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?

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.

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.

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.