SPL Overview

Throughout your program you will be introduced to the many challenges leaders face in managing complex individual and group dynamics. Leaders today must shape organizational culture, communicate value systems, model ethical behavior, engage and inspire followers, and manage diversity. To achieve these tasks effectively, leaders must be able to integrate scholarship and practice. Integrating scholarship and practice involves obtaining a theoretical understanding of core leadership principles through scholarly research and study. Integrating scholarship and practice also means that leaders convert their theoretical understanding into daily, observable leadership behaviors and practices. Leaders who integrate scholarship and practice are typically effective in both personal and professional arenas. Leaders who integrate scholarship and practice are also able to lead organizations during difficult and challenging times.

There is a difference between being a scholar and a practitioner. According to Winter and Griffiths (2000), a scholar possesses reliable and impartial theoretical knowledge. Scholars obtain this knowledge by studying theory and conducting research. Practitioners, conversely, possess application-based knowledge specifically geared toward the workplace. As University of Phoenix doctoral students, you will have the opportunity to obtain, enact, and create both scholar and practitioner knowledge.

Leadership Practice

In his highly publicized book,Good to Great, Jim Collins (2001) portrayed a level-5 leader as an individual who displays a balance between humility and will. Level 5 leaders are self-aware individuals who are able to conduct honest, rigorous, and candid self-appraisal. They articulate their strengths and weaknesses and are able to integrate feedback from others and from the research they conduct. Level 5 leaders know how to integrate theory and practice; they have scholarly knowledge of leadership theory and can translate that theory into effective leadership behavior. Level 5 leaders transform theory into practice through their ability to create organizational discipline in 3 arenas: disciplined employees, disciplined thinking, and disciplined behaviors and actions. When organizations display discipline, leaders do not have to maintain a strict chain of command. When organizational members demonstrate disciplined thinking, leaders do not have to impose bureaucracy. When organizations display disciplined behaviors and actions, leaders do not have to exercise unnecessary control.

One critically important characteristic of level 5 leaders is that they display internal consistency. In statistics, internal consistency means that test items measure the same idea or concept. For leaders, internal consistency means that leaders' actions and behaviors are consistent with or match their communication and intentions. For example, it is inconsistent to say you are a participative leader if you micromanage people. It is inconsistent to say you are a servant leader (Greenleaf, 1977), yet display egocentric, individualistic behavior. As doctoral students, it is important to convert the scholarship gained through online study and coursework into internally consistent leadership practice. It is only with this level of consistency and emotional maturity that leaders will gain trust and commitment from followers.

Determining Your Strategic Fit

As doctoral students, your challenge is to assess yourself and determine your strategic fit. Determining your strategic fit means using critical thinking to evaluate how you will maintain a balance between your scholarly and practitioner experience. You must determine if you possess the 21st-century competencies needed to lead organizations, how you will acquire the competencies you lack, and how to add your own findings to the existing understanding of organizations and leadership. You must determine how you will balance the scholar/practitioner relationship, that is, how you will translate the theoretical knowledge you gain in each course into observable, leadership actions and behaviors. You must strive for internal consistency by having the courage to critically analyze, using available literature and data, and adjusting your behaviors and actions to ensure that they match your words. If you notice inconsistencies, do not proceed with actions that do not successfully pass your assessment and mirror your desired state.

Practitioner: Stage 1

Common Features	Student Stance on Feature	Faculty Response to Feature
Early writing is markedby an emphasis onpracticalexperience.	Because I believe it, orIhave experienced it,that's good enough tostate as "reality."	Says who?
Opinion is confoundedwithfactual information.	Can exhibit ontologicalarrogance.	Use citations.
Citations are absent or ineffective.	Can be (unintentionally) egocentric and sociocentric.	Use scholarly tone.
Supporting evidence isabsent or regarded asunnecessary.	There isn't a student stance.	Provide supportingevidence.
Critical-thinking operations are absent.	There isn't a student stance.	There isn't a faculty response.

Scholar: Stage 2

Common Features	Student Stance on Feature	Faculty Response to Feature
Almost everysentence issupported with an in-textcitation.	I've been told I don'thave an opinion atCDSuntil I get to Ch. 5 of mydissertation.	Where is your voice, your informed opinion,and your reasonedjudgment?
Triangulationwith professional experience/context is absent.	I'mafraid to offeranything that Icannotfind external supportingevidencefor in theexisting literature.	Can you make any connectionswith yourown professionalexperience and/orcontext?
New models,new critical questions,additional viewpoints,etc. are absent.	There isn't a student stance.	There isn't a faculty response.

Scholar-Practitioner-Leader: Stage 3

Common Features	Student Stance on Feature
Student voice is evident, especiallyat thesynthesis stage.	I can use my voice when I build from theliterature and my experience.
Evidence from the literature is interwovenwith professional experience.	My voice must be tentative, that is, notstated as declarative fact.
A new model, theory, or application issuggested.	Myvoice must be nuanced.
Critical questions are asked, based uponanalysis and evaluation.	I cannot confuse fact from opinion.
A dialogic style is evident.	I can ask powerful critical reflective andreflexive questions at any time.

Keep in mind that when you integrate your own voice by bringing scholarship and practice together, you are reaching stage 3. You need courage to build upon the published scholarshipby adding your professional experience and voice in a skilled manner.

Write a 250- to 300-word response to the following:

• Reflect on how your writing may be biased toward your own ideas and your own situatedness. Use these questions as a guide:
• How has your writing changed since beginning the doctoral program?
• How may your writing be out of alignment to the elements of the SPL model?
• What are some areas still needing improvement?

Due Monday

Review your classmates' posts and respond to at least 1 in a minimum of 150 words.Explain why you agree or disagree. Then, share an example from your professional experience to support your assertions.

References

• Collins, J. (2001).Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't. Harper Business.
• Greenleaf, R. (1977).Servant leadership. Paulist Press.
• Winter, R., & Griffiths, M. (2000).The 'academic' qualities of practice: What are the criteria for a practice-based PhD?Studies in Higher Education,25(1), 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/030750700115993

Resources Used When Developing SPL Theory

• Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn.Harvard Business Review,69(3), 99-109.
• Boyer, E. (1990).Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Jossey-Bass.
• Cunliffe, A. L. (2002). Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning.Management Learning,33(1), 35-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507602331002
• Freire, P. (1970).Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.
• Knowles, M. S. (1973).The adult learner: A neglected species. Gulf Publishing Company.
• Kofman, F. (2006).Conscious business: How to build value through values. Sounds True.
• Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1971).Organizational psychology: An experiential approach. Prentice-Hall.
• Magolda, M. B. B., & King, P. M. (2008). Toward reflective conversations: An advising approach that promotes self-authorship.Peer Review,10(1), 8-11.
• Morl, G. (2001). Positivist beliefs among policy professionals: An empirical investigation.Policy Sciences,34(3-4), 381-401.
• McWhinney, W. (1997). Praxis: Beyond theory and practice.Cybernetics and Human Knowing,4(2-3), 79-97.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2003). Critical thinking...and the art of close reading (Part I). Journal of Developmental Education,27(2), 36-39.
• Schn, D. A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How practitioners think in action. Basic Books.
• Schn, D. A. (1995). Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology.Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,27(6), 27-34.https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544673
• Torbert, B. (2004).Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transformational leadership. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
• Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2006).Critical reading and writing for postgraduates. Sage Publications.
• Wasserman, I. C., & Kram, K. (2009). Enacting the scholar--practitioner role: An exploration of narratives.TheJournal of Applied Behavioral Science,45(1),12-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308327238