear and articulate strategic explanations. A term put forth by Karl Wieck, the

noteworthy psychologist is “sensemaking”. It is incumbent upon the shepherd leader to strategically scan and reflect on the situational context and then take decisions including, clearing the field of the nonessentials, as the leader moves to harness the collective intellect of the organization. Shepherd leaders are often not clearly seen as distinctive from the organization. However, these action-oriented, adaptative and empathetic leaders provide cohesiveness, clarity of orientation [direction], and reassurance. Have patience – but move swiftly.

Author Biography

Philip L. Fioravante, Ph.D. is a well-rounded business executive and Professor of Marketing and Management. Dr. Fioravante sits on several corporate boards for both private and public companies. He also is a frequent guest speaker and participant on industry and academic panels. In addition, he has published several peer reviewed articles in the areas of corporate philanthropy, the value proposition of strategic philanthropy, shepherd leadership and dark side leadership and published a book on Philanthropy and its Role in an Organization’s Performance.

Dr. Fioravante has a B.S. in Applied Engineering Sciences – Manufacturing Engineering from Michigan State University, MBA – International Business from Wayne State University (Detroit), an Advanced Executive Program Certificate – Strategy & Technology from MIT and his Ph.D. in Organizational Management & Strategy from the Business and Technology College - Capella University (Minneapolis). He also earned an Executive Scholar Certification – Growth & Innovation at Northwestern University – Kellogg School of Management.

References

Andersen, J. (2006). Leadership, personality and effectiveness. The Journal of Socio-Economics,

35(6), 1078-1091.

Avolio, B., & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of

positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.

Barna, G. (2002). A fish out of water: 9 strategies to maximize your God-given leadership

potential. Integrity Publishers.

Bennis, W. (1989). On becoming a leader. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Bennis, W. & Thomas, R. (2002, Sept). Crucibles of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 62-

69. Harvard Business Review Press.

Brady, C. & Woodward, O. (2005). Launching a leadership revolution. Business Press.

Brown, B. (2019, April 8). It’s not fear that gets in the way of daring leadership. It’s our armor.

https://lionkedin.com/pulse/why-vulnerability-essential-becoming-great -leader

Cialdini, R. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 72-

79.

Collins, J. (1989, July-Aug). Turning goals into results: The power of catalytic mechanisms.

Harvard Business Review.

Collins, J. (2001). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard

Business Review, 71-82. Harvard Business Review Press.

Cunliffe, A. & Hatch, M. (2006). Organization theory (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Drucker, P. (2004, June). What makes an effective executive. Harvard Business Review. Harvard

Business Review Press.

Fischer, T., Dietz, J. & Antonakis, J. (2017). Leadership process models: A review and synthesis.

Journal of Management, 43(6), 1726-1753.

Galbraith, J. & Lawler, E. (1993). Organizing for the future: The new logic for managing

complex organizations. Jossey-Bass.

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2002, Sept/Oct). Why should anyone be led by you?: What it takes to be

an authentic leader. Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Review Press.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business

Review Press.

Hamel, G. & Prahalad, C.K. (1994). Competing for the future. Harvard Business School Press.

Hatch, M. & Cunliffe, A. (2006). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern

perspectives (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Heifretz, R. & Laurie, D. (2001, Dec). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review.

Harvard Business Review Press, p. 131-140.

Hoch, J., Bommer, W., Dulehon, J., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant

leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A Meta-

Analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501-529.

Ilies, R., Morgenson, F., & Nahrgang, J. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic

wellbeing: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly,16, 373-

394.

Kantharia, B. (2012, January). Servant leadership: An imperative leadership style for leader

managers. SSRN Electronic Journal,1-14.

Keith, A. (2017, March 7). Effective leader essay.

Keller, S. & Meaney, K. (2017). Leading organizations: Ten timeless truths. Bloomsbury

Publishing, Plc.

Koehn, N. (2003, August). Shackleton: An entrepreneur of survival. Harvard Business School.

Working Knowledge.

Kotter, J. (2001, December). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review. Harvard

Business Review Press.

Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (2017). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary

things happen in organizations (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Lowney, C. (2003). Heroic leadership. Loyola Press.

MacDonald, J. (2016, December 10). 8 qualities of shepherd-leaders.

https: www.biblicalleadershipcom

Mandela, N. (1994). Long walk to freedom. Little Brown & Co.

Maxwell, J. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership. Follow them and people will follow

you. Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Michaelson, G.A. & Michaelson, S. (2010). Sun Tzu; The art of war for managers (2nd ed.).

Adams Media.

Rice, R. & Chemers, M. (1973). Predicting the emergence of leaders using Fielder’s

contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3),

281-287.

Rooke, D. & Torbert, W. (2005, April). Seven transformations of leadership. Harvard

Business Review, 82-97. Harvard Business Review Press.

Roosevelt, T. (1913). An autobiography. Da Capo Press.

Russell, R. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership & Organization

Development, 22(2), 76-84.

Saenz, H. & O’Keeffe, D. (2002). Covid-19: Protect, recover and retool. Bain and Company,

Inc.

Savage, A. & Sales, M. (2008). The anticipatory leader: Futurist, strategist and integrator.

Strategy and Leadership, 36(6), 28-35.

Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time: Some implications of (not) taking time seriously

in leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 307-315.

Stone, A., Russell, R., & Patterson, K. (2003). Transformational versus servant leadership: A

difference in leader focus. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 25,

349-364.

Ward, W. (1970). Fountains of faith. Droke House.

Wieand, P. (2002). Drucker’s challenge: Communication and the emotional glass ceiling.

Ivey Business Journal, 66(5), 32-37.

Figure 1

Leadership Inputs Model

Figure 2

Source: pfioravante 2020 Servant –

Transformational –

Shepherd Leadership – Authenticity Interrelationship

Figure 3

Servant and Shepherd - Compare and Contrast

Figure 4

Characteristics and Associated Descriptors of Shepherd Leaders