Culture--#10

Our discussion in class the other day about culture, in addition to privilege, was a nice reminder. It's easy to forget how our society oppresses minorities, but even more than that, it's easy to forget who is a minority. Our melting pot culture encourages colorblindness as politically correct, but its that same colorblindness that diminishes diversity.

This, of course, begs the question of what exactly is the happy medium? In my mind's utopia, I see this perfect medium in the form of a statement from the movie Avatar: "I see you." In the movie, this phrase implies seeing someone for who they truly are, for recognizing who they represent, and for respecting who they choose to represent themselves as. These are three very distinct levels that vary subtly in terminology but have vastly different meanings.

In my experience, recognizing the diversity of who I work with has been extremely important - after all, diversity is another resource that hooks you into other networks. The diversity of a group defines, in some cases, its success.

Groups--#9

I think there are three facets of groups that should really be a part of this - leading groups, leading in groups and being a leader as part of a group.

Leading group of people means that the leader should be aware of the abilities of his employees. Challenges arise when a leader is chosen and then must pick a team - without working individuals first, it is difficult to see how they will work as a team and to determine how to lead. Groups determine a lot about a situation - everything from the outcome to how others will relate.

Leading in groups might seem like a small distinction here, but I think it's important to think of the power structure associated with the aforementioned situation. Leaders are very separate from the group in that scenario because group members are their subordinates. When a person is part of a group and is then selected as the leader, for instance, in class groups, then their leaderships is a variable in the outcome of the project. This kind of leader will care far more about maintaining relationships, listening to the needs of the group members and the ideas of other members to complete the project.

However, this differs even more from the third option. Being a leader as part of a group is can be an interesting complication. This could be seen as having a group member (or let's face it, being that group member) who has a strong personality, the one who is a Natural Leader. Working with this kind of personality can be a true challenge because the Natural Leader will try to control the group, not allow all opinions to be heard or will assume most of the work without input from other group members.

As someone who is a Natural Leader, I have often found myself in  some of the situations listed above. These are situations created from their circumstances. If a leader isn't chosen or elected in the group, members fall into undefined categories where roles are not clearly delineated. This can create toxic leadership and it can also work out.

Abilene Paradox--#8

Although we didn't discuss this in class, it was covered on the quiz and I thought I might expand upon it here.

The Abilene Paradox refers to a situation in which voting members do not express their opinions and as such end up with an outcome that is contrary to all the voting members' desires. This occurs as a result of poor communication.

In Camp Wildcat, I nearly experienced this situation, as I mentioned on the quiz, but I think this happens a lot. People tell themselves their votes don't count and so they don't vote, and yet such a large number of people think their votes won't count that they make up a significant percentage of the voting population.

I would be interested to see how often this happens, although it would be impossible to measure (how would you know if your group decided something that was contrary to all of your wishes if you don't talk about it in the first place?). It would also be interesting to see in what other ways we defeat ourselves through issues of communication and confidence.

Toxic Leadership--#7

 Although I believe using the word "toxic" in reference to a leader's style is almost over-the-top, it's interesting to know now that many of the leaders I grew up with (hating) were making common mistakes identified by this type of leadership?

I have yet to experience the truly evil leader, but I have definitely experienced some incompetent leaders in my day. In high school, I was in a school production and I remember our director being an absolute idiot. Needless to say, the production was not a success.

In addition to experiencing my fair share of incompetent leaders, I was also exposed to the intemperate ones at a young age. Again, a director of mine would throw absolute temper tantrums when things weren't working out. His favorite was to throw a script at your face.

Although I have experienced some extremely toxic leaders, I have also had the opportunity to work with some amazing leaders who have taught me how to lead.

Mission and Vision--#6

A mission statement ought to be a bit like a thesis--it provides a guide. It's like a goal and values road map. A vision statement, however, seems to me to be a much more active thing as it discusses what kind of world you wish to live in and what you want to do to make that happen. It's a weightier statement to make because it suggests a certain amount of responsibility.

I think that these are important statements to have, regardless of the weight they carry. It suggests a responsible person who can identify problems and important goals, and therefore, can be important indicators of a person's character.

Below, I have posted my mission and vision statements:

I value happiness, the freedom of expression, and a childlike imagination. I want to cultivate altruistic and benevolent traits, break bad habits, and perpetually be seeking self-betterment. I make it my mission to learn from every day, to always be seeking out the lessons of life. I strive to make a difference, work hard, and be a person of whom I can be proud. I aim to be single-minded in pursuit of my passions so that I can one day be the best writer I can be.

I envision a world where—

• People desire to understand each other instead of spreading messages of hate, greed, and selfishness.
• There are more first-world problems.
• Cultural, religious, political, sexual and racial elitism is nonexistent.
• Every culture values their children, education, and empowerment.
• Curiosity and imaginations thrive and are encouraged.

What I can do to contribute to this vision is—

• Lead by example and learn from the examples of others.
• Create an atmosphere of acceptance and encourage conversation about diversity and respect.
• To make new connections, to make friends out of enemies, and to reach out to others, regardless if their need is apparent.
• Love and give to others as if they were my family and friends.
• Think for myself instead of allowing the media, peers, and prominent public figures to define what I believe and the way I view the world.
• Discourage gossip and maintain a personal standard of integrity, honesty, and confidentiality.
• Write and tell stories that fulfill my personal mission and vision statements.

 

Process Theory--#5

In process leadership, leadership, not surprisingly, is viewed as a process that is observable and trackable. This process is determined by the motivation and creative stimulation of leaders and followers alike by each other and outside sources. It encourage people to look to the future and to be true visionaries of change.

This is an excellent motivational tool as it challenges teams and individuals to use both their logical and emotional brains to solve problems. I personally find this kind of leadership to be really dynamic. It ensures that people are involved and requires a certain level of commitment.

In Camp Wildcat, process theory isn't really at work. However, in my position, I do have the opportunity to dynamically respond to problems because I am in challenged with both the technical and artistic aspects of writing and community relations.

Behavioral and Situational Theories--#4

Behavioral theory relies upon the notion that there are three main skills sets: human, conceptual and technical. These intelligences are essential to having a well-rounded team.

This theory allows a leader to assess the abilities of his employees (and himself) to create prime leadership situations.

When I directed a CW camp, I looked at who was volunteering for the event and assessed their abilities before giving out assignments. I knew Matt was very responsible, a hard worker, and good at being in charge, but he could come off as harsh and unapproachable. Because of that, I didn't want him to be a rotation leader or a counselor despite his experience in CW and the wisdom he would inevitably bring to the position. Instead, I put him as Head Cook where he could be of aid to the directors (a.k.a. myself) and be in charge of a big task.

On the other hand, situational leadership is composed of different styles of leadership tailored to individual situations.

I find this theory much more difficult to implement because it requires a leader to step outside the real-world framework of a situation and look at an issue more theoretically--something that is rather unnatural to do. Although it's important to be able to conceptualize the issue, it's also important to remember that we're working with real-world people. It's difficult for me to think about a scenario and decide how to handle it because it is inevitably going to be the people who work with me who ensure its success, not my handling of the situation in one manner over another.

I also think that a big part of leadership is assessing the situation as well as the abilities of the people. For example, Andrew invented a new kind of camp for CW and I am helping to put that camp on at the end of the semester. In choosing volunteers, I am going to choose people who are very versatile and who are hard workers over those who mostly like to have fun. However, I am going to leave some of the decision-making skills to those volunteers because I know they are intelligent human beings and have been volunteering for quite some time. Had I chosen volunteers who are very social and mostly like to have fun, I would still leave some of that decision-making up to them for the same reasons, I just might not have as much faith in it.

Great Man/Trait Theory--#3

We have been learning a lot about ourselves in class, lately, including about our emotional intelligence and personality. I find it interesting to look at the personality tests because it shows interpretations of myself based on somewhat arbitrary questions.

For example, I took the Keirsey Temperament Test and received the result of "Rational."

Rationals are the problem solving temperament, particularly if the problem has to do with the many complex systems that make up the world around us. Rationals might tackle problems in organic systems such as plants and animals, or in mechanical systems such as railroads and computers, or in social systems such as families and companies and governments. But whatever systems fire their curiosity, Rationals will analyze them to understand how they work, so they can figure out how to make them work better.

I felt that these results, while indicative of my personality, were somewhat skewed by the fact that often, during the questionnaire, I found myself wondering what the questions meant or not being able to tell enough of a difference between the two options or finding myself fall somewhere in the middle.

I also took the Big Five Test.

	Your Results
Closed-Minded		Open to New Experiences
Disorganized		Conscientious
Introverted		Extraverted
Disagreeable		Agreeable
Calm / Relaxed		Nervous / High-Strung

It's interesting to see these results for me because there were a lot of determinations I didn't necessarily agree with. I scored relatively high on the Disorganized/Conscientious scale because I prefer my work space to be neat and orderly and because I am a generally careful person. However, I am, by nature, a very disorganized person and I ought to be more careful in my personal life. This distinction couldn't possibly be recognized in using the quiz questions. I think this is similarly shown in the disagreeable/agreeable zone. Because I can recognize areas that need improvement when I work in groups, the quiz interpreted that to mean that I am critical, yet it didn't consider my compassionate and highly forgiving nature at the same time.

After taking these personality tests, I have found them to be helpful in the area of self-knowledge, but there is a danger in relying upon them too heavily. I think my "Big Five" results could possibly turn off future employers or other people because it shows I am a harsh and callous person, yet that is very far from being true. And I also think that a lot of these determinations are CHOICES. We have the choice to be agreeable or disagreeable, I have the choice to act within a group as the inventor or as the field marshal. I adapt to situations depending upon the needs I see, and then I try my best to fill them. It is this very human aspect that trait theory ignores.

History of Leadership/Emotional Intelligences--#2

Leadership appears to be a very fluid concept. I say this because over the centuries that leaders have existed, styles have changed. Although people of the 1900's were stuck on the Great Man trait theory, people in the 50s were all about traits. What worked for one generation didn't work for all generations.

Which is why I like the current approach to leadership. It accounts for this malleable relationship between people and a concept. What I like even more, is there seems to be an inherent assumption that this view of leadership will change.

Of course, that's just my personal perspective on the matter. I think it very unwise to suggest that we have all the answers because then we close the door on learning from our mistakes or from new information.

This could relate to issues that leaders of the past have had. Any leader who assumes that he or she has all the answers will ultimately meet their untimely demise. It happened to Alexander, Napoleon and the Romanovs--so what'sto stop it happening from America?

I think the American attitude toward policy and leadership, more generally, has been incubating since the 1950s, the hey-day of American nationalism. But it's this same pride that undermines American sensibility, thereby creating a chink in the armor, so to speak. Whatever happened to co-learning? Since when did America have a lock on foreign policy, internal management, economics? In fact, I think that American attitudes are partially to blame for issues we have experienced as of late. Without the humility to admit when we have made mistakes or the insight to recognize necessary changes in the system, our governing system will stagnate and eventually fall, just like every other leadership model that "had all the answers."

Leadership Experience--#1

I have been involved with the on-campus student-run non-profit organization Camp Wildcat for a year and a half now. This is an organization, which, in short, takes underprivileged 4th-8th graders on weekend-long camping trips and portrays college as an attainable goal. Last year, as a general member, I took on several leadership roles, first, as the winter formal director, then as a camp director, and then as the publicity head for our annual auction. This year, I am the club's community relations chair.

For me, directing a Big Camp (a camp where we take ~60 4th or 5th graders) was one of the most meaningful leadership experiences of my life. I took on this hefty responsibility with my friend Adria and we planned the camp from the ground up. We were responsible for planning everything, from the theme, activities, finding a school, parents' and kids' meetings, coordinating volunteers and transportation, to implementing the actual activities held on camp.

Out of the experience came "Big Camp 3: Rockets, Microwaves, and Broccoli, Oh my!", an engineering-themed camp in which we provided the tools and education for students to experiment with different kinds of energy (solar, wind, exothermic/endothermic reactions), to build balloon-powered cars and to build catapults (which were later used to shoot water balloons at their counselors), and to learn how to tailor their inventions to every kind of person, regardless of their ability.

This experience taught me a lot about myself and what I want to do with my life, mostly. It gave me direction and helped me to realize some of my own personal goals. It helped me to develop better organizational skills, to lead in a way that encourages cooperation from others, to identify the workload I am capable of carrying, among many, many other things. It truly gave me a lust for leadership and it made me want to continue building a leadership style. It also helped me to identify poor qualities of leadership and to avoid such tendencies.

However, I think the most important thing that I learned to do was to lead by example. I found that if I was there pitching in with the rest of the volunteers instead of merely directing them and ordering them about.

Welcome Earthlings

This will be my leadership blog for H ED 201: Foundations of Leadership.

I solemnly swear
*I will not lead you astray.
*I will first learn, then implement. Not the other way around.
*I will be factual. I cannot promise to be concise, funny, or serious. As a feather in the wind, so the breeze moves me.

Happy trails!