History of Leadership

The history of leadership is one that seems intricate and complex and that has been dated back for decades. From the beginning of time, till now, leadership has transformed in its concept and what its essential definition actually is. Its definition has morphed from being an ideal of finding the strongest, fastest, most skilled person, to a leader meaning that the individual is the smartest and most articulate being. The idea of leadership has at even one point meant an individual possessing certain traits, a certain “look,” and even an image that satisfies an ideal leader. Yet, today when I think about a leader and who really constitutes as a “good one” I don’t think about how powerful or commanding they are, and I do not imagine a leader being someone in a superior role or title to a group, but rather I think of a definition that falls more along the lines of the progressive thought of leadership. By a leader willing to give everyone equal treatment, and place themselves on the same level or at least relate to those they work with, this makes a leader admirable and more likely to be respected rather than just simply feared. By the leader first being a follower, this changes the whole dynamic relationship between the group and the leader. I believe that Hegel’s philosophy is especially true, since I think one would be more inclined to follow and collaborate with a leader who has personally been in their shoes, and has experienced what they have endured. Through simply sharing experiences and understanding on a first hand basis a followers life, this makes a leader more relatable, more involved, and able to intimately and sincerely understand the followers as individuals better as a result of having endured the same situations, experiences, and challenges as them. This helps not only because people will be able to see that you indeed worked hard and achieved your position rightfully and fairly as a result of experience, dedication and hard work. Furthermore this would cause followers to believe that if anyone that was in the same position as them can now achieve power and the ability of change, this will make them more inclined to work harder as a result of them visibly seeing the rewards of experience and hard work. Thus, as a result of a leader going through the same experiences as a follower, this also creates perspective and allows them to  see that “everyone has a worth value” (History of Leadership Powerpoint) which ultimately would help maximize the effort people place in their particular positions. I know that as someone interested in working for the government one day, I would love to learn from someone who has gone through the same struggles and initially was in the same or a similar position as me. And luckily, I was able to learn my first lesson from the president of ASUA who told me, “You have to start from the bottom and work your way up, that how I got here,” and seeing that she once worked in the same position as I am now, it gave me motivation to work hard so that one day I could reach my own goal and become a leader as she is now. Because after all, someone who has been in the same tough position as you at one moment or another and has achieved greatness is much more inspiring, respectable, and impressive then someone who was just handed something without struggle and sacrifice.  And that is why I believe those who share our experiences, know first hand what we are going through, and make an effort to relate and understand their “followers” are the real leaders in today’s society.

Definitions of Leadership

When looking around the room it seems that everyone has a “thing” that they are good at. Some are good at being the comedian or class clown, others are good at being the smart, “out of the box thinkers”, and others are good at being the creative artsy designers. And although they all have different talents and things that they are good at it the way in which they communicate with others seems that seems to be entirely different. It’s interesting to observe this especially when noticing how the teacher approaches them and tries to get them to work on their assignment. Its almost like the teacher psychoanalyzes each personality type and then adapts a different approach that seems most effective for each of them. But what I wonder is how can there be so many different ways to approach someone just based on what they like to do? Wouldn’t one assume that since they all are given the same task/homework/assignment to do the teacher would just ask them to do it? But no, it seems like this strategy is much more effective. As the teacher approaches the class clown, she jokes around with him, smiles a lot, and yet encouragingly tells him to continue working on his assignment. As she approaches the smart girl she takes interest in her unique train of thought and discusses with her some of her ideas while cheering her on to dive deeper into these intricate theories she has developed. And lastly she observes the quiet artist in the corner and asks her about her favorite media to work with and what her particular passions are. And although at first glance these individual interactions with each student may seem unnecessary, it almost makes the teacher even more impressive since she tries to develop a relationship and understanding with each student and their interests outside of class.  By the teacher trying to develop communication, and an effective dialogue with these individuals she in returns effectively makes them more interested and keen to work on the assignment and she gives them the motivation and inspiration to incorporate their own talents into the assignments. And ultimately, by strategically identifying their passions and interests she finds the most effective and incredible way to teach and work with them as both a mentor and as a person. A rare balance which in reality is one of the best traits that a student can ask for in any teacher. I mean what could be better than having someone who genuinely wants to hear about what you are most passionate in life for and encourages you to apply some aspect of it into life or even something as simple as an assignment? This does not only show how effective teachers are in being able to communicate and work well with a variety of students and individuals, but also how effective they are in maintaining the 1940’s and 1950’s ideals of leadership. One of these ideals being the ability to persuade a student to work at their best potential, while managing to keep an authoritative position that balances identifying with the student, while maintaining the students respect. And finally, and most importantly, the teacher managing to have the student   enjoy learning and opening their mind up to new and exciting ideas that otherwise might have not been given a chance if not for the way in which leaders communicate with different people.

Leadership- Definitions of Leadership

Observing People

The reading on cohesion and development was one that I found very insightful and interesting as I felt like it related greatly to me this week. I felt the idea of unity and cohesion to be especially apparent and noticeable as I went to my new classes- some which I had friends in and some which I did not know a soul. As I sat looking around I noticed how people tend to cluster together and tend to group with those they already knew or were in organizations together (athletics, sororities/fraternities, clubs, etc) rather than breaking off from their posse or group to meet new people. As I read this article I found it interesting how unity and cohesion are influenced by the rule of attraction and how each individual is attracted to a certain type of group or team. Although I believe that people are more than capable to be self-reliant and independent it seems that through the observations I made in each class that people tend to prefer to be with other individuals they know and have things in common with and have mutual and common interests aside from the class they attend together.  Another interesting observation I saw that paralleled the reading of Ethics and Leadership Effectiveness was the way in which groups are structured. This was especially noticeable when you detected or found the "leader" of the posse or group that led the followers or non-leaders who were their friends. It seemed that the "followers" would do as the leader would say and sit where they wanted and organize themselves as the leader pleased... but if the leader was not there to delegate it seemed that the others seemed more insecure and unsure with which actions to take... and this made me think of Hitler on a much smaller and miniature scale. I mean, Hitler was known to delegate and to almost quasi-brainwash his followers into doing whatever he wanted.. a similarity to these people who it appeared had no ideas on their own and seemed lost without someone delegating and telling them what to do. And although this was in no way a replica or a true comparison to Hitler's ways (especially when considering there being no ethical or extreme consequences from being dominated/bossed around) I found the interrelationships of human beings to be peculiar especially when taking into consideration that there seems to always be a natural leader and natural followers in every group you see. However, although you always tend to see those who are inclined to be the dominant of the bunch, the most interesting thing to notice is what distinguishes and differentiates those who are simply bossy (and appear to be leaders) from those who really are ones. Now, at first when thinking about this it seems that friendships really are not divided into leaders and followers but just those who make decisions and those who agree to following them or going along with them. However, the way I think leaders are truly developed and seen are in the way they lead, what cause they are aiming for and the qualities they possess (other than having a good control of a group). And from thinking about it I felt that is seems that most teachers, presidents, government positions and law enforcement have these raw qualities of leadership that are so needed in order to have a prosperous and structured society. I think that unless the intention is good and the purpose of being a leader is a positive one that is intended to help those leaded, then that makes a good leader. If not the case however, I feel that this is where you draw the line between who is a good leader and who just wants to be a dictator.