Running head: GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 1

Growth Through Collaboration: A Leadership Philosophy

Fernando Arce

Loyola University
GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 2

Early Understanding of Leadership

My mom was a zone supervisor at Alpino— a chain of supermarkets throughout Mexico City—

for all the stores in the state. From her, I learned that in order to create sustainable, hard-

working, and respectful relationships with folks, I needed to earn their respect. Everyone loved

my mom and it showed when she would visit each location. She would ask about their families,

their day, in what ways were they struggling, and what ways they could come up with a solution

to manage these obstacles. By demonstrating empathy and patience, the people that she was

working with respected her which, in turn, helped my mom perform her duties as zone

supervisor. This is the basis of how my own leadership philosophy is shaped. I am creating a

philosophy that presents itself with opportunities for reflection, engagement, development, and

growth through collaboration.

Growth Through Collaboration

In this essay, I engage the literature surrounding portions of the authentic leadership

model, servant leadership model, emotionally intelligent leadership model, and leader-member

exchange (LMX) theory. Specifically, I will utilize the LMX theory as the foundation for my

leadership philosophy and incorporate the benefits of the other models in order to minimize the

limitations of this theory. My hope is that by bringing in the advantages of each model and

building off the theory, I can counteract the theory’s limitations and present a philosophy that

establishes a collaborative leadership process. Ultimately, this collaborative leadership looks at

promoting growth in the students I work with and in myself through a collaborative process.

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

I chose to use the LMX theory as the foundation for my leadership philosophy because of

the 1:1 interaction component. In my internship at the Office of Student Conduct & Conflict
GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 3

Resolution (OSCCR) and at my part-time job at the University of Chicago Booth School of

Business, I have weekly 1:1s with my supervisors to not only discuss on what I am working on

but also, to understand what I am doing outside in my daily life. At first I was confused why

someone that I worked with would ask me what classes I was taking and what projects I was

working on but the more I talked to them about these things, the more I found myself becoming

more comfortable with them. In a way, these conversations began to crumple the wall that I had

placed between them and I. These 1:1s created a space of authenticity and exchange of ideas that

helped me in my own personal development as much as it helped me on my own professional

development as a member of each of these universities.

LMX theory and its impact

What I find interesting from the LMX theory is that it describes an exchange of services

between leader and member and in return, the member will receive special treatment. For the

group that receive this special treatment, Dansereau, Graen, & Haga (1975) calls them the ‘in-

group’ while those that do not receive this special treatment are the ‘out-group.’ As cited in

Northouse (2016), Dansereau et al. (1975) mention that in addition to these preferential

practices; “they are more dependable, more highly involved, and more communicative than out-

group followers (Northouse, 2016, p. 138). This is a contrast to the out-group since they do not

feel connection to the leader, they do not put as much effort as the in-group. The advantageous

aspect of this theory is that it looks at how can leaders work with members in their organizations

to work and achieve goals in an efficient way.

Merits for philosophy foundation

While the merits are highlighted in the way the theory describes the interactions between

the leader and the in-group members, there are areas for improvement, specifically looking at the
GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 4

out-group members. The LMX theory is split into three phases that explore levels of interactions

between leaders and members. In the first phase, the interactions between leader and members

are very much scripted meaning that both parties are presenting themselves in a way that aligns

to what their positional title or role may be. Furthermore, in this phase, the influence lies within

the leader and it is shared to the member with this exchange being of very low quality.

Ultimately, the interest is on the self and what the leader can get from the follower and vice-

versa.

The ‘Acquaintance’ is the second phase in this theory where roles begin to be tested and

the exchange of influence begins to become mixed. This meaning, both leader and follower

begin to really increase the level of exchanges and look at the interest of one another. This phase

typically comes after the member and the leader have begun to feel comfortable in this space.

Finally, the third phase or ‘Partnership’ roles begin to be negotiated, meaning that the prescribed

roles of each position can become negotiated to co-create a role that fits with what the leader and

the follower want. This change looks at how the influence between leader and follower develops

into a reciprocal high quality exchange where interests are group focused more so than just

looking at one’s own interests (Northouse, 2016).

These phases do well in showcasing the phases that new members present themselves for

the first time to the leader in their organization or workplace. I saw these phases in my own

professional development while I was interning at the Office of Student Conduct & Conflict

Resolution (OSCCR) these past two semesters. I remember that the first time I had a 1:1 with

my supervisor, it was very much us sticking to our positional roles and the dialogue that we

would create was very much on the work that needed to get done in the office and the support

that they could provide for me. As I became competent and comfortable with everyone in the
GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 5

office, I saw my progression to phase two and three where my interactions with my supervisor

moved from superficial conversations on things that the office needed me to complete to more

in-depth check-ins that encompassed my self-care, work, school, and personal life. Being able to

move from rigidness to authenticity in this new environment really helped me feel welcomed in

the office and have my perspectives appreciated.

Limitations

The LMX has limitations and criticism concerning the topic of fairness. While the theory

highlights that when the leader creates bonds with members of the in-group, automatically there

are folks that may not be part of that group. In these cases, these members are in the out-group

which demonstrate lack for dedication in the organization. This is a result from noticing the

preferential treatment provided to those in the in-group from the leader. Additionally, another

criticism is that the theory does not fully explain how these high-quality leader-member

exchanges are created (Anand, Hu, Liden, Vidyarthi, 2011). In the same regard, the studies that

have provided some insight into this theory, “have used different scales “with different levels of

analysis, so the results are not always directly comparable. Furthermore, the content validity and

dimensionality of the scales have been questioned (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995); Schriesheim,

Castor, Zhou, et al., 2001)” as cited in Northouse (2016). Essentially, the limitations of this

theory have influenced the inclusion of other leadership models for they bring pros that will help

minimize the limitations from this theory seeping through to my own leadership philosophy.

Authentic Leadership and Servant Leadership

Authenticity is an important aspect in what I believe a good leader to incorporate in their

practice. While my mom worked as a supervisor, she was authentic to her coworkers and the

people that she was responsible for at each of the locations she visited. By always being her
GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 6

true-self, she was admired and people gravitated to her. I aspire to be like my mother and in that

regard, I bring in authentic leadership into the conversation on my leadership philosophy.

Servant leadership is the model that my fraternity, Alpha Phi Omega, uses in partnership

with our three cardinal principles: Leadership, Friendship, and Service. These pillars go hand-in-

hand with servant leadership because the model focuses on what others and their growth. As

soon as I became a chapter member, I ran for an executive board position that allowed me to

develop my leadership ability. With this, I was granted access to see how a fraternity function

behind the scenes and I witnessed the collaboration between each member on the executive

board and chapter. Every time we created a plan for a fellowship event or service event, we

always discussed how this would provide developmental opportunities for our members, the

impact on the community, and growth for ourselves. Servant leadership was instrumental to my

own development during my undergraduate education that seeing the benefits first-hand, gave

me the confidence to incorporate aspects of it to my own leadership philosophy.

Authentic Leadership and its impact

To help students, I first need to be aware of my own strengths and what limitations I may

possess. A component in the conversation concerning authentic leadership is in its focus on the

development of self. As described in the Kiersch & Peters (2017) piece on authentic and servant

leaderships; “Authentic leadership emphasizes self-awareness, acting in accordance with values,

balanced and unbiased decision-making and building trust-based relationships” (Kiersch, C.,

Peters, J. 2017. p. 149). When put this model in practice, it is my hope that students will be

able to see that I can be vulnerable and open with them and they in turn, will be more inclined to

reciprocate vulnerability. When there is trust between practitioner and students, there is a

strengthened bond that helps with engagement in the process of leadership.

GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 7

Servant Leadership and its impact

Once I have taken time to reflect on who I am as a practitioner and I understand the steps

required of me to be effective in my area, I will be able to turn my attention on the development

of the students that I work with. Whereas authentic leadership places a focus on self-awareness

and on the self, servant leadership works as a model where the focus lies on a; “follower’s

growth and empowerment, a sense of community stewardship, and further emphasis on ethics,

humility, and moral behavior” (Kiersch, C., Peters, J. 2017. p. 149). To me, this model serves

as a way for student development to be the forefront of the conversation. When put into

practice, my hope is that I am not only able to model leadership to students that I work with but

also, be able to provide opportunity to help them develop skills that empower them to enact

change whether it be on campus or in their communities.

Merits of a combined framework

While it is true that to be effective practitioners, we need to be able to know ourselves—

whether it be our strengths, limitations, or values—before we can take the role of working and

helping our students, we also need to be prepared to answer, “What did I leave this student

with?” By incorporating the area of self-awareness from the authentic leadership model and

coupling it with the drive of engaging the development process of students that we get from the

servant leadership model, we can see the framework that is described in the literature as;

“positive, ethical, trust based, and pro-social leadership” (Kiersch, C., Peters, J. 2017. p. 149).

This in turn brings into account the parameters for a holistic developmental process for students

and practitioners as they both go through the journey of collaboration. Furthermore, the

literature appraises the frameworks of these two combined models stating; “[there has] been

growing empirical support for their positive ethical impact and leadership development […]
GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 8

[fitting] the ‘leadership inward and outward’ approach required by behavioral ethics principles”

(Kiersch, C., Peters, J. 2017. p. 149). With the combined models, I approach the avenue of

reflection and engagement. Reflection on what we can provide and what we need to work on as

well as an engagement in activities that provide opportunity for growth.

Emotionally Intelligent Leadership (EIL)

In terms of using the EIL model, I wanted to find a model that was consistent with the

type of leader that I want to work with. In my own experience, I thrived with supervisors that

were very much so self-aware because it translated to the tone of our conversations. They did

not have to present themselves in a disingenuous way and in turn, I did not feel pressured to

present myself like that either. This model focuses on the environment and the participants

within that space. At the core of this model, similarly to LMX theory, is the focus on the

relationship between leaders, followers, and the space or context. Furthermore, EIL

“incorporates the idea that emotions influence thoughts, decisions, and behaviors” (Allen, S.,

Shankman, M., Miguel, R., 2012, p.187).

Additionally, the EIL model played a major part in my experience in my internship

experience this past school year. While working in conduct, I was able to have conversations

with students at Loyola that were allegedly responsible for violating a community standard.

During these conversations, I would work with them to understand the decision and thought

process that went into their decision that caused them to ‘visit’ me in my office. From the

twenty cases I heard this semester and not counting the countless more I heard last semester,

most of the cases that the student was found responsible for violating a policy was driven by

their emotions. This made me realize, that even if the conduct work itself may be more technical

in nature and driven by facts, there is room for compassion and empathy. Being aware that we
GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 9

are in the type of work that presents itself to helping students developed holistically, it is

important to emotionally intelligent, especially when some students are brave enough to be

vulnerable.

EIL and its impact

With the focus of the first two leadership models being within who we are and how we

can help others grow, the idea behind Emotionally Intelligent Leadership (EIL) resonates with

my value of inviting others to the table. The literature mentions that EIL focuses on; “context,

self and others, emotionally intelligent leaders facilitate the attainment of desired outcomes”

(Allen, S., Shankman, M., Miguel, R. 2012. p. 177). I believe that to not only be an effective

leader, we need to be self-aware, understand the context of the space we are in and the folks

around us. For instance, I will present myself differently in a room full of high school age

students than I would to a room full of non-traditional graduate students. In this instance, I am

not being ‘fake,’ but rather, I am taking my audience and environment into account to be

inclusive and respectful.

Merit of utilizing EIL framework

By using this framework and pairing with the frameworks of Authentic and Servant

Leadership, I can add a layer to what I believe a good leader and practitioner to be. This

framework challenges me to think about the forces outside of myself in hopes that we can honor

our time together and respect the space we are in as we create opportunity to engage in

leadership development. Additionally, by incorporating the focus of EIL, I can create a space

for development and provide opportunity for conversation on ways to continue our growth as we

go through the process of engaging in collaborative leadership.

GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 10

Leadership Philosophy

Throughout this essay, I shared parts in my life that exemplified the merits of these

diverse models of leadership and why they will do well in terms of minimizing the limitations

found in the LMX model. From my mom’s authentic leadership, my engagement in servant

leadership through my fraternity, to the work I did in the conduct office that warranted emotional

intelligence; all of these aspects have become fundamental aspects to the creation of my

leadership philosophy.

The foundation of LMX provides my philosophy a theory focused on creating

relationships that aid in the efficiency of the organization (Dansereau et al., 1975). I believe that

creating relationships with everyone that you work will help in creating these networks of

partners that will help you accomplish projects—similarly to how campus partners help our

conduct efforts throughout my internship experience. The theory itself does not comment on

how to go from phase one to phase three but from personal experience, by creating a practice of

having 1:1 time with the students I will be working with, that can be the first step to creating

these beneficial relationships. 1:1time is providing them a space to talk with me about anything

they need to discuss while at the same time, we are getting to know one another and build

community. This time is for them to talk out ideas, struggles, or come up with action items that

will help them be a successful member of the office but also, in their academic endeavors.

Through this, we are collaborating on ways to ensure projects get done but they can also provide

me with recommendations on ways that I can support them.

To counteract the creation of the “out-groups,” I am bringing in authentic leadership to

minimize the possibility of these groups forming. From the authentic leadership model that aids

in this is how the model emphasizes self-awareness and building trust-based relationships
GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 11

(Kiersch and Peters, 2017). As it was already mentioned in the LMX theory, creating these types

of relationships elevates instances of work effectiveness and morale. By bringing in authentic

leadership, outgroup creation minimizes because as my self-awareness grows, the better I am at

identifying my own biases and identify the type of attention I may provide to certain students

over others. In addition, I can better serve the students I work with by helping them develop

their own awareness so that they may also check their own shortcomings when it comes to

collaborating with other folks in the office or department.

Another intervention to answer the limitations of using the LMX theory as a foundation

for my leadership philosophy is servant leadership. This model has a focus on ways to provide

holistic development in the followers. Not only are we creating 1:1 times to dialogue and build

community we are also building upon our ongoing relationship to provide space for

development. This is where the collaboration and growth piece comes in my philosophy. While

servant leadership focuses on the follower’s growth, I am proposing in also including the leader

in this process of development. By being transparent with the students I work with and revealing

that I do not hold all the answers, I invite them to collaborate with me and find solutions

together. Inviting students to have critical conversations helps them develop interpersonal skills

that play a role in everyday life but also, can help me view things with a different lens.

Finally, EIL speaks to my values on inclusivity and not wanting to excludes folks from

having a place at the table. Even though there are no findings on ways to foster phase three

relationships in LMX theory, integrating EIL to the philosophy fosters an environment where

students feel comfortable and welcomed, knowing that they are entering a space where their

ideas are valued and their ability to engage in leadership is encouraged. EIL, in collaboration

with the previous two models, serve to help me understand that the students I will be working
GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 12

with are from diverse backgrounds and each of them bring a new perspective. Many of them

will have their own ideas of what they excel in and what they need work on. By incorporating

this philosophy where relationship building is the fundamental theme throughout, we can have

dialogues to help me understand their areas for growth, ways to capitalize on their strengths, and

recommendations for me in terms of how I can continue supporting them.

Philosophy limitations

Like many, my philosophy has limitations on how to work with diverse learners. While

the idea behind creating strong relationships with students has merit, there are some students that

do not feel as though their strength lies in a 1:1 conversation. Conversely, some students may

even think that having these chats with me may not serve any purpose and may not take them

seriously. Having relationships with students is important for me and being cognizant that not

everyone I work with will have similar views on this, I need to remember to not take things

seriously. Rather than taking things personally, invite them to collaborate with me in finding

strategies that may work best for them and, in turn, modifying my approach when working with

them.

Another limitation of this philosophy is on time commitment. In theory, the merit is

there to creating strong relationships with folks that I work with, unfortunately, there may be

times that we are not able to meet or touch base. In these cases, morale may drop and the

relationship that we built may begin to become strained. In this case, it is important for me to

realize that life is happening, for myself and the students that I am working with. To help us stay

in touch, we can switch off to an email update—as impersonal as it sounds, some students prefer

to type an update rather than meet with me.

GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 13

Ultimately, it is hard to create a philosophy that can work with everyone but as long as it

works well for me and it serves the students that I work with, I feel confident going into the field

with the goal of creating relationships with the students that I work with.

Conclusion

My leadership philosophy concerns itself in the co-creation of space where I can present

myself authentically to the students that I work with in hopes that we can go through a mutually

advantageous process of leadership development. A process that grounds itself in the LMX

theory of creating one-on-one relationships with folks to maximize work effectiveness, paired

with elements from the authentic leadership model, servant leadership, and EIL models.

My leadership philosophy is founded on the understanding that we can learn from one

another and in turn, we can create a space for growth the power of collaboration. The reason I

am going into this field is because I am working for the benefit of the students. In order to be a

great student affairs professional, I need to know my audience and the way I present myself to

them. By creating a philosophy that has roots from the way I saw leadership being engaged

throughout my life, I hope to create opportunities for reflection, engagement, development, and

growth.
GROWTH THROUGH COLLABORATION 14

References

Allen, S., Shankman, M., Miguel, R. (2012). Emotionally intelligent leadership: An Integrative,

process-oriented theory of student leadership. Journal of Leadership Education. 11 (1),

177-203

Anand, S., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Vidyarthi, P. R. (2011). Leader-member exchange: Recent

research findings and prospects for the future. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint,

G. Jackson, & B. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 311–325).

London: Sage.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to

leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

13, 46–78.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:

Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:

Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

Kiersch, C., Peters, J. (2017). Leadership from the inside out: Student leadership development

within authentic leadership and servant leadership frameworks. Journal of Leadership

Education, doi: 1012806/V16/I1/T4

Northouse, P. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice, 7th edition. CA: Sage.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X., & Yammarino, F. J. (2001). The folly of

theorizing “A” but testing “B”: A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a

detailed leader–member exchange illustration. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 515–551.