When we discuss leadership, it seems that change is not far behind. When candidates come to campus, one of the questions that seems to be always asked is about changes that will be made. Why do we automatically assume that changes will be made? Why do we always have to make changes? I am a big proponent of getting the "lay of the land" before making changes.
I think about my last position and my first month. I was responsible for organizing the RA training and I tried to make changes that I thought would make some training sessions better. Those changes did not go well. It made me realize that I needed to understand the process before making changes. Another past experience is when the "leadership team" in residence life made a decision that affected the hall directors and RAs without discussing it with the hall directors. From this experience, I learned to discuss any possible decisions with those directly involved to get their feedback and make appropriate changes.
One of the articles we read was about the changes to a master's program in which the majority of the faculty were part-faculty. From what I've read, part-faculty are often seen as "second-class" citizens. The assumption is that they are there for the money and not for the students. This article changed that view. It was due to their dedication and the new chair's willingness to build the part-faculty into the decision making process, that the new program was successful.
The article by University of Michigan's president also provided good insight on coming into a very stressful and intense situtation already in progress. The article reiterated the importance of the president and representing the institution.
So, change and leadership do go hand-in-hand, but what is important is how the change is handled. This is something I try to keep in the front of my mind when coming into situations or at the beginning of the situation.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Week 11: Leadership Without Easy Answers (Heifetz)
How to summarize a 270-page book in a journal entry . . . that is the question. The title is very appropriate because it focuses on Adaptive Work and Adaptive strategies. Essentially, making decisions which entails authority, or not, and leadership. The stories included provided an opportunity to see the information in action. Throughout the book I made notations and starred excerpts that spoke to me. I'm going to try to analyze those excerpts and why I starred them.
First, there was discussion wanting leaders to be "value-free" or "value-laden". We cannot have it both ways, but we keep trying. For example, Hitler is deemed as a strong leader, albeit not one with positive values. However, he did have values, they just were not the values seen as positive. It reiterates the connection between values and the culture of an area. Heifetz shared 4 criteria for a definition of leadership that takes values into account: (1) definition resembles current cultural assumptions, (2) be practical, (3) point towards socially useful activities, and (4) offer a broad definition of social usefulness.
"Different values shed light on the different opportunities and facets of a situation." (p. 23) I read this and thought, "yep. Definitely." Depending on what a person values or what the position values will determine how a person will handle that situation. It leads me to think about my values. I remember in graduate school we participated in a values auction. There was a long list of values and each person had, like, $1,000 to bet with. We had to choose carefully on what we would bid on. Some would keep all $1,000 for one certain value, while others would try to get as many values as possible. It was an interesting way to looking at what is important to a person. I've used it several times since then. It always seems to spark conversation with the students and helps them reflect on what is important to them.
"The ability to adapt requires the productive interaction of different values through which each member or faction in a society sees reality and its challenges. Without conflicting frames of reference, the social system scrutinizes only limited features of its problematic environment." (p. 33) My first thought after reading this was the US Congress. It seems to explain why Congress is the way it is. We need to differing opinions to help see reality. However, I argue, that most of the times there is no attempt to try to understand the person. Most are focused on getting their thoughts, or values, heard; not necessarily hearing the other people's thoughts and values. So, where does that leave the country?
"As long as they serve this need [someone serving as a reference point], we imagine them larger than life. We do not realize that the source of their charisma is our own yearning." (p. 66) So, if we don't yearn for a certain value or action in a person, then does that person have charisma? Do we "follow" because that person is someone who "voices our poains and provides us with promise?" Is that how others see me, at times?
"For many problems, however, no adequate response has yet been developed. . . Problems that cause persistent distress do so because the system of accepted dependencies being applied to them cannot do the job." (p. 72) So, we need to think outside-the-box. We must be comfortable with adapting for the problem. What I realized throughout the book is there truly is no eay answer when it comes to leading and decision-making. Later in the book, Heifetz stated that leaders will always fail someone. Essentially, you cannot make everyone happy.
"Yet, people in authority are not generally expected to let their emotions go." (p.78) This connects with what I shared in the previous post. "Never let them see you sweat." We seem to always have that message forced on us. Why can't we? Does that not show we are human? However, "regular Joe-shamos" see their leaders as super-human, I think. Therefore, leaders must keep a strong front. Heifetz shared that it is important for leaders to have confidants and allies to help in these areas. Confidants are those people the leader can cry and complain to. Allies are people in other organizations that span the boundaries to assist the leader in situations.
Authority and leadership. We expect that these go hand-in-hand. But what we know is that leaders do not necessarily need the authority, formal or informal. Although the authority may help with impact, everyone can be a leader.
"Each faction has its own grammar for analyzing a situation." (p. 119) How in the world do we get anything done, then? It is crucial for leaders to be able to decipher theses different grammars in order to bring the groups together for a common purpose and result. The leader must span boundaries and encourage the factions to provide slack on their commitments for the greater good.
Heifetz talked about being about to go out on the balcony in a situation. Sometimes we are focused on being in the movements and steps of the situation that we cannot step back to see the whole picture. If you are in the balcony, it is easier to see the path and movements, essentially the big picture. This is necessary for a leader to be successful.
"Leadership means taking responsibility for hard problems beyond anyone's expectations. Many people wait until they gain authority, formal or informal, to begin leading. "(p. 203). We cannot wait for the authority to begin leading. When we decide to go above and beyond in job duties and expectations, that is a form of leading. We need to be comfortable with that. Those "small" gestures eventually lead to greater responsibilities and respect.
"The strategic challenge is to give the work back to people without abandoning them." (p. 251) Unless we work on delegating and putting work back to others, the leader will crumble. It is also important to set the pace of work. Heifetz shared a statement President Johnson made as a legislator, "You can put an awful lot of whiskey into a man if you just let him sip it. But if you try to force the whole bottle down his throat at one time, he'll throw it up." (p. 246) Baby steps with change or with adaptive work.
At the end of the book, Heifetz shared seven suggestions for bearing the responsibilities:
First, there was discussion wanting leaders to be "value-free" or "value-laden". We cannot have it both ways, but we keep trying. For example, Hitler is deemed as a strong leader, albeit not one with positive values. However, he did have values, they just were not the values seen as positive. It reiterates the connection between values and the culture of an area. Heifetz shared 4 criteria for a definition of leadership that takes values into account: (1) definition resembles current cultural assumptions, (2) be practical, (3) point towards socially useful activities, and (4) offer a broad definition of social usefulness.
"Different values shed light on the different opportunities and facets of a situation." (p. 23) I read this and thought, "yep. Definitely." Depending on what a person values or what the position values will determine how a person will handle that situation. It leads me to think about my values. I remember in graduate school we participated in a values auction. There was a long list of values and each person had, like, $1,000 to bet with. We had to choose carefully on what we would bid on. Some would keep all $1,000 for one certain value, while others would try to get as many values as possible. It was an interesting way to looking at what is important to a person. I've used it several times since then. It always seems to spark conversation with the students and helps them reflect on what is important to them.
"The ability to adapt requires the productive interaction of different values through which each member or faction in a society sees reality and its challenges. Without conflicting frames of reference, the social system scrutinizes only limited features of its problematic environment." (p. 33) My first thought after reading this was the US Congress. It seems to explain why Congress is the way it is. We need to differing opinions to help see reality. However, I argue, that most of the times there is no attempt to try to understand the person. Most are focused on getting their thoughts, or values, heard; not necessarily hearing the other people's thoughts and values. So, where does that leave the country?
"As long as they serve this need [someone serving as a reference point], we imagine them larger than life. We do not realize that the source of their charisma is our own yearning." (p. 66) So, if we don't yearn for a certain value or action in a person, then does that person have charisma? Do we "follow" because that person is someone who "voices our poains and provides us with promise?" Is that how others see me, at times?
"For many problems, however, no adequate response has yet been developed. . . Problems that cause persistent distress do so because the system of accepted dependencies being applied to them cannot do the job." (p. 72) So, we need to think outside-the-box. We must be comfortable with adapting for the problem. What I realized throughout the book is there truly is no eay answer when it comes to leading and decision-making. Later in the book, Heifetz stated that leaders will always fail someone. Essentially, you cannot make everyone happy.
"Yet, people in authority are not generally expected to let their emotions go." (p.78) This connects with what I shared in the previous post. "Never let them see you sweat." We seem to always have that message forced on us. Why can't we? Does that not show we are human? However, "regular Joe-shamos" see their leaders as super-human, I think. Therefore, leaders must keep a strong front. Heifetz shared that it is important for leaders to have confidants and allies to help in these areas. Confidants are those people the leader can cry and complain to. Allies are people in other organizations that span the boundaries to assist the leader in situations.
Authority and leadership. We expect that these go hand-in-hand. But what we know is that leaders do not necessarily need the authority, formal or informal. Although the authority may help with impact, everyone can be a leader.
"Each faction has its own grammar for analyzing a situation." (p. 119) How in the world do we get anything done, then? It is crucial for leaders to be able to decipher theses different grammars in order to bring the groups together for a common purpose and result. The leader must span boundaries and encourage the factions to provide slack on their commitments for the greater good.
Heifetz talked about being about to go out on the balcony in a situation. Sometimes we are focused on being in the movements and steps of the situation that we cannot step back to see the whole picture. If you are in the balcony, it is easier to see the path and movements, essentially the big picture. This is necessary for a leader to be successful.
"Leadership means taking responsibility for hard problems beyond anyone's expectations. Many people wait until they gain authority, formal or informal, to begin leading. "(p. 203). We cannot wait for the authority to begin leading. When we decide to go above and beyond in job duties and expectations, that is a form of leading. We need to be comfortable with that. Those "small" gestures eventually lead to greater responsibilities and respect.
"The strategic challenge is to give the work back to people without abandoning them." (p. 251) Unless we work on delegating and putting work back to others, the leader will crumble. It is also important to set the pace of work. Heifetz shared a statement President Johnson made as a legislator, "You can put an awful lot of whiskey into a man if you just let him sip it. But if you try to force the whole bottle down his throat at one time, he'll throw it up." (p. 246) Baby steps with change or with adaptive work.
At the end of the book, Heifetz shared seven suggestions for bearing the responsibilities:
- Getting on the Balcony
- Seeing the Difference Between Oneself and One's Role
- Externalizing the Conflict
- Developing Partners (Confidants and Allies)
- Listening: Using Oneself as Data
- Finding a Sanctuary
- Preserving a Sense of Purpose
Week 8: Managing Meaning
So, this entry is rather delayed due to life happening, including spring break. The topic of discussion for this week focused on "Managing Meaning". What does "managing meaning" mean, exactly? Isn't that the question for everything related to leadership? What does [insert word] really mean?
Well, from the readings and the class discussion, I can help define "managing meaning" as providing the page for people to write their own story. As a leader, there is an opportunity to help develop the meaning of activities for the members of the organization.
In Leading with Soul, Bolman and Deal talk about the four gifts of leadership: love, power, authorship, significance. What seems to be important is showing care towards the members of the organization (LOVE), giving power to others which also leads to authorship (allowing members to create for the organization without fear of micro-management), and feeling significant in the organization. These cannot happen unless the members are willing to become a community. As the leader, we help in these areas by letting go.
As I mentioned above, life happened. This led me to think about how our personal lives affect our ability to serve as a leader. Furthermore, how other react to changes in your leadership due to your personal struggles. Are members forgiving or do they complain that you may not be the same leader as before? If they are not forgiving, why not? Would they not expect some leniency if they were going through a personal struggle? I also get the sense that we cannot show others that we may be struggling . . . why do we have that assumption? I think about President Obama and what would happen if something tragedic happened in his personal life. What would the country expect to see? Would they expect some down time or expect him to keep up the same pace.
I hate it when life happens and how it affects other aspects of my life.
Well, from the readings and the class discussion, I can help define "managing meaning" as providing the page for people to write their own story. As a leader, there is an opportunity to help develop the meaning of activities for the members of the organization.
In Leading with Soul, Bolman and Deal talk about the four gifts of leadership: love, power, authorship, significance. What seems to be important is showing care towards the members of the organization (LOVE), giving power to others which also leads to authorship (allowing members to create for the organization without fear of micro-management), and feeling significant in the organization. These cannot happen unless the members are willing to become a community. As the leader, we help in these areas by letting go.
As I mentioned above, life happened. This led me to think about how our personal lives affect our ability to serve as a leader. Furthermore, how other react to changes in your leadership due to your personal struggles. Are members forgiving or do they complain that you may not be the same leader as before? If they are not forgiving, why not? Would they not expect some leniency if they were going through a personal struggle? I also get the sense that we cannot show others that we may be struggling . . . why do we have that assumption? I think about President Obama and what would happen if something tragedic happened in his personal life. What would the country expect to see? Would they expect some down time or expect him to keep up the same pace.
I hate it when life happens and how it affects other aspects of my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)