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?

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.

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.

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?

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.