Respond to discussion

Respond to two discussion 150 each:
  
Discussion 1: Respond 150 words
Leadership and the improvement of styles and practices have been the topics of study for many years, Kouzes & Posner’s Five Exemplary Practices of Leadership and Senge’s Five Disciplines are highly regarded sources for improving leadership through similar concepts.  By reviewing the common elements of leadership, the differences and similarities can be highlighted.  Both aim to have individuals invest their human capital by being committed and engaged (Hutton, Ronis, Sheila, & Quindag, 2012).
              Values and congruent actions are an important element of good leadership.  Kouzes & Posner’s Model the Way explains that the leader must clarify their personal values and model the way for employees to follow.  Leaders are designers and then teachers (Hutton et al., 2012).   Senge asserts through his Personal Mastery discipline that leaders base their actions on what they know about themselves and how they impact others (Harris, 1990).
              Kouzes & Posner’s practice of Inspire a Shared Vision tells leader to communicate passionately to inspire followers.   Additionally, leaders must solidify their own visions to enable them to pass it on and recruit others (Hutton et al., 2012).   Senge’s discipline of Building Shared Visions tell leaders that early in the process of a change to communicate effectively and build a common vision.    This vision grows off each person’s mission and grows into a group shared mission (Harris, 1990).
              Questioning the status quo, another element of good leadership, is viewed differently by both Kouzes & Posner, who tell leaders to seek change with new and fresh ideas even if they risk failure.   Senge’s discipline tells leaders to dig deep and surface preconceived values and mind sets and either support or reject them while allocating time for regular self-reflection (Fulmer, Robert; Keys, 1998).
              Learning together by working together is common element in solid leadership.  Kouzes and Posner urge leaders to trust others to do their job and not micromanage.  Senge’s discipline, Team Learning, says that learning can only happen when teams commence sharing and thinking together.   Brainstorming freely and discussing different points of view enable active learning (Harris, 1990).
              Kouzes and Posner’s practice of integration is to encourage the heart by nurturing through emotional support, having a supportive environment and reinforcing positive values (Hutton et al., 2012).   Senge’s System Thinking discipline asserts that examine the whole group of interrelationships gives a deep examination than breaking things down and examining each individually.  If a holistic approach is taken balance and equilibrium can be maintained (Harris, 1990). 
              Finally, Kouzes and Posner’s leadership practices give the leader a hero-like persona while Senge’s disciplines encourage a learning organization where the members continually transform themselves.   Also, Kouzes and Posner’s model stresses relationships and communication while Senge’s focus on a collective system of communication, dialogue and teaching.  

Discussion 2: Respond 150 words
When reviewing two competing studies based on the  Kouzes and Posner’s Leadership Practices and Senge’s Five disciplines, it is important to understand the context in which the studies are being applied. In the study focused on the Kouzes/Posner Model (KPM) (Waite & McKinney, 2015) the aim was to integrate program basics into the construct of nursing students, and develop more effective transformational leadership within the nursing career field to enhance overall performance. The second study focused on Senge’s Five Disciplines (SFD)  (Silva, 2018) was focused on people understanding of the five constructs and if they feel they have been adopted into the organization.  While both of them approach leadership in its unique fashion, there is one universal truth, both studies harp on the importance of integrating leadership, and passion into the roots fo the organization. Waite and Mckinney harp on the importance of transformational leadership skills in the ever-growing, and more complex healthcare organizations. (p1, 2015) Additionally, Silva echoes this thought by highlighting the need for organizations to be flexible, learning, and proactive instead of reactive. (2018) 
The differences in these two studies are the clinical method of one, vice the education-centric approach of the other. Silva’s study focused on whether or not research administrators had heard of the five principles, whereas the study by Waite and McKinney started off assuming they were unfamiliar with the KPM. Furthermore, where the SFD study focused on quantitative data, it left very little in the way of “actionable” items. However, the KPM study provided not just data, but a clearly defined path to a better, more effective leadership corp in the Nursing industry.
Ultimately, both studies provide clear context as to the overall languished nature of the team member, or research administrator to readily identify, practice, and cultivate the respective frameworks in their organizations. As the saying goes “Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach him to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.” What is becoming exceedingly more apparent is that no one knows how to fish and that the fish are faster and smarter than ever. 
There is however an answer to this issue, and the studies above (while different) prove that at all echelons of academia, and business, people are putting effort into their employees, and their leadership ability. As a collective, it is not only a requirement, but a necessity for the success of leaders today, and in the future.