Reading Michael Harvey’s book chapter, “Questioning leadership: an integrative model,” brought back what I learned in Leadership and the Humanities and tied together with the ethical issues we’ve considered in this course. I have to agree with scholar Ron Riggio that, although the field of leadership studies is an emerging discipline, the importance of it lies in the “underlying unity of focus” (Harvey, 200). One of the most interesting aspects of the Jepson School and why it appealed to me so much as a student was its unity– despite the different specialties of each professor. I have had professors in Jepson with PhD’s in Philosophy, Psychology, English (Dr. Bezio!), Economics, and History, yet they all teach under one roof and collaborate with each other on research and other projects. As Harvey discusses, it is imperative “we can get the different disciplines within leadership studies to talk with each other,” in order to fully understand leadership (201). And, with these different interests and disciplines, we can define leadership from many different angles. I also liked that Harvey addressed that, although times have changed– where people are members of more social groups– the “basic equation of what groups need” still applies. This made me think of our class discussion today in rewriting narratives and telling stories– although leaders look different than they did centuries ago, the basic premises still apply.
I really enjoyed how the author included cultural and historical examples with each leadership question he posed. This helped me to better conceptualize the implications each question has within leadership. These anecdotal examples are exactly what we need to fully understand leadership, as it “must learn about the group’s history and culture, the environment it operates in, and its condition and effectiveness” (213). We can apply this knowledge while understanding business hierarchies such as Toyota or even the hierarchy of a public education committee. I really enjoyed reading each rhetorical question within these broader examples.
Anna Marston
I completely agree, after reading in Harvey how there are so many disciplines within the emerging discipline, I thought to the reason why I wanted to be in Jepson. I think the fact that Jepson has professors with so many backgrounds makes it the best because you can be taught about leadership in so many different perspectives that will come together to allow you to have such a broad, yet at the same time narrow, understanding of leadership.
This reading was impactful because it made me realize why I chose to minor in leadership. People who have never heard of Jepson may scoff at a leadership school, but the information we are learning is integral to so many fields of study. Understanding group dynamics and goals is key to achieving success in many areas of one’s life. The study of leadership is important because it can never be perfected. We will always have unethical and inefficient leaders, but more knowledge can help us to limit this style of leadership in the world.