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?
I think there has been a shift to where, now, followers have a larger influence on the leader. I feel as leadership is research deeper and deeper, an advance being more widely recognized is that leaders need the approval or acceptance of their followers in order to be successful. In other words, I feel that leaders are focusing more on how to satisfy their followers, which implies a larger influence from the followers onto the leader.
ReplyDeleteI can’t currently think of a leader in my work or group experience that fits those descriptions; however, I am currently dealing with a self-interested leader. What makes this leader unsuccessful is that he does not do what is in the best interest of the group, but what is his own best interest. By doing so, he shows his followers that he is pretty much using them, and in return, some of his followers have lost respect for him as a leader. He tries to focus on the needs of the organization, but what he doesn’t realize is that those needs are not ours, but are his own. It is because of this that he is losing support and participation from some of his followers. I have not dealt with this leader in much way besides the bare minimum. Given the circumstances of the group, I feel I’m in no position to do anything contrary to what he says. It’s a very difficult situation, and it will be over in time.
The social science approach to ethics has a more practical application to the field I’m going into. I will be working as a Human Resources representative – and social ethics is very important for this position. Having critical thinking for this position is going to be more beneficial for all the factors. I will need to know how to read co-workers and understand how to communicate with them in a professional manner.
ReplyDeleteLeadership is the ability to have people respect and follow you without compromising your values and beliefs. I believe both leaders and followers have continued to directly influence each other. There is always something someone can learn from another person.
I’m cannot think of a boss that I have had that has been ethical but ineffective (or vice versa). From all of my work experience – being ethical has always been of top importance with my job. Taking my Cub Scout job for example – one must be ethical for this job. It is much more important to treat the boys with kindness and compassion than to strive to push them through the program. A leader must understand his/her followers’ limits and abide by them. I think it’s upsetting to find out that a boss (leader) will forgo ethics to make sure he/she is effective in his/her job.
I have dealt with a self-interested leader in the past by biting my tongue, for the most part. It’s very difficult to have someone lead a group that is just interested in self-promotion or having the ability to say that he/she was “in charge”. This person was unsuccessful because he didn’t gain the trust in the group members. He told the group what he wanted done and wasn’t pleased if it took the members a bit longer than he wanted. He, unfortunately, was not able to turn things around and ended the year with very displeased members. I’m pretty sure he got replaced the following year and the momentum picked up greatly.
The social science/critical thinking probably has more to do with the field I am going into. I hope to go into some type of teaching, and a prescriptive, real-life social sciences aspect of ethics would probably do more good than a theoretical approach to ethics. I am currently taking an ethics class in the philosophy department, and have a difficult time relating it to real world events.
ReplyDeleteI believe leaders and followers always have and always will influence each other. A leader cannot be successful without ideas and opinions from other people (his or her subordinates) and a group cannot be successful without some influence of a leader-figure to move things along.
I am doing a service learning project for my ethics class and my supervisor may fit into this category, but not in a bad way. In her situation, being effective is ethical. The more efficiently she runs the animal shelter, the better living situation the animals in, and the better likelihood that they will be adopted. For her, it is ethical to work on effectiveness.
I would have to say that social science approach is more practical for the field that I am going into. I am going into Human Resources and will need to be able to effectively communicate with others. I think that a critical real life approach will be me beneficial.
ReplyDeleteI think that in leadership both the leaders and followers are influencing each other. I think this has shifted over time and that they are dependent upon one another, and need to work together to be successful.
I think right now my boss tries to make ethical decisions but sometimes that it difficult. Deciding if certain decisions are ethical or not are different for each person.
I cannot think of a specific self interested leader that I have dealt with off the top of my head. If I have worked with someone like this I think I try to keep to myself for the most part so I do not overstep. Also, if this has been present in a job, I wouldnt want to say anything that would get me fired or in trouble.
I think that the social science/critical thinking is important in the field that I am going into. I am looking to go into marketing which involves studying the behaviors and relationships that consumers and products have. I will have to be able to effectively analyze and interpret these interactions. Currently I am looking into doing some market research for a company, so the communication skills between myself and there customers in order to be able to effectively capture the information they are hoping to learn about is crucial. I need to be able to draw conclusions between the two.
ReplyDeleteI think that leaders and followers work together. I personally view leadership as more of a process than an influence. I think it is the group working together exchanging skills to make a change for a common purpose.
I would agree with Zach in saying that Hitler was an effective leader that lacked ethics. He was able to persuade an entire nation to go along with his plans while unethically causing harm to an entire religious group. His lack of ethics caught up with him in the form of an fatal retaliation. While he had the skills he did not use them for the best purpose.
Working in retail I have come across managers who have only been concerned with keeping their job. In which case they blame problems on associates that have not been adequately trained to do their job to the standard on which they want. Instead of personally addressing each individual and working with them to better their skills they create a hostile environment. In this case I think that they were so focused on the goals of the organization and keeping their job that they left out the integral part of their associates. In which case adequately training their staff would allow their goals to be made, and their job to be kept without hostility. This ends up improving the morale of the group.