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.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)