Answer

1. Article Review – How Successful Leaders Think

               Roger Martin’s Harvard Business Review piece, How Successful Leaders Think, offers a unique narrative on how success ought to be pursued by individuals in positions of leadership. According to the Martin, effective leadership is best understood through the exploration of the thought processes of successful people (60). The author uses the case of Red Hat’s founding father Robert (Bob) Young to explain how integrative thinking bolsters creativity in decision-making. His experience with numerous organizational leaders leads to the conclusion that effective leadership demands a break-away from the status quo when faced with dilemmatic scenarios. Young’s case illustrates an entrepreneur who saw it fit to capitalize on the merits of contradictory options to come up with a robust one which was latter attributed to Red Hat’s success in a market dominated by Microsoft. When reflecting on this piece, one cannot help but acknowledge the fact that unconventional thinking is at the core of innovative leadership.

               There is a common adage in the business world which asserts that effective management does not necessarily imply effective leadership and vice versa. This sentiment sheds some light on Martin’s argument regarding the shallow decision-making processes commonly implemented by conventional leaders, who account for a large portion of brand managers across the world (65). In the author’s view, average leaders avoid messy scenarios when faced with challenges. For this reason, most competitive managers utilize relevant factors to determine a specific course of action which involves compromising a contrary one. Such a deductive approach allows them to implement the most convenient solutions while preventing them from emerging with advanced resolutions. The same cannot be said of integrative thinkers since they merge the best of all contrasting sides to develop disruptive, yet, potentially great outcomes.

               Inasmuch as Martin presents a crucial discussion regarding the thought process that defines great leaders, he fails to highlight the potential risk that face leaders who engage in integrative thinking when resolving issues, and how to maneuver through this hurdle. The preceding claim is rightly embedded in the fact that change often records friction at any level. When an organizational leader comes up with an unconventional solution, he/she is highly likely to face intense resistance from skeptical stakeholders. In the wake of such a realization, the integrative thinker should go beyond rationalizing his/her action, to actually implementing it through effective collaboration.

               In his TEDx Talks presentation, former president of the Navy Federal, Cutler Dawson, lectures his audience on the fundamentals of leadership. After 35 years of servitude in the Military, Dawson defines leadership as the ability to prioritize stakeholders’ best interest. This information is quite crucial in this essay since it is not discussed in Martin’s piece regardless of the fact that it has a significant impact on the success of any decision made by the leader, especially if the often disruptive integrative thinking model is applied. Dawson believes that followers/subordinates tend to surprise their leaders when they are convinced that they are valued. Perhaps, Bob would not have been successful if Red Hat’s stakeholders were not convinced that his solution would be beneficial to them.

               Clearly, Martin’s article discusses relevant points on leadership and decision-making. However, it is fair to remark that integrative thinking is highly effective when complimented by a cooperative implementation phase. Effective leaders should understand that while their unconventional approach to decision-making allows them to emerge with innovative solutions, the disruptive nature of this process necessitates collaboration. Stakeholders should be assured that their interests are considered throughout the process. After all, ideas cannot be implemented without involving people.