Wednesday, September 2, 2009

procrastinate, i do not...

only, it's pretty unsettling when you emerge from a week of reading- hours upon hours, literally, and you feel that you have even less of an understanding about a topic than when you began.
this is why my second post has been slow in coming. for days, i thought if i simply re-read the material, jotted down more extensive notes, replete with charts and graphs- i'd be able to sort it all out and arrive at the correct conclusion. the correct conclusion! the correct conclusion?
you see, i presumed there was a conclusion.

not the case.

the topic: leadership (of course). more specifically, as i see it, the attempts which have been made throughout the 20th century to understand what makes an effective leader; the research undertaken to create a quantifiable list or empirical map of the various components that result in the leadership phenomenon.

and as i studied each of the three distinct approaches separately, i was convinced and sure of its superiority over the other two- the voice in my head decidedly in agreement:
  • the trait approach: leaders are totally born to lead, dude.
  • the skills approach: dude, everyone can learn to be good leaders.
  • the style approach: dude...

this readiness to subscribe to each of the three distinct perspectives on leadership (i'd like to think) bespeaks to a lesser extent my own stooge-like tendencies, while emphasizing the sound elaborate research as presented in each case (and forget about the fact that my inner voice inexplicably sounds like keanu reeves, i pondered the studies long and hard and critically).

*************************************************************************
in sum, while trying to determine which of the three perspectives i favored, i realized how inextricably related they all are. and so, instead of drawing any sort of qualitative conclusions in regards to the three approaches, i propose a quick exercise to aid in (my own) understanding of them:

what would it look like in my organization if:

  1. the trait approach ruled- ...
  2. the skills approach ruled- ...
  3. the style approach ruled- ...
now, i'll have to get back to you with my answers to this self-assigned exercise (a subsequent blog entry soon to come), but my point is that the concept of effective leadership should best be seen as resulting from the convergence of various aspects inherent in each of the different approaches.




3 comments:

  1. It is 2 am and I have yet to write my blog but I have enjoyed reading everyone else’s.

    Again, insightful and clever. You are very good at appearing to be confused. Your thoughts seem to prove otherwise. I think you really get a grasp of this stuff and your helping me get it too.

    Tonight I was having dinner with a friend and telling him about the leadership program. He asked me exactly what it meant and what the cirriculium was like. Then we had the following conversation:

    Friend "well, what is leadership?"
    Me "well, what do you mean?"
    Friend "well, like, what is the actual Webster’s definition."
    Me:"well, ummmm, i don't really know."

    silence. embarrassment. went home, started reading. give me the answer, NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Manuel - great blog! And great idea to envision a company under each of three leadership theories. I think this will help me develop my "personal view of leadership" paper which is supposed to be 8-9 PAGES!!! I'm thinking two to three sentences at this point...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Manuel, in graduate studies expect to live this experience: when you have finally gotten so overwhelmed looking through the haystack for the needle that you are about to give up, cry like a baby, scream at the top of your lungs or (heaven forbid) hit someone - you are on the verge of insight, knowledge and learning :):) Mastering a subject is a process - trust the process :) Dr. K

    ReplyDelete