hmmmmm....Leadership

We all have somehow been influenced by leadership. Let's go back to grade school, where you might have been on a cheerleading or football team where there were captains; or high school, where you were voting for SGA president and class presidents. What characteristics or traits in those particular individuals influenced you to vote or title them to represent that particular organization, team or squad? In today's reading we discover the role of "leadership" and what makes a leader. Just because one is a leader, does this mean that they have good "leadership"? My opinion is that "leaders" and "leadership" are two different words, with two different connotations. A leader is a title issued to an individual, meaning, this title can be handed down (for example, if the mom hands the family business down to her daughter- which is more along the lines of "old leadership") or it can be given, by votes. And we can probably think of that cute, bubbly, popular cheerleader who ran for class president, and won- simply because she was that cute, bubbly popular cheerleader. Now, she may or may not had leadership qualities, but because she was "popular" or "well-known" she most likely won over the nerdy guy, who sits in the back of the class, who knows the in-s and out-s of the school, the school mission, models effective behavior, brings important issues to the open, intelligent, has good ideas, etc, just because she was popular and well known. In this scenario, the cheerleader, who won class president, would be the "leader," and the nerdy kid, would be "of leadership qualities." Which is why I question does a leader, necessarily mean they have "leadership."

We learn through our reading, that leadership is a perception. It is "something" seen in others that perhaps influence attitude or action. But what exactly is that "something." In certain situations such as businesses or corporation, one might look for interactive leadership, where that leader is familiar with the business, mission, goals, and can effectively communicate that knowledge to his/her staff. In school or extra-curricular activities, you might look for more of a empowerment leadership, where you are encouraged or expected to deliver high performance and the leader is their to execute confidence in your ability. What types of traits do you look for in a leader? For me, it is leadership that exudes agreement versus control. I, like Mrs. Murray, am not a fan of authority. When leadership is forced and the leader feels better than- or in a powerful state- I tend to resent or rebel. Whereas, when leadership is an agreement, much like the constitutive approach of leadership, where it doesn't highlight the importance of the ability to manage meaning, but to persuade or influence in a social way. Those leaders who take time to understand the issues, listen to the concerns, and interactively decide a solution. Now, when I say agreement, I don't mean I will always agree with certain leadership styles or actions done by that leader, but the simple fact of understanding and equality, where my opinions or out-look is taken into consideration.

Another interesting question the book asked was- which goes hand-in hand, with the question asked on the first day about the need of bureaucracy... Is leadership needed? In todays "new leadership" we are caught up in independence, democratic, laissez-faire society, where people can make their own decisions, and have more a free-will. But image if that cheerleading squad didn't have a coach or captains, who would issue and execute practices and punishment, who would care to abide rules without a leader to enforce them? SO, do we need leaders?

By: Amoi Savage