The Final Chapter :) We Made It!

The Crucibles of Authentic Leadership

Interestingly relevant, the final chapter of The Nature of Leadership discusses leadership in the context of dramatic historical triumphs and tragedies. More specifically, the chapter discusses the emergence of leaders and their personal style application in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. In reflecting on the lessons we have learned about leadership, how do you believe the way American’s think about leadership has changed since that devastating day in history?

The chapter goes on to discuss four competencies identified as being essential to modern leadership—adaptive capacity, the ability to engage others through shared meaning, a distinctive voice, and integrity. Which of these would you argue is most important for leaders today?

Next, the chapter moves to debate the effects of globalization and how this phenomenon has affected leadership. The author is quoted saying, “The Lone Ranger has never been as dead as he is today. In all but the simplest undertaking, great things are done by alliances, not by larger-than-life individuals, however powerful they may seem.” Do you believe this statement to be true? Does modern technology play a role?

With great leadership has also come news of scandal and coercion among many of our both national and international leaders. Have we moved into a culture of economics where the right amount of money or power can persuade us to forget ethical values in our every day decision-making on leadership? Example, the problems with Enron; people within the company knew corrupt business practices were driving success but if they were to challenge upper level management, they risked being fired from the corporation and likely blacklisted from future employment assistance from the organization and those involved. Should these people have stepped forward and stopped the unethical practices happening within their corporation?

Chapter 13 - Ethics and Leadership Effectiveness

This chapter addresses how we view ethics and in turn learn more about leadership. The reading states that ethics from a social sciences standpoint is very different from a philosophical perspective. Ethics is seen as a part of the social scientist's description of types or qualities of leaders and/or leader behaviors. On the other hand, the philosopher sees that ethical studies offer empirical (gained through research instead of using theory) descriptions, but do not offer a detailed critical analysis on the ethics of leadership. Which do you feel has a more practical application to the field you are going in to? Would a critical thinking (social science) approach be more beneficial, or more of a theoretical, research based (philosophy) method be more appropriate? Why?

Almost all definitions of leadership retain similar features, however, slight variations in the definition also reflect values, practices, and paradigms of leadership in a certain place and at a certain time. Take these two definitions for example:

[1940s] Leadership is the result of an ability to persuade or direct men, apart from the prestige or power that comes from office or external circumstance.

[1990s] Leadership is an influence relationship between leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.

In the 40s, this would be considered a time where leaders "persuaded" followers, especially as World War II hit its peak. In the 90s, this shows a shift to how leaders and followers directly influenced others with their beliefs and values.

Drawing from your definition of leadership, and without reiterating it, how would you classify leadership today? Do leaders and followers continue to directly influence each other, or has a shift in another direction begun?

An interesting issue that is outlined in the chapter is that we do not always find ethicality and effectiveness both present in a leader. Some leaders are very ethical, but not effective, and vice versa. Sometimes being ethical is effective, and sometimes begin effective is ethical. An example in the book is the secretary-general of the United Nations, who needs to be ethical in order to be effective. Also, sometimes leaders may seem to be ethical on their end, while the rest of the world thinks they are unethical, incompetent, or just stupid. Sometimes leaders act with ethical intentions, but the end results end up being unethical. The example given here is the Swiss charity Christian Solidarity International, who inadvertently created a market for child slavery when they payed money to free 200,000 child slaves. In your work or group experience, have you encountered one of these leaders?

One of the final, interesting points that the book raises is that being a leader is not in a just person's self-interest. Plato argues that a just person takes on a leadership role out of fear of punishment. Today, as in the past, we worry that people who are too eager to lead want the power and position for themselves or that they do not fully understand the enormous responsibilities of leadership. The book also points out that, while we do admire self-sacrifice, morality sometimes calls upon leaders to do things that are against their self interest. The practice of leadership is known for guiding and looking after the goals, missions, and aspirations of groups, countries, or causes alike. When they pay attention to the needs of others, they are doing their job. When they don't, they are not doing their job. Self-interested people who simply want the title, the prestige, or even the description on their resume, and who are self-interested, are not successful as leaders. How have you dealt with a self-interested leader in the past? What made them an unsuccessful leader? Were they able to turn things around and focus on the needs of the organization?

Chapter 12- Women and Men as Leaders

Chapter 12- Women and Men as Leaders

This chapter discusses the underrepresentation of women in leadership roles compared to men. There are four explanations the book explores for why this occurs- sex differences in human capital investments, the leadership styles of women and men, men are naturally dominant, and the discrimination against female leaders.

The first explanation, sex differences in human capital investments, explains that it is possible that women are underrepresented in leadership roles because women’s human capital investments in education, training, and work experiences are lower than men’s. However, the section goes on to explain that in most cases this might not be true. For example, women now are attending college more than men and women possess 51% of bachelor’s degrees. When women change jobs, they often do so for family obligations so they are willing to take a less prestigious position or a pay cut, while men often change jobs for a promotion or increase in pay. Another argument for this explanation is the “female choice” proposition that employed women do not seek leadership positions because they worry that the demands of such a job would take them away from their family. What is your opinion on this explanation? Are there other differences in responsibilities or interests of men and women that could explain this gender gap? Where have you seen any of these differences in human capital investments in either your own experiences or observations of others?

The next explanation looks at differences in leadership styles of men and women, and suggests that it is possible that a man’s leadership style is more effective than a woman’s. Leadership style is defined as stable patterns of behavior of leaders. Women are more interpersonally oriented than task oriented, which men are more likely to focus on. Women use more of a transformational leadership style, while men are more transactional or laissez-faire. According to the text, a women’s style, in theory, should be more effective than a typical man’s leadership style. What do you believe is more effective in a leader- focus on interpersonal relationships or tasks? Transformational or transactional leadership?

To review, the chapter covers the four major reasons explored for the inequality of leadership positions among men and women- sex differences in human capital investments, differences in leadership styles, men are naturally dominant, and discrimination against female leaders. Can you think of any other possible reasons for this underrepresentation of women in leadership positions? What is your opinion on the issue? Do you believe this issue will change at all in the future, or do you believe women will always be underrepresented in leadership roles because of these four reasons?

Ch. 11 Leadership and Culture

This chapter discusses how different cultures impact the workplace. It is no longer a question of whether or not they are present but how to deal with the many variations of norms and traditions. Such concepts as participation, control, and coordination do not necessarily mean the same thing in every cultural context.  These differences are important to recognize in order to have effective communication between different regions. What is seen as an effective leader may vary in different societies.  How have cultural differences impacted your leadership experience or workplace culture? What are some things that can be done in order to deal with cultural differences?

Studies throughout different countries show what the generalized leadership practices are and how they compared to those in other countries.  Several of the same qualities were identified as important cross culturally. For example, a study about leadership characteristics and behaviors in Dutch and Polish managers revealed that both held visionary qualities as one of the most important attributes of a leader.  Many leadership studies are conducted in North America and as a result are not as reliably applicable to areas outside. This “North American bias” affected how these studies were enacted by various cultures.  As we are coming upon the age of entering the workforce it is important to take these variables into consideration since many companies have expanded internationally.

The chapter outlines how different researchers conceptualize culture. There have been many attempts to be able to define the components of it. One of the most common is Hofstede’s framework. The study started looking at IBM managers in 40 different countries. From that he identified four dimensions of culture: individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, uncertainty avoidance and power distance. Future orientation was added later. Explain a situation where you have experienced or witnessed one of these dimensions and how it affected or contributed to the culture of the group. (i.e. women in management roles, group norms, career stability)

The GLOBE study is a report that is trying to cross culturally address leadership attributes that are universally recognized.  Because countries have such different views it is difficult to identify characteristics that are work in so many different contexts.  Are you surprised to find that leadership traits are not universal? Which of the 6 dimensions on pg 272 do you view as the most universal concept?

All of these factors taken into consideration help us to better realize what are appropriate methods of effective organizational leadership around the world. It is hard to get completely representative samples. But each study helps to achieve a better understanding of the world around us. What effect will cultural differences have on your leadership experience looking into the future?

Chapter 10

In this chapter, we are presented with a “Dynamic, Diagnostic Leadership Development Model Integrating Individual and Organization Perspectives” (which I’ve shortened to the Dynamic Model). This continuous model provides a framework for how an organization’s learning and development culture and a leader’s continuous learning and development tendencies, combined, influences development goals, methods, and learning processes, and vice versa. The Dynamic Model can be used for understanding and directing leadership development programs at the organizational level and planning and development activities at the individual level. Throughout the chapter, we are given different aspects of each element of the model, regarding individual's characteristics and organization's characteristics, and how they influence each other.

As we saw in class on Friday, there are different learning styles, introduced by Kolb, of which different people prefer. The Dynamic Model addresses the importance of implementing development programs that incorporate different modes of learning, so to be most effective for all individuals. What type of learning style did you find you possess? Were you surprised/was it accurate? Have you ever attended a development program (e.g., LSE workshops, career service’s workshops, etc.) which was ineffective because of your learning style? If yes, how? If no, how was it effective for your style? By being aware of your most preferred learning style enables you to further develop your less preferred styles, which will enhance your learning experiences.

Also, widely integrated in this model is a network of 360-degree feedback. At each point along the continuum, feedback is flowing to or from the organization or individual, regarding reactions, learning, behaviors, and results. Carver and Scheier’s control theory argues that motivation stems from perceiving a gap between current and desired performance. Feedback is essential to this theory, as it evaluates learning gaps and provides the motivation necessary for improvement. What feedback has you and your leadership group received, that provided motivation to address the specific “gap” for your leadership project? What type(s) of feedback, explained on page 241-242, do you think will be most appropriate for determining if your project has made an impact? By identifying the type(s) of feedback you wish to receive, you can more accurately plan how to make your desired impact.

CH 9

Chapter 9

This chapter discusses successful and unsuccessful leadership. The way organizations and groups evaluate the success of their leadership varies on different levels. Also there are many settings in which leadership can be examined. In the book it says that a successful leader is one who is assessed as effective in his or her role by subordinates. In addition, focusing on leadership roles played by managers equate successful leadership more so by high performance rating from subordinates. When thinking about management in an organization, a successful leader would be one that is willing to give increasingly broader leadership responsibility. What would be your definition of a successful leader? Describe a time when you have been a successful leader and what you based your success off of. Another approach that successful leadership is talked about refers to the leader’s ability to bring about change. When have you seen yourself as a leader who has brought about change? What was that change?
This chapter describes predictors of success that include: competencies, deficiencies, behaviors, styles, expertise, experiences, and maturity level. What predictor can you as a leader relate the most to and why? Another way to predict leadership success, includes contextual variables, which influence the degree to which particular individual difference variables are related to leadership success. Contextual variables include; the type of work engaged in, characteristics of followers, and resources available to the leader. The Path Goal Theory, which I’m sure you have all learned about shows the most common way contextual variables are used to predict leadership success. Do you agree with the Path Goal Theory? What type of leader behavior do you see yourself as having?
Another factor that contributes to leadership success is the setting. Successful leadership has been studied in many different settings. So leadership success has to be understood differently based on the settings. On page 209 the table illustrates examples of what each theme suggests one would see in a leader who was seen as successful or unsuccessful. Under the successful themes outline, what theme do you see at most important? Under the unsuccessful column, what theme do you see at the one that hurts the leader’s successfulness the most?

Transformational Leadership

This chapter begins by explaining that transformational leadership approaches also known as the “new paradigm” combine two or more of the leadership theories presented in the last chapter. We learn that the difference between the previous transactional theories and the transformational theories is the source of authority, be it economic or non-economic. Managers partake in transactional approaches- supervision, not leadership and they are based on a contractual relationship between employee and boss. Transformational leadership includes finding followers with potential, satisfying higher needs, and engaging the “full person” of the follower. Transformational is also characterized by the relationship of mutual stimulation and converts followers into leaders and possibly leaders into moral agents.

Do you think that there is a way to connect transformational and transactional leadership? How? Do you believe a “manager” could also use transformational leadership styles?

We were then introduced to James McGregor Burns and Bernard Bass’ beginning research. Bass says that transactional and transformational are not opposite ends, but independent aspects. Bass introduced the MLQ which measures transformational and transactional leaders. He also said that Leaders transform followers from being self-centered to being committed members of the group, and the four dimensions of that process.
Have you been “transformed” or have you helped transform another person? How did the four dimensions come into play in that situation?

We are then walked through seven other approaches. Which one did you find the most interesting or had the best connection with and why? Is there one that you didn’t agree with? Why or why not?

The seventh approach by Marshall and Molly Sashkin called The Visionary Leader-Leadership that Matters is the authors own approach which he sais integrates the various approaches. How do you think the four behavioral dimensions and the three personal characteristic connect to your own leadership or leadership you have witnessed?

Despite the many definitions of leadership, our author states that there are three basic aspects that all transformational approaches have at least one or two of and they are

1. Leader’s personal characteristics (traits)

2. Leader Behavior

3. Situational context of leadership

Our author talks about competencies and lists

1. Communicating a vision

2. Creating empowering opportunities

3. Showing caring and respect for followers

4. Vision

5. Power need

6. Self confidence

7. Context of leadership

He says that they are central to an understanding of transformational leadership. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Chapter 7

This chapter focuses on Situational and Contingency Approaches to Leadership. A lot of this chapter is a review, as I'm assuming we have learned many of these theories in LEAD 200 or another course. The section on Situational Focus describes the impact of the social context of leadership, in contrast to the trait or behavior approaches that focus primarily on the leader as a key factor. One aspect of the situation that seems to affect leadership is space and seating arrangements. Usually, the people who sat at the head of the table were leaders of a team. This section goes on to say that this is because there is more eye contact with the other members and therefore the leader has more control of the situation. Moreover, the head of the table offers better access to all team members. When your team/organization meets, where do the leaders sit? And how do the other members arrange themselves? Do you find this seating arrangement to work well for your group? Or do you think another set up would be more beneficial? Explain your reasoning.

Trait Contingency Models are described in this chapter. First, Contingency Model of Leadership effectiveness, as studied by Fielder, is explored. This theory "predicts that leaders who are more relationship oriented will be more effective than task-focus leaders in moderate situational control, whereas leaders who are more focused on task than on interpersonal relationships will be more effective in both high- and low-control situations" (Antonakis 155). Cognitive Resource Theory (CRT) by Fielder and Garcia argues that leaders effectiveness can be predicted on 2 characteristics- intelligence and experience- and the situation. Which of these 2 theories do you find to be more accurate? Why do you think so? Can you think of any examples in your life that points to a leader being more oriented to one or the other?

The second type of theories in this chapter are those that related the leader's behavior to the outcome. The Normative Model of Leadership Decision Making focuses on the interaction between a leader's choice of decision-making strategies and the decision situation. This interaction predicts the quality of the decision and subordinate commitment to the decision. Path Goal Theory involves 4 leadership behaviors: directive, achievement oriented, supportive and participative. Situational Leadership Theory has 4 leadership behaviors- telling, selling, participating, and delegating- depends on whether they complement the subordinates' task maturity (e.g. ability, education, and experience) and psychological maturity (e.g. willingness, self-esteem, and motivation). Which of these theories do you think is the most legitimate? Why? Do you feel that these theories can relate to your leadership experiences?

Have a great Spring Break everyone!!

Chapter 6

Throughout the coursework we have done in leadership, I have always found the relationship of a leader to their subordinates to be one of the essential aspects that determined effective leadership. Throughout this chapter, it discusses aspects of the leader-subordinate relationship that offers insight into what leaders can expect from a subordinate's performance. Their theory is that you can easily manipulate your subordinates by altering their perception of what you think of them. in their experiment, they altered 105 Israeli Soldiers' perception of what their commanding officer thought of them. Their conclusion was that a leader's perception of his or her subordinates activates different behavioral traits in the subordinates. What do you feel is the role of a leader to their subordinates? What do you think would work more effectively positive or negative perceived perceptions?Do you feel that a little displaced input could be an effective way to increase subordinate performance? If not, what do you feel is a more effective tool to further develop and increase subordinate outcomes?

Potentially more important than the perception of a leader of his or her

subordinates is the reverse; the perception of the leader as a leader by the

subordinates. viewing leadership from this perspective has always allowed

leaders to view leadership not as a flow of traits from the leader to the

subordinate, but as a social process. One key aspect of this process is the

recognition by subordinates of a "leader", and by this recognition, allowing

the leader to participate in leadership behaviors. What do you think is

the most important aspect that a subordinate has in relation to a leader?

Do you think that the "recognition" phase of leadership process is necessary

before a leader becomes active in leadership behaviors, or are those traits able

to be displayed by a persone before or without the "leader" tag?

Kellerman pgs 74-116

Max Weber's work on the role of the individual in increasingly structured societies led him to distinguish among three different types of leaders, who right to lead was derived from one of "three pure types of legitimate authority." First is rational: lead because they are seen by their followers as having the legal right to do so. Second is traditional: leaders lead because they are seen by their followers are being the legitimate heir to a legitimate tradition. Third is charismatic: leaders lead because they are seen by their followers as being so exceptional as to merit their extreme dedication and devotion. Do you agree with Weber? Do you think these three types of leaders are the most well-known or are there other types that should be more emphasized than the three mentioned above?

Weber goes on to state that the term "charisma" will be applied to a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exception powers or qualities. What is alone important is how the individual is actually regarded by those subject to charismatic authority, by his "followers" or "disciples." Do you agree with this statement? Explain.

Sigmund Freud is the creator of psychoanalytic theory and one of the most influential men in the study of Psychology's history. Of his first writing, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, Freud focused on groups, or more precisely, on what happens to individuals when they become members of groups. First, we change from how we act when alone. Second, leaders of groups are of great importance and are shown it by the followers. Third, Freud discovered that follows desire a leader more than a leader desires followers. Based on what Freud had discovered, what do you have to say about this? Do you agree with his findings? Explain.

Mary Parker Follet was the first in a series of pioneers in the study of leadership and management in large organizations, especially in American business. Peter Drucker, who is widely considered the father of "modern management" referred to Follet as "the prophet of management." James MacGregor Burns has been widely published and highly esteemed both in the academy and outside it. Burns is well known for his two well-known leadership types, transaction and transforming. Transforming leadership came of itself to be considered the ideal, and paragon of leadership types. Which of the two leadership types (transaction & transforming) do you prefer and why?

Stanley Milgram conducted the most famous social science experiment of all time. The experiment was about followers-about obedience to authority. It was intended to shed light on why followers obeyed leaders who ordered the m to do something they would almost certainly not have done otherwise-inflict pain, obvious physical pain, on another human being. Being a psychology major, I have actually seen the video tape of Milgram's true experiment. It is astonishing to see how different people react to the request to inflict pain on another human being. Some people would close their eyes and others would flinch as they flipped the switch. Milgram was trying to understand the relationship between superiors and subordinates. We always were, and we still are, more attracted to and engaged by those who do have power, authority and influence than by those who do not. What do you think the circumstances are under which crimes of obedience are likely to be committed?

There are a variety of authors mentioned in this first section of the book and their views on leadership vary greatly. Tao Te Ching is the first author mentioned and the following passage really struck a chord with me:
In dwelling, be close to the land.
In medication, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In business, be competent.
In action, watch the timing.
Kellerman goes on to discuss the value of inaction when serving as a leader. Sometimes doing nothing can be more powerful and meaningful then taking action. When is it appropriate to consider not taking action when you are a leader? Do you leave too much up to chance?

The next great author is Confucius. His work is based on leadership through education and the possibility of learning to be a good leader while leading a life of virtue. Do you think good leaders or born or made? Does a good leader require a genetic "x factor" or can they develop into a charismatic transformational leader through hard work? Do you think being an ethical person is a prerequisite to being a good leader or is breaking the rules a necessary evil to successful leadership?

Plato is a well known philosopher and has numerous writings about leadership. In the excerpt included by Kellerman, he discusses the importance of leadership education: literature, music, physical exercise, elementary and advanced mathematics, philosophy and metaphysics, and real-world experience in civil service and the military. Do you think leadership education is this formulaic or is the St. Norbert approach to the leadership minor more practical? Some of these courses sound like a college education, but will they really prepare someone of a life of leadership? What courses would you add to Plato's school schedule?

The Nature of Mankind

Machiavelli’s prince is inevitably going to do things that his people do not like if the prince wants to protect his land. The prince cares more about the end result than how to get there. Do you believe that the end justifies the means in your leadership? Explain your reasoning.

Machiavelli talks of those who would oppose the prince, and says that the prince should take the actions that he finds most appropriate for the desired outcome. Have you ever led in a situation where people disapproved of your vision?

Do you find more security in being feared or in being loved as a leader?

In Chapter XXI, Machiavelli discusses the importance of being honorable and wise. Appearing virtuous is not necessary but appearing honorable is. Machiavelli describes qualities that trump other qualities, such as courage over generosity. What other qualities do you find as bullet points of leadership?

The next piece of work is a discussion Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes is pessimistic toward mankind and says that everyone is against each other. Hobbes says that governments are a necessary component of society to keep men from always being at war with each other. Locke is optimistic because he feels that men want to live in a society of peace. If people think that they are free, then they will be happy. In the context of Locke and Hobbes, leadership is seen as those who have power. Who do you think you would rather have as the leader of your organization, Hobbes or Locke? Explain why.

John Stuart Mill discusses the impact of coercion on society, and says that the only time that coercion is acceptable is if the person’s behavior would have otherwise harmed someone. Mill is a proponent of individualism and fears that social pressures will lead to conformity. Discuss how Mill’s assertions draw a parallel to leadership in groups. It’d be good to discuss the circumstances of coercion, the importance of individuality, and the prevention of “group think.”

Zach Parmeter

Leadership Identity Development Model

After studying numerous leadership theories I have come to think that the LID Model is easy to use and a great tool to help people access where they are in their leadership development. This model helps us recognize how and when our leadership skills are strengthening. After the official LID grounded theory study was conducted it was apparent that there were six stages that a person went through in their leadership growth. Taking a closer look into the model one realizes that a person does not just simply keep moving from one stage through another; one might take their time and go back and repeat a stage in the model. By repeating a stage in the theory this allows a person to get an in depth perspective of the stage. Do you think this model is valid? Do you feel that a person can not only move forward in their leadership but also take steps back and repeat stages of the LID Model? If so has this ever happened to you before?

Throughout the six stages a person morphs from being a dependent being to a strong interdependent individual. Throughout the first few stages a person starts becoming “aware” of the leadership around them and begins to “explore/engage” in activities where leadership is taking place. After spending time in a group a person is able to “identify” the one leader of the pack, it might even be themselves. After taking some time and realizing that there can be more than one person acting as a leader in a group a person learns to “differentiate different leadership roles,” and learns how to interact with all the leaders. After actively participating in their group a person might come to think about the group after they leave. This is where “generatively” steps in. An individual might start to get concerned for the sustainability of the group, who is going to come after them? They start looking for new people to step up to become strong leaders. In the final stage a person takes place in “integration/synthesis.” This is where a person comes full circle and truly understands what it takes to be an effective leader and sees the complexities that go along with it. In this stage an individual might not still be the head leader of the group but is willing to support and help move the group along with their guidance. At this time in your life what stage would you place yourself in? Do you think you have been in this stage for a while, or do you think that you just arrived and have a lot to learn?

Personally I think that this model is great to help me find where I am in my leadership development. Do you find this model is helpful while trying to access your own leadership development or is there too many parts to it? In class we were able to make our own models of the LID theory; do you find your own model to be more useful then the LID Model, why or why not?

Strengths-based Leadership

There has been numerous different theories on people's strengths and how it relates to leadership. We looked at the StrengthsFinder that asked us a large amount of questions to fit us in 5 of 34 themes to find our strengths. This was the first "strengths" test I have every taken so it was a very new experience where I was able to learn about myself. Have you ever taken a "strengths" test before? I think it is very interesting to see how the results differ from what we actually perceive of strengths to be. Did your themes differ from what you believed your own strengths to be?

After reflecting in class about our results and learning from each other I found it very beneficial on how we can learn from each others' strengths and how when forming our groups, we need to pick a diverse group so that we can work the most efficiently. Do you think that employers should be allowed to run these types of tests when looking for potential employees for a job? Do you think that this would give the company a better chance to see if this employee would "fit in". I think that with greater research these tests can be very beneficial to form and to maximize your work force.

A final topic that I would bring up with these strength finder tests would be to potential show our last 5 themes. Obviously these would not be our "strengths" but I think it could show what we tested low in and could also show us ways to improve in these areas. I am not sure if this would be a good idea because we should be proud of our strengths and not focus on our weakness. We should be able to adapt and lean on others to counter act our weaknesses. Do you agree? Do you think that just focusing on our strengths would be effective? Or do you think working at our weaknesses to improve them would be a route to take?

Go Pack Go! See ya Wednesday!

Ethical Leadership

I was at transfer student orientation on Friday morning and I watched the introductory video that Jim from Admissions played for the students and parents that are here this morning. A number of descriptors flashed across the screen while music played and photos changed. So, things like "liberal arts," "Catholic," and "Norbertine" were shown. And, one of the descriptors that came up was "ethical leadership." I think it's very telling that we made a conscious choice to include "ethical" in the video. St. Norbert College's values make it impossible for us to consider leadership without values...without ethics...at least that's what I think. What do you think?