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.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Week 7: Contextual Aspects of Leadership, part 2
As I was thinking about this week, I realized that the semester is almost half over. How does that happen so quickly? I sometimes feel that it has just started. Oh, well. Two weeks until spring break! :)
Now, on to this week's readings. The majority of the readings focused on women in leadership roles, specifically African American and Latina women. There was another article looking at the leadership in American Indian societies. It is interesting to see how leadership concepts are seen through the multiple lenses of individuals. African American women not only struggle due to their gender, but also their race. It was interesting to read in a couple of chapters that women and persons of color are held to a higher standard regarding leadership roles then white men. If a white male president make a mistake, it seems like it is no big deal; he will probably be hired for another presidential position. However, if a female made a similar mistake, forgiveness does not to be an option.
This notion makes me think about the president of the Southern Illinois University system. There was a claim that he plagiarized his dissertation. He stayed in office during the investigation and continued working. If this happened to an white female, who she be welcomed to stay in the role while it was investigate?
Another topic that makes me ponder on future research interests is how women are treated differently then men. There were comments about how women cannot wear the same outfit during the same month or there will be gossip; however, men typically have 4 suits and they wear them essentially on a weekly basis and no one says anything about them. Why does this view still exist? When will women been seen as humans who are capable of making mistakes. It could be argued that white men should be held at a higher standard IF they are seen as more qualified than African Americans or women.
Something to ponder . . .
Now, on to this week's readings. The majority of the readings focused on women in leadership roles, specifically African American and Latina women. There was another article looking at the leadership in American Indian societies. It is interesting to see how leadership concepts are seen through the multiple lenses of individuals. African American women not only struggle due to their gender, but also their race. It was interesting to read in a couple of chapters that women and persons of color are held to a higher standard regarding leadership roles then white men. If a white male president make a mistake, it seems like it is no big deal; he will probably be hired for another presidential position. However, if a female made a similar mistake, forgiveness does not to be an option.
This notion makes me think about the president of the Southern Illinois University system. There was a claim that he plagiarized his dissertation. He stayed in office during the investigation and continued working. If this happened to an white female, who she be welcomed to stay in the role while it was investigate?
Another topic that makes me ponder on future research interests is how women are treated differently then men. There were comments about how women cannot wear the same outfit during the same month or there will be gossip; however, men typically have 4 suits and they wear them essentially on a weekly basis and no one says anything about them. Why does this view still exist? When will women been seen as humans who are capable of making mistakes. It could be argued that white men should be held at a higher standard IF they are seen as more qualified than African Americans or women.
Something to ponder . . .
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Week 6: Contextual Aspects of Leadership (Part 1)
This week's readings seems to range from cross-cultural themes to what makes a "bad" leader. The readings covered narcisstic leaders, contrarian leaders, and change agents in higher education. The chapter by Steven Sample (The Contrarian's Guide to University Leadership) provided several statements that stimulated thought. Sample shared his 70/30 Formula for Top Leadership: 30% of the time should "be spent of really substative matter and no more than 70% on reacting to or presiding over trivial, or ephemeral routine matters" (p. 187). Samples follows that up with by stating that if leaders are not careful that 30% can slowly dwindle to 20%, then 10% and 5%. Before a leader realizes it, 100% of the time is spent of the trivial or routine matters. I can definitely see this. In my previous position, my supervisor continually encouraged me to set time aside to do "big picture" thinking for my position. However, I seemed to always fill my time with the routine items . . . I always seemed to find something that needed to be done. I understand now how critical it is to carve this time into your schedule in order to not be bogged down by the trivial matter.
Sample also discussed the importance of surrounding yourself with good people and let them make the decisions. Not only does this provide them with the opportunity to develop decision making skills, but it allows the top leader to provide support and encouragement. I would support this concept. I would hope that I am able to do this when I am in a director of housing role.
Maccoby's chapter focused on narcissitic leaders. Most people would see the negative aspect ov narcissitic--being too involved with yourself. However, Maccoby discussed the importance of productive narcissists. There are positives and negative aspects to be aware of, but many of the senior level leaders have a large part of a narcissistic personality. Maccoby shared Freud's three types of personalities: erotic, obsessive, and narcissistic. Additionally, he shared that parts of all three can be seen is most of us. Probably like most people, I tried to see myself in the descriptions of these personalities.
The erotic personality focuses on loving . . . loving and being loved are the most important. The obsessive personality focuses on creating order and self-reliant. Narcissistic personality are independent and want to be admired, not necessarily loved. I can honestly say that I see parts of each of these personalities in me. I crave order and the ability to be self-reliant. Furthermore, I can also see the need to be loved and to love others. I truly value relationships, especially with staff members. Lastly, I do like to be admired and can be seen as independent. With all of that said, I would probably argue that the narcissistic personality type is the smallest for me. I wonder what that means for future leadership roles. Maccoby shared that the strengths of a narcissistic leader are: great vision and scores of followers. I cannot say that I have a score of followers, but I do have the ability to have great visions for my organization. Maccoby also shares the weaknesses of narcissistic leaders: sensitive to criticism, poor listeners, lack of empathy, distaste for mentoring, and an intense desire to compete. I would say that I don't have many of these weaknesses, so maybe it is a good thing that the narcissistic personality is the smallest part.
Some things to ponder . . .
Sample also discussed the importance of surrounding yourself with good people and let them make the decisions. Not only does this provide them with the opportunity to develop decision making skills, but it allows the top leader to provide support and encouragement. I would support this concept. I would hope that I am able to do this when I am in a director of housing role.
Maccoby's chapter focused on narcissitic leaders. Most people would see the negative aspect ov narcissitic--being too involved with yourself. However, Maccoby discussed the importance of productive narcissists. There are positives and negative aspects to be aware of, but many of the senior level leaders have a large part of a narcissistic personality. Maccoby shared Freud's three types of personalities: erotic, obsessive, and narcissistic. Additionally, he shared that parts of all three can be seen is most of us. Probably like most people, I tried to see myself in the descriptions of these personalities.
The erotic personality focuses on loving . . . loving and being loved are the most important. The obsessive personality focuses on creating order and self-reliant. Narcissistic personality are independent and want to be admired, not necessarily loved. I can honestly say that I see parts of each of these personalities in me. I crave order and the ability to be self-reliant. Furthermore, I can also see the need to be loved and to love others. I truly value relationships, especially with staff members. Lastly, I do like to be admired and can be seen as independent. With all of that said, I would probably argue that the narcissistic personality type is the smallest for me. I wonder what that means for future leadership roles. Maccoby shared that the strengths of a narcissistic leader are: great vision and scores of followers. I cannot say that I have a score of followers, but I do have the ability to have great visions for my organization. Maccoby also shares the weaknesses of narcissistic leaders: sensitive to criticism, poor listeners, lack of empathy, distaste for mentoring, and an intense desire to compete. I would say that I don't have many of these weaknesses, so maybe it is a good thing that the narcissistic personality is the smallest part.
Some things to ponder . . .
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Week 5: Morality and Ethical Leadership
Morality and ethics and leadership. In his book, Leadership by Design, Bogue stated that if administrators are not expected to use judgment or make exceptions then those positions can be replaced by computers. I found myself chuckling at this statement. This is really at the root of what identifies a leader. Badaracco introduced the defining moments of a leader. It made me think about the defining moments in my leadership development. The moments that came to mind were those that involved a wrong decision on my part. Granted, no one died or was injured, but I had a stern discussion with my supervisor at the time. I know that I learned from those moments and will not make those mistakes again, but there will be other mistakes. I cannot shy away from those mistakes. This is one of the characteristics of a leader--the courage to keep moving forward.
The facilitators for the class provided a couple of questions for journaling:
I briefly mentioned Badaracco's defining moments at the beginning of this post. When I think about the times I've been in those situations, I know the decisions were difficult. I can always see the situation from both sides. When faced with these situations, I try to talk with my supervisor and get another perspective. If not my supervisor, then one of my colleagues in a similar position (Assistant Director). I think about the end result and what should come from the situation. In other words, is there an opportunity for an "educational" moment? Can we proceed with the educational aspect or does it need to be more punitive. I also think my gut provides a lot of the guidance.
I am now thinking about how I will handle these "defining moments" as the senior member of the department. I don't know how viable it will be to discuss these moments with my supervisor (i.e. VP of Student Affairs). I envision that I will need to discuss it with my core leadership team and colleagues at the same level.
The facilitators for the class provided a couple of questions for journaling:
- Can you think of a situation where an educational leader you know or you yourself had to struggle with an ethical issue? What moral and ethical tensions were involved in making the "right" decision at that point in time? How do you feel about it now? in retrospect, was it the best decision made? If not, how could it be managed better?
- Badaracco talks about "defining moments" and facing at least two "right" choices. When you face such situations, how do you decide what to do? Who do you talk to? What do you consider?
I briefly mentioned Badaracco's defining moments at the beginning of this post. When I think about the times I've been in those situations, I know the decisions were difficult. I can always see the situation from both sides. When faced with these situations, I try to talk with my supervisor and get another perspective. If not my supervisor, then one of my colleagues in a similar position (Assistant Director). I think about the end result and what should come from the situation. In other words, is there an opportunity for an "educational" moment? Can we proceed with the educational aspect or does it need to be more punitive. I also think my gut provides a lot of the guidance.
I am now thinking about how I will handle these "defining moments" as the senior member of the department. I don't know how viable it will be to discuss these moments with my supervisor (i.e. VP of Student Affairs). I envision that I will need to discuss it with my core leadership team and colleagues at the same level.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Week 4: Leader Cognition and Development
Wow! This week's readings really made me think about myself, my own leadership development, and how I work as a leader. What makes us become the leader we are? Does are gender play a role it it? That seems to be a big question in the realm of leadership readings.
One of our readings (Amey), shared a study in which Women's Ways of Knowing was used in relation to leadership: separate, connected, and constructed. From the paper, I kept thinking that an effective leader needs a little bit of both (separate and connected). In other words, they need to focus on the nuts and bolts of being a leader, but a large part of that is the relationships. If the relationships are not culitvated, then what can a leader really accompish? It connects with the previous week's readings on followership.
Several of the readings discussed the importance of our childhood plays in our leadership identity. I've thought about this for me quite a bite lately. I wonder what in my childhood led me to want to be seen as a leader. I did an autoethnography in my qualitative research methodology class last semester. In it, I explained that I ran for class treasurer every year in high school but was never elected. What led me to want to do this? Was it my desire to be accepted in high school and being a class officer would help? Or was it that I wanted to simply be seen as a leader? I am the fourth of five children; my oldest sister is 9 years older than me and my younger brother is 3 years younger. I'm sure this make up played a large part in my identity development. However, I cannot pinpoint how.
In class, we were asked to identify the leader roles our family members held. This was difficult for me because nothing stuck out to me. I can't think of any time my brothers or sisters held a leader role (formal or informal). As for my parents, I thought of some things, most of it was connected with our church. Which can be seen as servant leadership. As for my grandparents, I have no clue what roles they played since my grandfathers passed before I was born and my grandmothers were essentially retired by the time I could remember interactions. So, I can't say that I had strong examples that led my desire to be seen as a leader.
Someone in class mentioned their grandparents and how parents saw similarities. This made me wonder about me and my grandparents. Do my parents see as resemblances? I need to ask them about this next time I see them.
One of the books we are reading is Leading with Soul. I initially read this while working at BGSU as a professional development. I remember that is resonated with me and I did quite a bit of highlighting. Now, I'm reading it again and still believe that it resonates with me. I would say that it can help a person in any difficult part of their lives. I wished I read it again in 2008 when I was going through a difficult time personally. It may have helped me work through it and become a stronger person.
I enjoy that the book does not necessarily give straight answers but allows the reader to reflect and analyze herself. It identified the difference between the "soul" and the "spirit". I need to think more about these as they connect with me.
Okay--more to come.
One of our readings (Amey), shared a study in which Women's Ways of Knowing was used in relation to leadership: separate, connected, and constructed. From the paper, I kept thinking that an effective leader needs a little bit of both (separate and connected). In other words, they need to focus on the nuts and bolts of being a leader, but a large part of that is the relationships. If the relationships are not culitvated, then what can a leader really accompish? It connects with the previous week's readings on followership.
Several of the readings discussed the importance of our childhood plays in our leadership identity. I've thought about this for me quite a bite lately. I wonder what in my childhood led me to want to be seen as a leader. I did an autoethnography in my qualitative research methodology class last semester. In it, I explained that I ran for class treasurer every year in high school but was never elected. What led me to want to do this? Was it my desire to be accepted in high school and being a class officer would help? Or was it that I wanted to simply be seen as a leader? I am the fourth of five children; my oldest sister is 9 years older than me and my younger brother is 3 years younger. I'm sure this make up played a large part in my identity development. However, I cannot pinpoint how.
In class, we were asked to identify the leader roles our family members held. This was difficult for me because nothing stuck out to me. I can't think of any time my brothers or sisters held a leader role (formal or informal). As for my parents, I thought of some things, most of it was connected with our church. Which can be seen as servant leadership. As for my grandparents, I have no clue what roles they played since my grandfathers passed before I was born and my grandmothers were essentially retired by the time I could remember interactions. So, I can't say that I had strong examples that led my desire to be seen as a leader.
Someone in class mentioned their grandparents and how parents saw similarities. This made me wonder about me and my grandparents. Do my parents see as resemblances? I need to ask them about this next time I see them.
One of the books we are reading is Leading with Soul. I initially read this while working at BGSU as a professional development. I remember that is resonated with me and I did quite a bit of highlighting. Now, I'm reading it again and still believe that it resonates with me. I would say that it can help a person in any difficult part of their lives. I wished I read it again in 2008 when I was going through a difficult time personally. It may have helped me work through it and become a stronger person.
I enjoy that the book does not necessarily give straight answers but allows the reader to reflect and analyze herself. It identified the difference between the "soul" and the "spirit". I need to think more about these as they connect with me.
Okay--more to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)