Explorations in Higher Ed Leadership

EAD 963

[avidneis-blog]

Week 16 - Wicked

I can’t believe it is over. This class was tremendous. All I can think about as I write this is the Broadway Musical - Wicked. This video sums it up.

[avidneis-blog]

Week 15 - You’ve got potential

What a rich conversation this week. 

I want to, however, write a little bit on Feeding the Soul.

Again we are met with the idea of a “calling”. I want to address their 6 points.

1) I appreciate the use of the developmental journey as a way to prevent burn-out. I was having a conversation with a colleague about someone who left their position rather abruptly because of “burn out”. While there is some blame on our side for not being aware of the level of stress this individual was under, we also need to be cognizant that this person was unable to see their own darkness or at least to confront it. Moving forward, however, I start to think about how we can prevent this from happening to others that work in our office. All involved learned a lesson on this one.

2) Inner growth - Spiritual growth. Academia is a funny beast in that it is often frowned upon to talk about your spiritual being. I find this to be a curious matter, especially in engagement work. Many of the people who are on the margins of formal community engagement within the higher education setting are off doing their own work with their churches. Additionally, knowing yourself means also knowing this part of you. Using something that Angie once said in class, I think this helps you know your boundaries... know the hill you will die on. 

3) A sense of calling: Requires being able to listen to yourself. Really listen. Embrace feel-good moments at work.

4) The journey is the calling: But we can’t be afraid of the darkness. In fact, I was listening to a podcast recently that mentioned the positive benefits of embracing failure. We often use the idea that children had to repeatedly fall down before they finally learn to walk. What we don’t say is that there is support there. There are people there who will help that little one up if needed (if the child is in danger). We need to let people do that in their work. Sometimes that failure is what is needed to move along in your path.

5) Leading with soul: A deep sense of clarity. Perhaps about an assumption that you hold. One assumption that I hold about leadership (now more than I did before this course) is that leadership happens in a variety of places and it looks different to different people.

6) Courage to learn: My courage to learn comes from letting go of assumptions that hold me back. One assumption I have is about those who are more conservative leaning in their political beliefs. I have wondered how these could be good leaders and have painted them in a very negative light. I have learned and continued to learn that this was a horrible assumption to have... One I didn’t necessarily know that I had... but that was holding me back from having relationships with these people and experiencing true diversity. Also, as I have learned through my friendship with Tonya Van Order... We truly do have more in common than we do that is different.

[avidneis-blog]

Week 14 - Leading from within

This has been an AMAZING week. I have had the privilege to work with Matt Phister in preparing for this week’s facilitation. We had such a good time meeting and talking about the readings and preparing for this week and I think that showed in class.

One thing that was difficult for me during class, however, is this concept of vulnerability. Not just in this class session specifically, but any time it comes up. There is always something that rubs me the wrong way when people talk about vulnerability and I think I was able to get some clarity on that when we did the “I Am From” poem. In a sense, this is forced vulnerability. This is what I have been adamantly against from the start... and then we go ahead and make people do just that. I think, if I were to do this exercise again, I would have people write the poem, tell them to then circle up and share, but then stop them before the actual sharing out and ask how people were feeling. I bet you some people would be petrified that they were being asked to share something so private and personal with people they don’t really know... even after a semester of being together). This would be a good discussion piece about how much vulnerability we want from our leaders and/or from each other. Maybe there is a different word that we should use. Maybe what we want is transparency, inclusion, or humility... Not vulnerability.

One thing I also noticed is that we spent too much time debriefing the exercises in the beginning and, therefore, did not have enough time to dig into the material at the end - which may have seemed more connected to the readings than the other exercises. One of the difficulties I have come across when trying to be creative and participatory is that you really need to do fewer activities to be able to engage in deeper discussion.

Quick note not about the facilitation:

I was able to use information from the readings again in my daily life. A colleague/friend of mine who used to be a student of mine was talking about some difficulties they were having with their current supervisor. My friend was disturbed by the seemingly flippant and dismissive way their supervisor was talking about their achievements. Going so far as to almost say in a snide way: “I’m glad you’re getting the opportunities that I wasn’t getting at your age.” Because I had just read this article I was able to do more than just empathize with them. I was able to give some evidence-based potential explanations. I think it helped. I know that reading, in particular, helped me. My place in the generation gap is a little different in that I am considered an “X-ennial” so I’m on the cusp of two (although I identify more closely with Xers and Boomers than I do Millenials). 

[avidneis-blog]

Week 13 - I’m starting...

With the man in the mirror... or woman.

What do I see when I look in the mirror? Do I see a leader?

There was a time not too long ago when I would have said no. Me? A leader? I am simply a person who comes to work and does my job. Even though I have a positional leadership title, I often felt as if I was an imposter in leadership. In fact, I very much identified with this sentence: “Similarly, we know that people often do not consider themselves leaders until they hear it from someone else or until someone else suggests that they have leadership potential.” For me, however, it didn’t just come with a formal title because in some ways I could still downplay that. Someone else was stepping down and I was the next logical person. But then something happened... I started to lead in my own way using my personal strengths. Believe it or not, I am not a charismatic person. In Strengths Finder I didn’t get “woo”... In fact, I didn’t get anything in the influencer or relationship categories. My strengths were in executing and strategic thinking. I had to learn to come from my strengths and figure out what leadership meant to me. 

This relates to the Eddy et al article in the following ways:

1) I had to look in the mirror and assess who I was. When I didn’t know, I had to look to other methods or the people around me to help me see and better understand my strengths.

2) Knowing that people have set conceptions of a leader is a difficult one... especially when most people envision leaders as being charismatic, tall, white men. I am none of those things. Also, socialization is a funny thing because even though I am none of those things nor will I ever be, I still had that conception of a leader in my mind. Not only was I being left out of other people’s pictures, I wasn’t even in a place to advocate for myself because I felt like they were justified in doing so.

3) I had to repack my toolbox. Even though strengths finder and just about every other instrument indicated that I lead with my brain, that didn’t mean that I didn’t possess some of the other strengths. Additionally, how can I use my strengths to be an influencer or to build relationships? Recently, Susan told me that I am an “echoer”... I think in Strengths Finder I would be called a relator or someone who can adapt. Her definition is that I mirror the energy that people give out. If a person is typically high energy then I give that back to them. If someone is giving off a concerned vibe, I respond accordingly. I’m still not sure what this means, but I am trying to “go to the balcony” to observe myself when this is happening.

[avidneis-blog]

Week 12 - Team Dysfunctions

I have already thanked her, but I would like to again thank her for providing us with a chance to investigate what that may look like for our team (at work). Now - to do the same with my office mates. Additionally, we all believe we are something we are not.

I want to focus on the expressive team function for a quick second because I realize that this is what my team focuses most of their effort on. We typically assume that the task-related functions will just get done as they have always gotten done. I am not saying this is a good thing, but it is how my team functions. We spend most of our effort trying to support each other, the administration above us, and the students with whom we work.  Something we don’t focus on is using the team for sense-making purposes. This is sense-making collectively - not just making sense of what we are being told to make sense of.

Ah... Vocation. For someone who almost went to seminary, this is something I had to reckon with for quite a while. What am I being called to do? How should I be in the world? Am I willing to follow my call? All of these questions are important and, as Braskamp and Wergin point out, require a significant amount of self-reflection. A few notes:

1) Sense of self: This takes time. If you think about how we are primed to always “know what we want to be when we grow up,” or “have a five-year plan,” we are setting ourselves up to ignore potential calls. 

2) Social/Interpersonal Dimensions: My plan was always that I was going to be a doctor. It wasn’t what I was called to do - specifically, but it is was in the ballpark. What I mean by that is that I have always had a call to help people. Even as a young girl I would befriend those who were being bullied and I would bring them home. I was a champion for the underdog. That didn’t necessarily translate into being a doctor... it also didn’t translate into an identifiable, respectable career - so I was stuck. We need to let people develop their own identities without pushing them in specific directions

3) Making a commitment to act: People need to be free to act. This line stood out to me - “Life experiences can reinforce and build on personal commitments, but they may also be opportunities that lead to commitment.” We, as a society, are really good at having experiences reinforce what we already know, but we are not always open to having them lead to something. I think about even service-learning. These are really great experiences that reinforce what people think about a certain profession for better or for worse, but we don’t always intend for the engagement experience to move someone “completely off course”. In fact, that is scary to us because it would wreak havoc on our metrics.

[avidneis-blog]

Week 11 - The Big Reveal

Philip L. Dubois wrote about his leadership as president during a time of crisis. Early in the chapter, he says this:

“Your stakeholders are measuring your conduct during the crisis. They know that a crisis does not make character - it reveals character” (p. 30).

Here we are during a time of crisis at Michigan State University. While everyone is looking to those in high positions to see what they will do, I think it is important to continue to look at all levels of leadership. While my office is not one that has a lot of contact with students, we have come together to make sure we support our students to the best of our ability. I’m not entirely sure where this thought is going, but I wanted to mention it because it has been on my mind lately. 

Another issue that has come up - Richard Spencer. I am still torn about the best way to confront something like that. Dubois (a person in authority) worked with the mayor (another person in authority) to come up with the plan to ignore it. Let me connect last week with this week... Those in power here at MSU suggested we do the same thing. What was different, however, is that the students (the people with the problem of sorts) decided to also have a secondary event. Something that was designed for students by students. I didn’t see this connection until I started writing this. There must be ways for this kind of leadership to work together.

Transvigoration

The answer may not be to have the two kinds of leadership work together in a traditional sense. The answer is to find a leader (or leaders in a co-leading/collaborative fashion - which may be the true way of looking at this) who can invigorate the people who are charged to find the solution to an adaptive challenge. Estela Bensimon calls this “trans-vigorational” leadership. Leaders who use this type of leadership "conform to the culture of an organization while simultaneously finding ways to improve it” (p. 43). This type of leadership is another way to counter the lone ranger type of leader we hear so much about. Part of this new form of leadership will require that the “leader” be willing to share the leadership to work within a community or organization because no one person can do it alone. 

I have often countered this argument and said that it was the only way to create change. The truth is... there are many ways to create and support change. Some of it will come from transactional leaders who keep an organization running by accepting and maintaining the status quo. Some of it will come from transformational leaders who shake things up by introducing new ways to think about or accomplish goals. And still, some of it will come by sharing of leadership responsibilities in a way that works from within to invigorate the people to enact change. 

Yes... It truly takes all kinds.

[avidneis-blog]

Week 10 - Change Ain’t Easy

This week was based primarily on the work by Ronald Heifetz and his concept of adaptive leadership. I would like to address three points: Adult learning and leadership, adaptive v. technical change, and the self-care.

Learning required

Chapman and Randall use a case study of leading by part-time faculty as a way to bring in the importance of understanding adult learning theory when leading through transformation. I found this especially useful for me in my current role and in thinking toward the future because I will always work with adults. I say always because I don’t have strong desires to be a faculty member. Yes, I know that these students are considered young adults, but I accept the proposal that traditional-age college students are really in late adolescence rather than young adulthood. This line in the sand is a faint one, but still important.

Mezirow is cited in this chapter regarding a central assumption of adult learning: “Adults are trapped by their histories” (p. 53). This. Is. Key. When thinking about the necessary mindset shift that needs to occur with adaptive change, adults need to be able to do two things:

1) See their cages. This means that adults who want to learn need to be able to address, accept, and articulate how their individual history shapes the way in which they view the world. Understanding our limitations allows us to better understand that we don’t know what we don’t know. As a “leader”, I need to understand that people come with a variety of different experiences which places them at different points along a spectrum of learning. As someone who believes in social/systems/cultural change and works to achieve these ends, it is crucial that I understand this part of adult learning and meet people where they are. 

2) See beyond their cages. If people, specifically adult people, stop at understanding their limitations but cannot and do not envision a life beyond them, mindset shifts and adaptive change will not happen. Just as it is my responsibility as a leader to meet people where they are, it is also my responsibility to encourage them to move out into other spaces. 

Don’t just put a Band-Aid on it

One of the key takeaways from Heifetz this week was the importance of adaptive leadership when “leading deep social change” (loc 121). Regardless of some of the more troubling connections to social issues in the book, this helped me finally put words to an issue that has been plaguing higher education (and society broadly). Before I continue, let me highlight the major differences between adaptive v. technical solutions to problems. According to Heifetz and Linsky, the differentiation seems fairly simple:

1) Technical challenges call for those in charge to apply knowledge/tools they already have to solve the problem.

2) Adaptive challenges require the people with the problem learn new ways of solving the problem (loc 420).

Why did this mean so much to me? 

In matters of social justice, social change, change of heart, mindset shift... whatever you want to call it... these are adaptive challenges. They require the people with the problem to learn new ways to create a solution. The problem is we (as social justice folks) have been throwing technical solutions at the problem. For example, if the issue is hostile climate on campus for people of color, the answer was to increase the number of people of color on campus OR provide training that often only last a couple of hours. Why? If people are uncomfortable with something then exposure to it will help (much like a fear of dogs or roller coasters). If people do not know how to interact with each other then train them on how to do it respectfully because that can be taught. Behavior changes can be taught. Or so we believe.

We do these things and then we wonder why nothing changes. We wonder why the issues regarding racial climate on campus that were brought up in 1986 re-emerged in 2016. We (as an institution) used technical solutions to adaptive challenges. We have not asked the people what they want. We have not dialogued about student and/or faculty lists of demands. Those in authority have let people know what can and cannot be done. 

What would happen if we gave the problem back to the people... Guided them in finding a solution... Worked with them to give it a try? Would it be any more disastrous than what we have been doing? I think not.

While Heifetz and Linsky did not call it “self-care,” that is essentially what they were talking about in Part 3 (which we did not have to read but I found extremely useful). Very simply, you cannot be an effective leader if you do not take care of your body and soul. Part of this is knowing yourself. Spending time in reflection and contemplation. You have to be aware of personal dangers and pitfalls. Find your anchor. Know when to step back. Going to the balcony is not just about seeing what is going on for “the people,” it is also about understanding what is going on for yourself.

[avidneis-blog]

Week 8 - More than 3-D

Wow! Another experience of having my week(ish) match up to the reading. I find that if I keep my eyes and ears open, I am able to see much of what we are reading played out in life on a fairly regular basis. I wanted to spend this week focused on the chapter on “Planning for the Future,” because I felt that this was most important for me and my career. Perhaps in doing so, I started to see some of the propositions come to life.

Proposition 1: No universal model for leadership

So true. So many variables go into a leader and effective leadership that there cannot be simply one way to do things. Intersectionality in identities and differing ways of meaning-making do not allow for this. What is interesting, however, is how many different people/researchers/scholars want to go against this logic. Part of this is because people want to believe that they can teach “leaderness”. Just as we now understand and believe in multiple intelligences, so too, will we come to believe in the many dimensions of leadership. Part of this will come with the mere presence of different leaders. I long for the day when “White male” is not the first image of a leader. Structuration theory allows me to believe there is hope for that to happen. In fact, the chapter promotes multidimensional leadership as a way to “create a wider pipeline leading to top-level positions in community colleges” (p. 139). Personally, I believe this is bigger than community colleges.

Proposition 2: Multidimensional leadership is necessary in complex organizations.

One person cannot do it all. We see this at MSU. I don’t want to talk about what is going on right now, but more of what I have seen happen at MSU in the past. As I look at the different formal leadership positions, I see that these people are not all the same. LKS had a very specific leadership style which was slightly different from Provost Youatt’s style. There were times when people wanted to have Youatt’s more personable touch and other time’s when LKS was the person who had to deliver the message. The vice-presidents each have their own style of leadership and I feel that their leadership styles match their position. I can speak about Dr. Maybank. She is the Vice President for Student Affairs and Services. Part of her role is to promote the well-being of students. She does that. And she does it in a flashy way that will catch the eye of students, parents, and alumni alike. She is really good at rallying the troops.

Propositions 2 & 3: Leaders rely on their underlying cognitive schema in making leadership decisions and leaders often adhere to their core belief structure.

Cameron and I had a wonderful conversation about these two things. We believe that at the end of the day, people are who they are and anything else is disingenuous and inauthentic. Trying to make yourself into the type of leader you believe you should be instead of relying on your strengths will not get you far. I will use myself as an example. One of the best, but most challenging self-reflective tests that I took was StrengthsFinder. Quick overview: EVeryone has 35 strengths, they give you your top 5. Now, being in the community engagement business, I thought that I would be high in relationship building and influence. I was not. Most of my strengths were in strategy and intellect. How was I supposed to lead when I such cold qualities? In what ways was I going to be able to connect with others? Who would want to follow me? This is where self-reflection comes in. I spent some time trying to better understand my cognitive models. I also spoke to those who were close to me. Through these two processes, I was able to understand that I lead through data. I use intellect to connect with people. That works for me.

Proposition 5: Leaders are Learners

All the time.

[avidneis-blog]

Week 7 - Wade in the Water

Raging River

I am using the title of Amey’s article because it spoke to me and my continued struggle to understand/deal with my own intersecting identities and my chosen career path which I hope leads to formal leadership. I am intentional about using the word formal because part of my struggle with “everyone is a leader” is that I feel this sentiment has been used to keep certain folks out of formal leadership positions. Why would we need to push to have equality in promotion policies when everyone can do what they need to do at any level?

Identity Conflict

A line in Amey’s article that I honestly read over and over was the connection between marginalized people, cultural suicide, and success. On page 60, Amey states that women and administrators of color “may be forced to adopt dominant values to work and succeed in the organization, and in the process, lose touch with the unique qualities they bring as women or as women of color”. I read it and I sighed. I wrote it just now and I sighed again. My heart is heavy because I know that it is true. I look at the work I am doing with MSU Race Dialogues and I see that I could be a mentor for these young women of color, but I also wonder if I have become “the man”. I was reminded of “respectability politics” from one of the facilitators as we started talking about dress codes. I defended the dress code requests because that is just the way things are. But is it? The fact that I am VERY cognizant of what I wear, its level of femininity (not to masculine but not overly girly), color choices (some color is ok, but it should be muted), and even what I do with my hair (which isn’t much right now because I’m actually a little afraid that it will be seen as “too Black” if I were to get braids or twists). This is real. It takes time and hard work to be able to finally feel that you can draw strength from your own cultural heritage (Amey, p. 66).

Geeks & Geezers

My age is an identity that I don’t often think about… and when I do, it’s generally because I have gotten my age wrong (again). I know that most people take off years. I tend to add them. Not because I am rushing anything (truly, I don’t think that is my goal), but I just feel older than what my chronological age is. That said, last summer, I was chosen to be one of the “next-generation leaders” in service/community-engaged learning and civic engagement. I went to a summit and spent 3 days with pioneers of the movement (most of whom were at least 75), representatives from community organizations, and other next-generation leaders (mid-30s-early 50s). It wasn’t necessarily comfortable to not see those who were in the middle of the pack or to see those who were younger than us. Where has their value gone? Why are we not asking folks from each generation to talk about how they see the changes happening? The same goes for the Bennis and Thomas chapter. My question is this: When we leave out those in the middle, what knowledge are we omitting?

[avidneis-blog]

Week 6 - Inclusion

Where are the boundaries?

I view the writings of people of color in higher education leadership positions with perhaps undue skepticism. It is not because I do not believe these people are quality leaders, I do. I wonder, in my readings, how much is tempered. I think about the ways in which people of color have to monitor, change, and craft their speech in a way that is palatable to the general public. Is it possible to do this and still be “authentic”? I believe there is pressure for marginalized people to want to be the success story by playing up the positives and minimizing their failures… even though leaders are supposed to learn from their mistakes. That only works if you are allowed to have them.

When reading Jansen’s piece, I was again struck by my skepticism. I was also reminded, however, of something Angie said during the first week of class. She thinks about the negative space – that which isn’t said. We have read about the impact of race and gender on performance. I am thinking specifically of McKenzie and Iverson’s article on how female college students came to see themselves as leaders. I think that this goes beyond college student development but may include women at various stages of life. Understanding the “diversity and complexity of doing leadership” (p. 285) is part of an unlearning process that many women and/or people of color have to go through in a way that White males do not. Continuing to use McKenzie and Iverson, they go on to talk about how these students were perceived when they were in positions of power and where they saw women in positions of power. These young women started to understand that they were being called “bossy” when they acted in assertive ways. They noticed that there were rarely women in positions of leadership in STEM or business departments. That socialization has a profound impact on women and people of color. Then I think about these students writing something later on. What will they say? What will they leave out?

[avidneis-blog]

Week 5 - Candor

The truth about candor

Interesting thing #1: My partner went through a supervisor training. Candor was a huge topic of discussion. How timely. This was in a document produced by the university regarding their leadership standards. Candor, in this case, is referenced as “radical candor” under the section about “thoughtful, open communication”. While the document does not go on to define “radical candor,” it does give me food for thought in the form of unanswered questions from both the readings and class discussion.

1) Why is telling the truth radical? Have we become so divorced from ethical leadership that now being honest with each other is a radical act?

2) According to Bogue, and through evidence in popular culture, we are still working on civil discourse. Part of this is addressed in his section on “Truth with Compassion” which starts on page 57. In fact, he goes on to outline what that looks like. Operationalizing it.

Ah, the question of the class... Well, one of them at least. Can leadership be taught? I find that I still believe the answer to be no. I believe that behaviors can be taught, much like we work with children about how to behave. I am fairly convinced that a string of behaviors does not automatically lead to good leadership or even regular leadership for that matter.

Is it even ethical?

So now we move on to ethics. I say this for a transition, but really ethics should be infused in everything we do. The questions in the readings, however, dig a little deeper into how a leader should behave and what ethical leadership looks like. Now, full disclaimer, I do have a master’s degree in ethics. Bioethics to be specific, but the principles are very much the same. The questions asked seem to be similar.

Terry L. Price asks the question that was surfaced earlier in the class period, but we didn’t end up settling on an answer. I’m not sure if that is going to happen now, but at least Price paid some attention to what he called “the Hitler problem.” Additionally, the definition that he works with states that “leadership is moral by definition,” so that anything else is not, in fact, leadership. This, however, is just one definition of leadership. Honestly, it leads us back to the qualifying statements people put on leadership. Requiring ethics does not mean we have solved the problem of leadership. If anything it is now more complicated. Why? Because it removes nuance. Price continues his discussion to talk about this very dilemma. My take on things... you can’t define away the issues surrounding the qualifications of leadership.

[avidneis-blog]

Week 4: Crisis

Leadership & Inclusion

Food for thought: 1830 = Indian Removal Act... 1862 = First Morrill Act

We often think of accessibility to higher education as something that is a black and brown issue. We should not forget about who was forcibly removed from their land in order to create access for even black and brown people. The historical trauma of higher education runs deep. As leaders, we must remember that. 

Current State of Affairs

So much is happening at MSU right now with regards to our own leadership. It is a lot to take in. It has made it a little hard to focus. Everything I read made me think about how it relates to everything happening here. I kept hoping for insight into where things went wrong and what might be some guidance as we move forward. This is what I have so far:

1) Transparency is key. How do you maintain that, however, when so much relies on keeping people safe? What does safety look like? Who is being protected? Whose protection costs other people their safety? These questions are not as easy to answer as I once thought. Leaving MSU alone for a minute, think about the situation that occurred at Vanderbilt regarding the Confederate statue. The case study for our group was modeled after that. All of us seemed to agree that communication and transparence, especially with the Daughters of the Confederacy would have been a better choice. We also agreed that the outcome (on some level) would have still been the same. At the time, I said that I agreed with all of those comments, however, I am not sure that I do. This is where the levels of participation are important. We all went into this discussion believing that all that was needed was for us to inform people of what we planned to do. That is one kind of transparency. A different kind of transparency comes in teachable moments.

2) Allowing this require higher levels of participation. In order for students to understand and practice what means to be scholar activists/activist scholars they need to be involved in the decision making process. Otherwise... it is simply a research paper.

[avidneis-blog]

Week 3: Synergy

Thank you, Bogue, for writing about the four forms of knowledge and using the word “artistry” (p. 18). This is important because much like medicine is a science and an art... so is the concept of leadership. Perhaps this helps as we think about what leadership is. Synergy is the name of the game.

1) During the time of transition in my office, I learned a very important lesson about leadership - It is not always what you do but how you do it. My previous director had a way of being that seems to ruffle other people’s feathers. She was condescending, kept tallies of people’s errors and then list them during review time, and was not quite “woke”. Anyway, people in the office were often on edge. I expected that things would be different with our new director because people would behave differently under this new leadership. They are different, but not because the people changed. In fact, many people kept displaying some of their troublesome behaviors. No, the office culture was different because her style was different. She dealt with many of the same issues the previous director did, but she did so in a more open and transparent way. 

2) Over time, I also learned that it is OK to be who you are and use that in leadership. About 8 years ago, my unit had everyone fill out the StrengthsFinder questionnaire. My results showed that all of my strengths were in logic and strategy with none of my top strengths being in relationships. I was concerned that I would be an ineffective leader because I believed that leading required the ability to create relationships. While this is true, my conversations with colleagues and friends helped me understand that you lead from your strengths. So while I may not have the “textbook” relationship traits, I use my logic and reliance on data to be how I lead. I lead in an evidence informed way.

[avidneis-blog]

Week 2: Engagement

I am thankful that this week brings us to a focus on engagement. It is a welcome break from all of the reading that I had to do for a recitation I am teaching on Social Innovation/Entrepreneurship. All of the readings this week were about how entrepreneurs are above engagement and should only look out for themselves. True leaders, however, don’t do that. True leaders spend time learning about and from others.

This week I am also reminded of an article that Diane Doberneck gave me last year about levels of participation. The most important part of the document was the participation spectrum. The five levels of participation are inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower. Inform is the lowest level because the point is to simply relay information. Empower is the highest level as this gives participants the ability to make the final decision. This is difficult but can be done.

Why do I bring this up? Leaders need to know the level of participation they are comfortable with as it pertains to what they want from their followers. They nay need to then be willing to step it up a notch to challenge themselves. How can they (the leaders) open themselves up to growth by accepting more engagement from their followers. Additionally, followers need to know what level of participation they are comfortable with. Some of this understanding comes from knowing followership styles (Kelley). How people are challenged needs to be rooted in understanding who they are. There is not a one size fits all model for all followers. Again, I think about my situation at work and the people who make up my staff. I have a star follower who is great at collaborative followership. I would like to allow/empower her to make more decisions. I also know that she will need to be coached in to that role. This is why engagement is the key because without understanding those with whom I work, I could cause more harm than good. 

[avidneis-blog]

Week 1: Qualifying leadership

I am still sitting with the concept of “qualifying leadership”. We often ask about what makes a good leader or a bad leader, but simply not simply a leader. Is it possible to talk about leadership without qualifying it? I imagine there has to be, but I am not qualified (pun intended) to talk about that. Does this “good vs. bad” preclude some folks from thinking about being leaders? It may seem strange but people are often paralyzed by fear. Could people be afraid of not being good enough to live up to good leader hype? Maybe people are afraid of outright failure and therefore they choose to follow instead of risk being a bad leader. I realize these are extremes, but it is worth thinking about how and why some people choose to lead and others choose to follow. 

Another interesting part of the classroom discussion was the purpose of followers. Do leaders need followers? My short answer is yes. But what kinds of followers? I know we will read about followers later, but to go back to my previous question: Are there people who are followers because they are afraid to lead? When my previous director retired, we opened up a national search for a new director. As the associate director, many people thought that I was going to apply for the position. I did not. I didn’t think that I had it in me to be a good leader. Sure, we all have different times where we lead or when we follow, but how do we make those decisions. When it comes to the director position I didn't think that I was going to be able to take over from what my previous director had done and turn things around. I had seen how she had done things and I felt that I had to direct differently in order to have people reach their full potential. 

During that time I started to wonder if there are people who maybe shouldn’t lead. There has to be a certain level of ethical and emotional capacity that is a baseline for leadership. This speaks to another part of the discussion this week. Is it behavior or a certain something else that makes a good leaders? I believe it is both. I feel like a recurring theme of this (for me) will be about synergy that makes for effective leadership.