Through out this chapter the big discussion is based on the difference between a good leader and an evil leader and how their ethical decisions are different. When discussing the topic of ethics and leadership, the studies done tend to be focused on bigger leaders like for example Hitler or President Lincoln and how their leadership styles were affected by ethics. They use extreme examples in the studies on ethics to suggest how leaders make their decisions based on their characteristics like these famous leader's. It seems to me that the studies almost suggest leaders are either "Saint" style, or "evil style when it comes to making ethical decisions.
The book had kind of mentioned this but I would suggest that people start doing more studies and research on the everyday leaders in business, government, schools and communities. The should look more into how these everyday leaders have to make ethical decisions and how they can use their leader roles to make better moral decisions. These smaller role leaders tend to have to make more frequent decisions and so they need to know how to make the right decisions and it's hard to base their decision making process with that of a large leaders process.
Another interesting topic in this chapter is that some people suggest that it is a lot harder to be a good leader and a good follower than it is to be a bad leader. The question to ask then is if you think that people in leadership roles are inherently bad or in other words are they really in it for themselves and so that they can control what happens or are most leader's good in that they are in their leadership roles because they want to make a difference and they want to help their followers and team be successful? I would like to think that most people in leadership roles are their because they want to help the team and make a positive change for everyone but in today's society people are very individualistic and tend to be looking out only for themselves. I think that we need to look into how to better teach people in leadership roles to make better moral decision that will benefit everyone the leader and the follower.
Ethics has been and always will be a touchy subject when in comes to leadership. I am asking what you think we can do to help everyday leader's have a better understanding on how to make more frequent positive moral decisions?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Chapter 12- Leadership and Gender
From my personal experience, it appears that leadership exhibited by women can be defined from where they are at hierarchically in an organization and if that position leaves space to advance. Out of my four most important jobs, I had the opportunity to work for four female bosses (I had one job with two female bosses) so I really do not have a lot of experience working for a male superior. It is really interesting to take a look at the position of those women while I was working for them.
Two of those women were entrepreneurs. The first one had just graduated from college, did not have a lot of experience and never really held a position of that caliber before. The second had worked for quite a long time in the industry, but again did not have a lot of experience at the level she was at. Both of these women were--according to the chapter--what most people stereotype women leaders to be like. They were both very relationship oriented, which sometimes led to a drop of task orientation. However, both of these leaders were extremely efficient motivators and became well known in their relative industries.
The third woman I have worked for had great experience in the industry and held similar positions in other businesses she had worked for. However, she was also an entrepreneur and the owner of a business. This leader had obviously worked for a long time in a "man's world" and it showed. Her leadership style was essentially the polar opposite of the first two leaders I described. She was extremely task oriented and did not care if she hurt other people's feelings. She was extremely good at what she did and had been well known in her industry for well over 20 years. This leader worked together with the second leader described above, which sometimes caused some conflict in the workplace. The two women had been friends for many years, but their colliding ideals sometimes caused problems in the workplace, especially when one's actions affected the other's job. The relationship-oriented leader was much more visible affected/shaken by conflict than the other.
The final leader was one who was not at the top of her organization, nor her department. She had worked in the same position for nearly twenty years. I have many friends who have worked for her, but no one has had good things to say about her leadership. It was almost as if she was afraid to fall into the women's leadership "stereotype" (for lack of a better term) and it showed in the way she dealt with her employees. She had a complex as though she was in charge of the entire organization and portrayed herself as high and mighty to the point that affected employees outside of their jobs. Maybe she was trying to help, but it apparently did not show. I threatened to quit this job once and she suddenly became relationship oriented. I was apparently the only one in the organization that could do this job and if she lost me, I would be difficult to replace. Why couldn't she just exhibit this need in the first place? Many more people would respect her if she did.
In conclusion, do women need to be more adaptive to situational leadership than men do? Obviously the first two women, who were at the top of their organization, were quite comfortable exhibiting traits of the "stereotype" that chapter discusses. The third woman had been working in a "man's world" for many years and did not change once she hit the top, which she was fine with. The final woman would not let herself to adapt to situations which required her to and as a result, it is safe today, she was a terrible leader. I have not had the experience of having a lower-level manager leader (like the last example) who met the relationship-oriented stereotype of women. Have you had experience with this, or similar experiences to me?
Two of those women were entrepreneurs. The first one had just graduated from college, did not have a lot of experience and never really held a position of that caliber before. The second had worked for quite a long time in the industry, but again did not have a lot of experience at the level she was at. Both of these women were--according to the chapter--what most people stereotype women leaders to be like. They were both very relationship oriented, which sometimes led to a drop of task orientation. However, both of these leaders were extremely efficient motivators and became well known in their relative industries.
The third woman I have worked for had great experience in the industry and held similar positions in other businesses she had worked for. However, she was also an entrepreneur and the owner of a business. This leader had obviously worked for a long time in a "man's world" and it showed. Her leadership style was essentially the polar opposite of the first two leaders I described. She was extremely task oriented and did not care if she hurt other people's feelings. She was extremely good at what she did and had been well known in her industry for well over 20 years. This leader worked together with the second leader described above, which sometimes caused some conflict in the workplace. The two women had been friends for many years, but their colliding ideals sometimes caused problems in the workplace, especially when one's actions affected the other's job. The relationship-oriented leader was much more visible affected/shaken by conflict than the other.
The final leader was one who was not at the top of her organization, nor her department. She had worked in the same position for nearly twenty years. I have many friends who have worked for her, but no one has had good things to say about her leadership. It was almost as if she was afraid to fall into the women's leadership "stereotype" (for lack of a better term) and it showed in the way she dealt with her employees. She had a complex as though she was in charge of the entire organization and portrayed herself as high and mighty to the point that affected employees outside of their jobs. Maybe she was trying to help, but it apparently did not show. I threatened to quit this job once and she suddenly became relationship oriented. I was apparently the only one in the organization that could do this job and if she lost me, I would be difficult to replace. Why couldn't she just exhibit this need in the first place? Many more people would respect her if she did.
In conclusion, do women need to be more adaptive to situational leadership than men do? Obviously the first two women, who were at the top of their organization, were quite comfortable exhibiting traits of the "stereotype" that chapter discusses. The third woman had been working in a "man's world" for many years and did not change once she hit the top, which she was fine with. The final woman would not let herself to adapt to situations which required her to and as a result, it is safe today, she was a terrible leader. I have not had the experience of having a lower-level manager leader (like the last example) who met the relationship-oriented stereotype of women. Have you had experience with this, or similar experiences to me?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Chapter 11- Leadership and Culture
A person's culture is what helps to shape what a person does and believes. This chapter of the book talks about that GLOBE Project which is the largest cross-cultural study of leadership and culture to date. All people, even within the same country, have a different meaning of what a leader is. Just because the definitions may all be different, does not mean we have different characteristics to define a good or effective leader.
Some cultures look at someone as being a weak leader for certain attributes while another group of people from a different cultural background see a strong leader. The chapter looks from an Asian cultural perspective and says displaying emotion is a lack of self-control and a sign of weakness. Where the same qualities in Latin and Mediterranean cultures are used to be an effective commmunicator and leader.
From examples like this, we need to be open to people that have a different background. The United States is very culturally diverse today. This means that we will all encounter in our professional careers someone that has a different culture than us. Because of this, we need to be open to others feelings. What we see as effective leadership will not be the case for everyone. This chapter helps us see that whether we are a leader or follower, we need to be alert as to who we are in contact with. By being sensitive to others cultural background, we are being effective leaders from any position of an organization or group.
Some cultures look at someone as being a weak leader for certain attributes while another group of people from a different cultural background see a strong leader. The chapter looks from an Asian cultural perspective and says displaying emotion is a lack of self-control and a sign of weakness. Where the same qualities in Latin and Mediterranean cultures are used to be an effective commmunicator and leader.
From examples like this, we need to be open to people that have a different background. The United States is very culturally diverse today. This means that we will all encounter in our professional careers someone that has a different culture than us. Because of this, we need to be open to others feelings. What we see as effective leadership will not be the case for everyone. This chapter helps us see that whether we are a leader or follower, we need to be alert as to who we are in contact with. By being sensitive to others cultural background, we are being effective leaders from any position of an organization or group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)