I had never considered potential similarities of differences between LSSs and SSSs, but as I read the article, it was easy to connect the information to other leadership course and the real-world. Almost immediately, the reference to the “dark side of leadership – dominance”, allowed me to affirm what leadership is and is not. My LDST 101 course taught me to always view leadership through the lens of consent versus coercion. If an individual attains power through fear and threats, they are coercive and are not considered a leader. I appreciate that the article highlights this distinction before continuing their argument.
There were a couple aspects of SSSs that made me laugh at how they are so apparent in
“life lessons” I have learned growing up. For example, it is stated that “individuals with the most kinship ties to other group members tend to hold positions of influence”. This made me think of the importance of networking. Of course, this can also be implemented on a larger scale, but even within small companies, a person who has made the effort to create new connections with people will have a greater chance of professionally advancing. One of my grandma’s favorite sayings is, “The more people you know, the father you’ll go”. Another lesson that I could connect the reading to was the description of prosociality. Children are often taught to share their toys (fairness) and take turns (generosity), but the next step is to do these things when nobody is watching (integrity). These are heavily simplified definitions, but are integral parts of leadership. Before reading this, I didn’t realize the implications of this aspect and put into perspective how important every single choice affects long-term status as a leader. Status is ultimately controlled by the followers and I’d like that this observation can help highlight the role of accountability.
One question I had about SSSs is if it strictly applies to these remote communities (i.e., Amazonian villages) or if some form of the model can be applied to close-knit suburbs or family-owned businesses? I don’t recall the reading mentioning it, but I am curious to see the extent of which it applies.
I was also curious what subunits in our LSS could be qualified as SSSs. While a remote village is a clear example, I agree that it would be helpful to have a clearer definition of what makes a SSS.
There does seem to be a connection between SSSs and the ways that we might have been raised. Having a more prosocial, egalitarian view helps within an SSS, and it’s interesting to think about how that translates to an LSS as we grow up.
Reading about the SSSs and their remote villages around the world also made me think where else they could be applied. It reminded me a lot of how our university is similar to small scale societies because we have our own leader (President Crutcher) and how we work together to make the university functional for students, employees, and staff.
The idea of coercion from fear makes a person not actually a leader relates a lot to my semester long research paper in this class. I am looking at how politicians appeal to fear on both sides of the ideological spectrum. I think that it is important to note that the politics of fear is a pretty widely accepted concept in American politics which makes it so fear is often used as a motivating factor within American politics. With that, and the concept of coercion, the argument seems to exist that there are no true leaders within the United States.
In my previous comment, when saying no true leaders, I mean specifically within federal politics, not in other sectors.