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."