#ead963

[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 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 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 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.