What role does the self-fulfilling prophecy play in realizing potential? I found myself wondering this during class tonight. It's my psychology degree coming out again. But, I remember lots of stuff on self-fulfilling prophecies. The theory is that once an idea is in your head, you pay attention to the stuff that supports the idea, and ignore the rest. In the end, you end up fulfilling the prophecy. So, what does this say about realizing your potential, or helping others realize their potential?
First, it tells me that having that optimistic, "glass is half full" disposition is kind of important. If I feel that I have a lot of potential, and that I can do something, and do it well, the setbacks won't bother me so much. But, if I'm really scared and lacking confidence, then I'll see those setbacks as proof that I suck and I should stop trying.
As far as working with others, however, I think it's even more important to be aware of the self-fulfilling prophecy. By suspending judgement, and seeing the best in others, and letting them know that I see the best in them, I can transfer some of that optimism to them, so they can then fulfill the prophecy that they're awesome.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Post 12
I'm not surprised that this "spirituality" stuff became such a big focus in class. It's certainly something I've struggled with, and I think the readings all touched on this idea this week. Like some of the other atheists in class mentioned, I felt a little squirmy when I read the "god" stuff in the readings. But, I just don't know what to think anymore. It used to be easy. I could just skip over that stuff, or read it and laugh. But now, I don't know. I'm trying to see how some of this "spirituality" stuff applies to me. Meaning, I'm trying to look for the deeper meaning. I still don't believe in a higher being, but it would be ridiculous for me to say I don't believe in a higher "power". I guess it depends on how you're defining power. I believe in humanity, and I certainly think that is larger than myself. I still don't consider myself "spiritual". Maybe I'm a humanist (according to Wikipedia, humanism IS compatible with atheism).
So, what does this have to do with servant leadership, and leadership from within? I think it goes back to the humanity piece. I think we all want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. For the servant leader, we serve ourselves by serving others. In order to give back to humanity, we must offer a piece of ourself. But, I think "leaders" must have a strong sense of self, and a good understanding of their values, in order to serve. That's where balance comes into play.
There's this book series I'm really into The Sword of Truth by Robert Goodkind. It's kind of Harry Potter for grownups. And I've struggled with servant leadership since reading the sixth book of this series. One of the ideas proposed in this book (aside from all of the magic, sword fighting, and other fantasy fiction staples) is the idea of what it means to be a truly servant leader. Over the course of the book, the main character is taken hostage and forced to live in a part of the world that follows "the order", in which all people are supposed to sacrifice themselves to the greater good. It's taken to the extreme here, where people feel like they can't make their situations better for themselves, and they're told that such self interests are actually evil. Not cool, right? Well the main character doesn't think so either, and by the end of the book he's able to show people "the truth", only he doesn't tell it to them. He let's them find the vision on their own. But, the part that I think is the most relevant to this idea of servant leadership, is that all the people in this book decide to come together and fight, not because they think that Richard, the main character, is the most charismatic dude ever, but they share the same values and the same vision. And in this sense, they seek to serve the cause, and not just an individual.
Where am I going with all this? I think that you have to know your own values, and you have to know who you are. You need to choose to serve others because they share the same vision. If you don't, you risk losing your own sense of self worth.
So, what does this have to do with servant leadership, and leadership from within? I think it goes back to the humanity piece. I think we all want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. For the servant leader, we serve ourselves by serving others. In order to give back to humanity, we must offer a piece of ourself. But, I think "leaders" must have a strong sense of self, and a good understanding of their values, in order to serve. That's where balance comes into play.
There's this book series I'm really into The Sword of Truth by Robert Goodkind. It's kind of Harry Potter for grownups. And I've struggled with servant leadership since reading the sixth book of this series. One of the ideas proposed in this book (aside from all of the magic, sword fighting, and other fantasy fiction staples) is the idea of what it means to be a truly servant leader. Over the course of the book, the main character is taken hostage and forced to live in a part of the world that follows "the order", in which all people are supposed to sacrifice themselves to the greater good. It's taken to the extreme here, where people feel like they can't make their situations better for themselves, and they're told that such self interests are actually evil. Not cool, right? Well the main character doesn't think so either, and by the end of the book he's able to show people "the truth", only he doesn't tell it to them. He let's them find the vision on their own. But, the part that I think is the most relevant to this idea of servant leadership, is that all the people in this book decide to come together and fight, not because they think that Richard, the main character, is the most charismatic dude ever, but they share the same values and the same vision. And in this sense, they seek to serve the cause, and not just an individual.
Where am I going with all this? I think that you have to know your own values, and you have to know who you are. You need to choose to serve others because they share the same vision. If you don't, you risk losing your own sense of self worth.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Post 11
ACPA/NASPA: Longest week ever!
Between interviewing, presenting, the case study competition, and the Standing Committee for Graduate Students and New Professionals, I've never been more exhausted. Having to travel between hotels sure didn't help.
First off, I am so, sooo glad I got involved with SCGSNP. I'm not a huge fan of "networking", but because I've gotten involved with this committee, I've gotten to know a lot of people at different institutions, which is really cool. And it was really nice having a reason NOT to spend the entire week in placement.
Speaking of placement... I guess it went pretty well. I had 10 interviews with 8 schools. Some of them went great, others not so much. One of the big surprises though, was how well it went with Texas A&M. I never would have considered them, but they sought me out, and both of the interviews went really, really well. The position is leadership & service-learning. It was pretty funny, they asked me for my leadership philosophy. And I just kinda laughed, and said "well, I'm taking this class right now that has kind of blown my mind, but I'm starting to piece it back together, and here's what I'm thinking". It was great. and then, when I was asking them questions, they basically repeated back to me exactly what I had already said. Talk about reciprocity!
Anyway, after my experience here at MSU, I really hope that I can find a position that also views leadership as more than just a position. Heh, I hope I can be that choosy. Or, at the very least, I hope that I can find a place that is open to new ideas.
I'll be happier when I finally have a job.
Between interviewing, presenting, the case study competition, and the Standing Committee for Graduate Students and New Professionals, I've never been more exhausted. Having to travel between hotels sure didn't help.
First off, I am so, sooo glad I got involved with SCGSNP. I'm not a huge fan of "networking", but because I've gotten involved with this committee, I've gotten to know a lot of people at different institutions, which is really cool. And it was really nice having a reason NOT to spend the entire week in placement.
Speaking of placement... I guess it went pretty well. I had 10 interviews with 8 schools. Some of them went great, others not so much. One of the big surprises though, was how well it went with Texas A&M. I never would have considered them, but they sought me out, and both of the interviews went really, really well. The position is leadership & service-learning. It was pretty funny, they asked me for my leadership philosophy. And I just kinda laughed, and said "well, I'm taking this class right now that has kind of blown my mind, but I'm starting to piece it back together, and here's what I'm thinking". It was great. and then, when I was asking them questions, they basically repeated back to me exactly what I had already said. Talk about reciprocity!
Anyway, after my experience here at MSU, I really hope that I can find a position that also views leadership as more than just a position. Heh, I hope I can be that choosy. Or, at the very least, I hope that I can find a place that is open to new ideas.
I'll be happier when I finally have a job.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Post 10
I'm thinking about some of the stuff we talked about in class yesterday about team leadership, and I'm trying to apply it to some of the work environments I've been in.
The Department of Student Life is kind of a weird place. They try to have this "flat hierarchy". They've been talking about it since I started last fall. As far as I can tell, it doesn't work. From what I can see, the professional staff members (which includes the Director, Associate Director, Assistant Directors, and a Coordinator (and does NOT include graduate students, support staff, or student staff)) are the ones who make decisions. I don't know that I would call them a leadership team though. Some of Bensimon and Neumann's 8 thinking roles are present, but I don't think they're effective. One of the Assistant Directors is definitely a critic, but not in a good way. I think he's at a point where he just doesn't like his job or the people he works with, and just looks for the negative in everything. Another AD might be more of the emotional monitor, but that's the only thing she ever talks about, so I get the sense that others have learned to just tune her out.
So, I feel like DSL is a fake team. I still don't know how decisions get made. Apparently, the professional staff makes decisions together, but they feel like they have to make EVERY decision together. Which means that even the smallest decisions have to be approved by every member of the professional staff. Even something as small as a small, one-day leadership workshop. But if they can't come to agreement, a decision just doesn't get made.
Now, comparing this to my experience with the Blue Chip staff.... Granted, I was an undergraduate, and I only attended the Blue Chip staff meetings, so I didn't see how everything in that department happened. But, it had a very different feel. Lots of things were happening; lots of new ideas, lots of programs, etc. Even as a student staff member, I felt that I could make decisions on how I was doing things, and didn't necessarily need permission. Even in the Blue Chip staff meetings, we talked about lots of issues as far as budget, curriculum, and all that jazz. We would talk about the issues, try to come up with solutions, and we usually got it all figured out within a few minutes. Unless it was something larger, like starting a new program fee for Blue Chip. That conversation might have lasted the entire meeting time. The Director of the Center for Student Invovlement and Leadership was also a member of this team, but I never got the sense that the other staff members were looking for the "right" answer to please him (and I see that a lot at Student Life). In class, someone brought up the idea of an environment of risk-taking, and how that makes taking risks less risky. Well, I think that's the kind of environment we had in Blue Chip.
Something else that I was thinking about in class is whether or not it matters what decision is made, if all of the members feel that their voice was heard and considered. I imagine that it might be similar to something I remember from a psychology class. I can't remember what class, or even what the topic was, but I remember the example being something about starting a car. "If your car always starts, then when it doesn't start, you'll flip out, and you'll try it another couple of times, and then give up. If your car never starts, you won't even bother trying. But, if your car is a little testy, and usually starts, but sometimes might take a few tries, then when it doesn't start, you'll be more likely to try it until it does start". So, applying this example to group decision making, I would imagine that as long as you're in favor of whatever decision is made most of the time, that on the occasion when you're not happy with the decision, it won't affect how you feel about the team. But, if you're almost always in favor of the decision, and this one time you're not, you'll probably be a little upset for a bit. What happens though, when you're never happy with the decisions that are made? Is that when you buy a new car?
The Department of Student Life is kind of a weird place. They try to have this "flat hierarchy". They've been talking about it since I started last fall. As far as I can tell, it doesn't work. From what I can see, the professional staff members (which includes the Director, Associate Director, Assistant Directors, and a Coordinator (and does NOT include graduate students, support staff, or student staff)) are the ones who make decisions. I don't know that I would call them a leadership team though. Some of Bensimon and Neumann's 8 thinking roles are present, but I don't think they're effective. One of the Assistant Directors is definitely a critic, but not in a good way. I think he's at a point where he just doesn't like his job or the people he works with, and just looks for the negative in everything. Another AD might be more of the emotional monitor, but that's the only thing she ever talks about, so I get the sense that others have learned to just tune her out.
So, I feel like DSL is a fake team. I still don't know how decisions get made. Apparently, the professional staff makes decisions together, but they feel like they have to make EVERY decision together. Which means that even the smallest decisions have to be approved by every member of the professional staff. Even something as small as a small, one-day leadership workshop. But if they can't come to agreement, a decision just doesn't get made.
Now, comparing this to my experience with the Blue Chip staff.... Granted, I was an undergraduate, and I only attended the Blue Chip staff meetings, so I didn't see how everything in that department happened. But, it had a very different feel. Lots of things were happening; lots of new ideas, lots of programs, etc. Even as a student staff member, I felt that I could make decisions on how I was doing things, and didn't necessarily need permission. Even in the Blue Chip staff meetings, we talked about lots of issues as far as budget, curriculum, and all that jazz. We would talk about the issues, try to come up with solutions, and we usually got it all figured out within a few minutes. Unless it was something larger, like starting a new program fee for Blue Chip. That conversation might have lasted the entire meeting time. The Director of the Center for Student Invovlement and Leadership was also a member of this team, but I never got the sense that the other staff members were looking for the "right" answer to please him (and I see that a lot at Student Life). In class, someone brought up the idea of an environment of risk-taking, and how that makes taking risks less risky. Well, I think that's the kind of environment we had in Blue Chip.
Something else that I was thinking about in class is whether or not it matters what decision is made, if all of the members feel that their voice was heard and considered. I imagine that it might be similar to something I remember from a psychology class. I can't remember what class, or even what the topic was, but I remember the example being something about starting a car. "If your car always starts, then when it doesn't start, you'll flip out, and you'll try it another couple of times, and then give up. If your car never starts, you won't even bother trying. But, if your car is a little testy, and usually starts, but sometimes might take a few tries, then when it doesn't start, you'll be more likely to try it until it does start". So, applying this example to group decision making, I would imagine that as long as you're in favor of whatever decision is made most of the time, that on the occasion when you're not happy with the decision, it won't affect how you feel about the team. But, if you're almost always in favor of the decision, and this one time you're not, you'll probably be a little upset for a bit. What happens though, when you're never happy with the decisions that are made? Is that when you buy a new car?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Post 9
I don't think I like grad school anymore. I'm feeling done. Job searching is bumming me out and stressing me out, classes aren't slowing down at all (not that they would this time of year), and work is hectic. I wonder if my brain has stretch marks from all this rapid development.
Job searching is on my brain. There's not a whole lot of leadership development positions out there. Some of the closest things I've found are mostly student activities, or student organizations with some leadership mixed in. Why aren't there more Blue Chips out there? I mean, I knew Blue Chip was "the first of its kind", but that was 8 years ago. So, what's my next step? I went through this whole student affairs grad school process so I could work with leadership programs, and do something like Blue Chip at another institution. I don't know that I'd want to go back to Arizona and work there (even though I am applying for a job in the Center for Student Involvement and Leadership there), because I wanted to "spread the fire". I know Blue Chip is in good hands, and it's going to keep being awesome. So, I guess the question is, how do I make things happen at another university? I thought I would be doing that here at MSU, but our attempts have been pretty feeble.
I guess I'm wondering how to use what I've learned in this class. I know I can't just come in with a vision, and compel others to "follow" me. That ain't gonna work. I know I'll have to learn the culture of the institution, figure out what the needs are. How do you create a culture of leadership? A culture that supports a "Blue Chip"? And more importantly for me personally, how do I figure out that out as I'm job searching? Are my expectations/hopes unrealistic? I don't want a mediocre job. That's what I have right now. I'm ready for something that is going to get me excited about student affairs again. I want to feel empowered, I want that energy. I know it's got to exist somewhere.
Job searching is on my brain. There's not a whole lot of leadership development positions out there. Some of the closest things I've found are mostly student activities, or student organizations with some leadership mixed in. Why aren't there more Blue Chips out there? I mean, I knew Blue Chip was "the first of its kind", but that was 8 years ago. So, what's my next step? I went through this whole student affairs grad school process so I could work with leadership programs, and do something like Blue Chip at another institution. I don't know that I'd want to go back to Arizona and work there (even though I am applying for a job in the Center for Student Involvement and Leadership there), because I wanted to "spread the fire". I know Blue Chip is in good hands, and it's going to keep being awesome. So, I guess the question is, how do I make things happen at another university? I thought I would be doing that here at MSU, but our attempts have been pretty feeble.
I guess I'm wondering how to use what I've learned in this class. I know I can't just come in with a vision, and compel others to "follow" me. That ain't gonna work. I know I'll have to learn the culture of the institution, figure out what the needs are. How do you create a culture of leadership? A culture that supports a "Blue Chip"? And more importantly for me personally, how do I figure out that out as I'm job searching? Are my expectations/hopes unrealistic? I don't want a mediocre job. That's what I have right now. I'm ready for something that is going to get me excited about student affairs again. I want to feel empowered, I want that energy. I know it's got to exist somewhere.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Post 8
This blog tends to be a little more on the "philosophical" side. Here's a more "practical" question though. As we were talking in class tonight, someone brought up the issue of habitual deference, which could lead to people who typically don't make decisions but then complain about it anyway. How do you deal with that? Do you try to force people to make their own decisions?
I feel like we have this problem in my department. Nobody wants to make decisions, but the director wants the professional staff to make decisions. But I get the sense that they want to be told what to do, and when she asks for them to participate in the decision making process, they tell her what they think she wants to hear. It's frustrating. It makes me feel dis-empowered and disenfranchised. I'm okay with making decisions. If someone tells me to make a decision, I feel like they are trusting me, and that I can make a decision based on what I feel is best. I don't get that sense from the professional staff in my office. There's a lack of trust. And trust is really one of the foundations of leadership.
There was another thing that caught my attention in class. I take pretty shoddy notes, and what I have written down is "crisis vs. urgency --> OP IVY quote- keep sense of urgency and hope - how do they relate?". For the life of me, I can't remember the context of the conversation. But I know that was something I wanted to think more about. So, I'm gonna give it a shot.
So, here's the quote I was thinking about:
" Music is an indirect force for change, because it provides an anchor against human tragedy. In this sense, it works towards a reconciled world. It can also be the direct experience of change. At certain points during some shows, the reconciled world is already here, at least in that second, at that place. Operation Ivy was very lucky to have experienced this. Those seconds reveal that the momentum that drives a subculture is more important than any particular band. The momentum is made of all the people who stay interested, and keep their sense of urgency and hope." -Jesse Michaels, Operation Ivy
Operation Ivy was a punk band in the late 80s, and they're basically one of the best punk bands ever. Something about this message, which was in the liner notes of their only album (which was released 2 days before they broke up) has always struck a chord with me. What I love about it is the focus on community. The idea that even though many people looked to Op Ivy as the "leaders", they were really just a small fragment of a bigger piece of energy. I think I also like the concept of time and change. It reminds me of some of the things Heifetz was saying about the evolutionary process. Change is constanly happening, even though we can't see it. Even when things are seemingly stagnant, the time is still changing around us, so nothing ever stays the same.
So now, this idea of urgency and hope. Op Ivy was a pretty political band, and many of the kids that were part of the subculture were in fact kids who had a lot of heart. There was a sense of urgency, as these punks wanted to see changes in the world. But it's hard to make change happen, when as an individual you feel insignificant. Is that where hope comes in? Not letting yourself feel disenfranchised? I guess in keeping that sense of urgency, and remaining hopeful that change is possible, you stand a better chance of getting things accomplished.
I feel like we have this problem in my department. Nobody wants to make decisions, but the director wants the professional staff to make decisions. But I get the sense that they want to be told what to do, and when she asks for them to participate in the decision making process, they tell her what they think she wants to hear. It's frustrating. It makes me feel dis-empowered and disenfranchised. I'm okay with making decisions. If someone tells me to make a decision, I feel like they are trusting me, and that I can make a decision based on what I feel is best. I don't get that sense from the professional staff in my office. There's a lack of trust. And trust is really one of the foundations of leadership.
There was another thing that caught my attention in class. I take pretty shoddy notes, and what I have written down is "crisis vs. urgency --> OP IVY quote- keep sense of urgency and hope - how do they relate?". For the life of me, I can't remember the context of the conversation. But I know that was something I wanted to think more about. So, I'm gonna give it a shot.
So, here's the quote I was thinking about:
" Music is an indirect force for change, because it provides an anchor against human tragedy. In this sense, it works towards a reconciled world. It can also be the direct experience of change. At certain points during some shows, the reconciled world is already here, at least in that second, at that place. Operation Ivy was very lucky to have experienced this. Those seconds reveal that the momentum that drives a subculture is more important than any particular band. The momentum is made of all the people who stay interested, and keep their sense of urgency and hope." -Jesse Michaels, Operation Ivy
Operation Ivy was a punk band in the late 80s, and they're basically one of the best punk bands ever. Something about this message, which was in the liner notes of their only album (which was released 2 days before they broke up) has always struck a chord with me. What I love about it is the focus on community. The idea that even though many people looked to Op Ivy as the "leaders", they were really just a small fragment of a bigger piece of energy. I think I also like the concept of time and change. It reminds me of some of the things Heifetz was saying about the evolutionary process. Change is constanly happening, even though we can't see it. Even when things are seemingly stagnant, the time is still changing around us, so nothing ever stays the same.
So now, this idea of urgency and hope. Op Ivy was a pretty political band, and many of the kids that were part of the subculture were in fact kids who had a lot of heart. There was a sense of urgency, as these punks wanted to see changes in the world. But it's hard to make change happen, when as an individual you feel insignificant. Is that where hope comes in? Not letting yourself feel disenfranchised? I guess in keeping that sense of urgency, and remaining hopeful that change is possible, you stand a better chance of getting things accomplished.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Post 7
So, this isn't directly related to EAD 963, but it's hard for me to box in my leadership development because it's kind of what I do.
For my 801 class I've been reading Leadership Reconsidered (LR). LR presents a different view of transformative leadership. In LR, transformative leadership is loosely defined as a shared process amongst individuals in an organization in which positive change is occuring. Reading that made me think again about our last discussion in class. It made me realize that there is a difference between a transformative leader and transformative leadership. Transformative leadership is focused on the organization. It's a culture (a culture of awesome, if you ask me). Everyone in a transformational organization is empowered, the responsibilities are shared. Not everyone may be included in the decision making process, but the process is transparent.
LR was focused on how to transform higher education institutions, using this process of shared leadership. Overall, I thought it was pretty awesome, as it was really practical and talked about all the different constituent groups and what beliefs will help or hinder them in this process. I find myself wondering, however, if it really created change in higher education. It was released in 2000 or 2001, so I have to wonder if any institutions, or even departments, have picked it up and made use of it. Is it possible, knowing that higher education changes so slowly? I don't know that I'll find that answer.
For my 801 class I've been reading Leadership Reconsidered (LR). LR presents a different view of transformative leadership. In LR, transformative leadership is loosely defined as a shared process amongst individuals in an organization in which positive change is occuring. Reading that made me think again about our last discussion in class. It made me realize that there is a difference between a transformative leader and transformative leadership. Transformative leadership is focused on the organization. It's a culture (a culture of awesome, if you ask me). Everyone in a transformational organization is empowered, the responsibilities are shared. Not everyone may be included in the decision making process, but the process is transparent.
LR was focused on how to transform higher education institutions, using this process of shared leadership. Overall, I thought it was pretty awesome, as it was really practical and talked about all the different constituent groups and what beliefs will help or hinder them in this process. I find myself wondering, however, if it really created change in higher education. It was released in 2000 or 2001, so I have to wonder if any institutions, or even departments, have picked it up and made use of it. Is it possible, knowing that higher education changes so slowly? I don't know that I'll find that answer.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Post 6
Holy buckets, class blew my mind tonight. Honestly, between the readings and the conversation, it actually made my brain hurt. It made paying attention in my next class extremely difficult!
I've always preferred leadership theories that focused on the process of leadership, and not the "leader". I also believed that transformational leadership was "better" than transactional leadership. I think I may have mentioned this in class, how I had always conceived transactional leadership to have this quick-check convenience bend to it; an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine". That's how authors that promote transformational leadership talk about it, anyway.
But as we were talking about the differences between transactional and transformational, I started to think differently about the two. I drew connections between the narcissistic leader and the transformational, in that the transformational leader is expected to be the "hero" (I hate hero worship (maybe hate is too strong a word)), and come in with a vision, and lead people to it. I think that sets a lot of people up for failure. It places all the glory on the "leader", and the "followers" only get recognition if the "leader" gives it to them.
So, to see transactional leadership posed as a more process-oriented leadership style, I was all like "yeah!!". It reminds me of St. Exupery's The Little Prince. That book is chock-full of existentialism. One of my favorite messages from The Little Prince is that the journey is more important than the destination. That's why I prefer to focus on the process rather than the outcomes.
When you focus on the process, and more so how everyone is involved in the process, I think the outcomes will come naturally. That reminds me of a speech Matt gave us last year when we were all freaking out about the assessment project and papers and stuff. He basically told us to just focus on the learning, and the grades would come naturally. And yeah, he was right. But what do you do when you have a supervisor, or "leader" who is only focused on the outcomes?
I've always preferred leadership theories that focused on the process of leadership, and not the "leader". I also believed that transformational leadership was "better" than transactional leadership. I think I may have mentioned this in class, how I had always conceived transactional leadership to have this quick-check convenience bend to it; an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine". That's how authors that promote transformational leadership talk about it, anyway.
But as we were talking about the differences between transactional and transformational, I started to think differently about the two. I drew connections between the narcissistic leader and the transformational, in that the transformational leader is expected to be the "hero" (I hate hero worship (maybe hate is too strong a word)), and come in with a vision, and lead people to it. I think that sets a lot of people up for failure. It places all the glory on the "leader", and the "followers" only get recognition if the "leader" gives it to them.
So, to see transactional leadership posed as a more process-oriented leadership style, I was all like "yeah!!". It reminds me of St. Exupery's The Little Prince. That book is chock-full of existentialism. One of my favorite messages from The Little Prince is that the journey is more important than the destination. That's why I prefer to focus on the process rather than the outcomes.
When you focus on the process, and more so how everyone is involved in the process, I think the outcomes will come naturally. That reminds me of a speech Matt gave us last year when we were all freaking out about the assessment project and papers and stuff. He basically told us to just focus on the learning, and the grades would come naturally. And yeah, he was right. But what do you do when you have a supervisor, or "leader" who is only focused on the outcomes?
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Post 5
I thought our discussion on symbols was interesting. What I found interesting was that we never talked about what happens when symbols don't exist. I did a NODA internship this past summer at Montclair State University in New Jersey. One of the problems they had was that there were no symbols. They had a really hard time answering the question "what does it mean to be a Montclair student?" Students there weren't entirely invested in the school. Many students wore sweatshirts from other institutions. There was a feeling of "I didn't get into Rutgers, so I'm here". There were no established symbols or traditions that students could buy into. Working in Orientation, we tried to instill a sense of pride, but my sense was that it was mostly superficial. It makes me wonder how one creates symbols and traditions. My sense is that it's not an easy thing to do. I feel like it has to be an organic process. But, if a symbol is to be embraced by the community, it must be something in which everyone can feel a sense of ownership.
Not related to this topic, per say, but something that I'm learning over the course of this class.... I hate the word "follower" and I'm hesitant to use the word "leader". So much of what we are reading emphasizes shared leadership, and how important it is for everyone to be involved in the leadership process. It makes me wonder about the nature of leadership, and whether the terms "leader" and "follower" would exist in an ideal organization. Perhaps the term co-creater would be a better term. I actually called up my brother today to ask him about anarchism. True anarchy is not total chaos, rather it is a system of truly shared power in which each person is considerd to be a "leader". I guess it's a concept I'm still struggling with, and I don't know that I'll ever work it out. But I'm okay with that.
Not related to this topic, per say, but something that I'm learning over the course of this class.... I hate the word "follower" and I'm hesitant to use the word "leader". So much of what we are reading emphasizes shared leadership, and how important it is for everyone to be involved in the leadership process. It makes me wonder about the nature of leadership, and whether the terms "leader" and "follower" would exist in an ideal organization. Perhaps the term co-creater would be a better term. I actually called up my brother today to ask him about anarchism. True anarchy is not total chaos, rather it is a system of truly shared power in which each person is considerd to be a "leader". I guess it's a concept I'm still struggling with, and I don't know that I'll ever work it out. But I'm okay with that.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Post 4
The Bennis and Thomas article about leaders as their own personal hero, and having a crucible experience kind of stuck with me. I don't like to admit it, but I think I'm a drama queen. I don't know if my life would make a great tv show, but I bet it could be an awesome movie. But isn't that true of most people?
I think the reason that idea of "leader as his/her own hero" stuck a chord with me goes back to my atheism. I've always said "I don't believe in god, I believe in myself". The two statements seem similar to me. Maybe not entirely, but I can certainly agree that I am my own hero. Does that sound too egotistical? Probably a little, but that's ok.
I've faced obstacles. And sometimes life has sucked. A lot. I keep trying to think of what my crucible is. And lots of different moments keep popping up in my mind. And the chapter talked about this crucible being a solo journey. Granted, a person has many crucible experiences. But which one defines me?
(Please don't judge me for what I'm about to say...) My defining moment...the one that I rarely share...The one that could have broken me in more ways than one... The night I did acid by myself. My freshman year was terrible. It was the absolute worst year of my life. In addition to transitioning to college and breaking up with my high school boyfriend, my parents were on the verge of divorce. After doing lots of stupid things over the course of the year, it all culminated in this one night. I was upset because this guy I was kind of seeing didn't call me when he was having a party at his place. So I decided to do acid by myself. I was a mess that night. I had never been so scared. And I kept thinking about all these things that happened that year.
I didn't sleep that night. It takes a long time to come down from acid. But at 7am, the sun was shining, and I was still alive. I remember thinking "I made it through the night". It was the most beautiful moment of my life. From that moment on, I knew that nothing was so bad that I couldn't handle it.
I think the reason that idea of "leader as his/her own hero" stuck a chord with me goes back to my atheism. I've always said "I don't believe in god, I believe in myself". The two statements seem similar to me. Maybe not entirely, but I can certainly agree that I am my own hero. Does that sound too egotistical? Probably a little, but that's ok.
I've faced obstacles. And sometimes life has sucked. A lot. I keep trying to think of what my crucible is. And lots of different moments keep popping up in my mind. And the chapter talked about this crucible being a solo journey. Granted, a person has many crucible experiences. But which one defines me?
(Please don't judge me for what I'm about to say...) My defining moment...the one that I rarely share...The one that could have broken me in more ways than one... The night I did acid by myself. My freshman year was terrible. It was the absolute worst year of my life. In addition to transitioning to college and breaking up with my high school boyfriend, my parents were on the verge of divorce. After doing lots of stupid things over the course of the year, it all culminated in this one night. I was upset because this guy I was kind of seeing didn't call me when he was having a party at his place. So I decided to do acid by myself. I was a mess that night. I had never been so scared. And I kept thinking about all these things that happened that year.
I didn't sleep that night. It takes a long time to come down from acid. But at 7am, the sun was shining, and I was still alive. I remember thinking "I made it through the night". It was the most beautiful moment of my life. From that moment on, I knew that nothing was so bad that I couldn't handle it.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
post 3
I find myself struggling with a lot of concepts lately. Here's some ideas I'm hoping to flesh out:
- "actual" leadership vs. academic research on leadership
- leadership development for leaders vs. leadership development
I'll start with the last one. So I have this problem at work. I am supposed to be developing "leadership development" programs for my department. The question: what the heck does leadership development mean? Many of my coworkers immediately think "trainings for RSO presidents and officers". I understand it as something different though. I have this belief that everyone can be a leader, and everyone should be a leader. So to me, leadership development is a process of helping students (because that is the context in which I work) develop a leadership identity. When I taught EAD 315, I always told my students "leadership is not a hat that you put on or take off when you're not "the leader". It's a tattoo... it's with you for the rest of your life". So now, I'm faced with the question of how to get my colleagues to understand that. I mean, I've been doing lots of research on leadership and leadership development, and I am the only person on staff that has actually been through a leadership development program. Plus, I'm kind of dealing with this generation gap. Not entirely sure how that fits into the equation.
Ok, so I also have this idea that there's something different between academic research and "leadership in action". I was having a conversation with my old band director, and he kind of made fun of me for thinking so "academically". Is there a difference between what we talk about it in the classroom and what actually happens? I mean, we're sitting around in a room talking for three hours, but we're all academics (at least for the time being). Granted, a lot of the research we read is on the "leadership in practice", as a lot of it looks at individuals and organizations, but how would it be different if some of these CEOs were sitting around the room with us?
- "actual" leadership vs. academic research on leadership
- leadership development for leaders vs. leadership development
I'll start with the last one. So I have this problem at work. I am supposed to be developing "leadership development" programs for my department. The question: what the heck does leadership development mean? Many of my coworkers immediately think "trainings for RSO presidents and officers". I understand it as something different though. I have this belief that everyone can be a leader, and everyone should be a leader. So to me, leadership development is a process of helping students (because that is the context in which I work) develop a leadership identity. When I taught EAD 315, I always told my students "leadership is not a hat that you put on or take off when you're not "the leader". It's a tattoo... it's with you for the rest of your life". So now, I'm faced with the question of how to get my colleagues to understand that. I mean, I've been doing lots of research on leadership and leadership development, and I am the only person on staff that has actually been through a leadership development program. Plus, I'm kind of dealing with this generation gap. Not entirely sure how that fits into the equation.
Ok, so I also have this idea that there's something different between academic research and "leadership in action". I was having a conversation with my old band director, and he kind of made fun of me for thinking so "academically". Is there a difference between what we talk about it in the classroom and what actually happens? I mean, we're sitting around in a room talking for three hours, but we're all academics (at least for the time being). Granted, a lot of the research we read is on the "leadership in practice", as a lot of it looks at individuals and organizations, but how would it be different if some of these CEOs were sitting around the room with us?
Monday, February 5, 2007
Post 2
As an undergrad at the University of Arizona, I was in the Arizona Blue Chip Program, a four-year leadership development program. I learned a lot in that program, and I was proud to be a member. Blue Chip emphasized ethical leadership. I wanted to be the best leader I could be.
The summer between my Junior and Senior year, I backed into someone's car in a parking lot. I didn't stick around, I didn't leave a note. I was scared because I had gotten into an accident a few months ago, and I didn't want my insurance to go up even more. I just drove away. I feel guilty about it every day. I can't think about ethical leadership without thinking about this situation, and thinking about it makes me ill. I feel like a fraud. But, it was probably one of the best leadership lessons I've ever learned.
Being atheist, there's no one I can ask for forgiveness. So I carry this with me. And when the cashier didn't ring up my sweater when I went shopping a few weeks ago, I thought about the parking lot. After checking the receipt, I walked back into the store and told her she didn't ring it up. She thanked me for being honest, and I lied and said I didn't want her to get in trouble. The truth was that I knew that I could have gotten away with it and saved $12.00, but I didn't want to live with that. Each time I find myself in an "ethical dilemma", I think about that day in the parking lot.
Being ethical isn't easy. And it's not always fun. But in the end, what it comes down to is "can I live with this"? Being honest isn't easy either. Sometimes it's easier to tell a white lie to a friend to avoid hurting her/his feelings. Those little white lies are pretty easy to forget, because you can rationlalize them away. It's hard to rationalize backing into someone's car and leaving. I suppose that is where society comes into play. Society tends to frown upon damaging someone else's property. But hurting someone's feelings is also considered "bad". And while lying is generally condsidered bad, if it is just a small lie, half-truth, or "leaving out some facts", it's ok if it serves the purpose of protecting someone's feelings. Ethics are funny like that.
The summer between my Junior and Senior year, I backed into someone's car in a parking lot. I didn't stick around, I didn't leave a note. I was scared because I had gotten into an accident a few months ago, and I didn't want my insurance to go up even more. I just drove away. I feel guilty about it every day. I can't think about ethical leadership without thinking about this situation, and thinking about it makes me ill. I feel like a fraud. But, it was probably one of the best leadership lessons I've ever learned.
Being atheist, there's no one I can ask for forgiveness. So I carry this with me. And when the cashier didn't ring up my sweater when I went shopping a few weeks ago, I thought about the parking lot. After checking the receipt, I walked back into the store and told her she didn't ring it up. She thanked me for being honest, and I lied and said I didn't want her to get in trouble. The truth was that I knew that I could have gotten away with it and saved $12.00, but I didn't want to live with that. Each time I find myself in an "ethical dilemma", I think about that day in the parking lot.
Being ethical isn't easy. And it's not always fun. But in the end, what it comes down to is "can I live with this"? Being honest isn't easy either. Sometimes it's easier to tell a white lie to a friend to avoid hurting her/his feelings. Those little white lies are pretty easy to forget, because you can rationlalize them away. It's hard to rationalize backing into someone's car and leaving. I suppose that is where society comes into play. Society tends to frown upon damaging someone else's property. But hurting someone's feelings is also considered "bad". And while lying is generally condsidered bad, if it is just a small lie, half-truth, or "leaving out some facts", it's ok if it serves the purpose of protecting someone's feelings. Ethics are funny like that.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Post 1
I just finished reading the Leading with Soul chapters for the next class. As the authors promised, I struggled with it, because I saw a lot of myself in Steve Camden. I also struggle with the whole concept of "soul" and "spirit", because I strongly identify as an atheist.
The book also mentioned something about peaks and valleys in the journey. Right now, I'm definitely in a valley. Growing up, I never saw myself as a leader, until I was in high school. That carried out through college. But since I've started grad school, I feel like I've lost my purpose, my drive. I'm not entirely sure why. I used to have passion for the things I was doing. Lately, I haven't felt much of anything except doubt and uncertainty.
Like Steve Camden, I need to let myself get lost. I've been entirely too cautious lately. I want to feel something again. As an introvert, I usually live inside my head. But for some reason, I've disconnected myself from my heart. Bolman and Deal would call that my soul, I suppose. That word still bothers me, because of the religious connotations. I'll try to get past that though. I hate feeling this way.
The book also mentioned something about peaks and valleys in the journey. Right now, I'm definitely in a valley. Growing up, I never saw myself as a leader, until I was in high school. That carried out through college. But since I've started grad school, I feel like I've lost my purpose, my drive. I'm not entirely sure why. I used to have passion for the things I was doing. Lately, I haven't felt much of anything except doubt and uncertainty.
Like Steve Camden, I need to let myself get lost. I've been entirely too cautious lately. I want to feel something again. As an introvert, I usually live inside my head. But for some reason, I've disconnected myself from my heart. Bolman and Deal would call that my soul, I suppose. That word still bothers me, because of the religious connotations. I'll try to get past that though. I hate feeling this way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)