I found Harvey’s chapter intriguing as he elaborated on the discussion of group ideologies. We are often taught in our leadership classes that leadership is possible because of a similar ideology or set of morals shared amongst a group. Harvey defined this as asking and answering the “who are we?” question. Identity and a sense of self are found in asking this question, but there is an implied question of “who are we not?” Addressing this allowed me to make the connection that this is the root of establishing an in-group and out-group mentality. This plays into the next questions he brings up around the drive, alignment, envision, and learning – each that are an on going discussion for leadership. I found this to be interesting, as I thought of the model being used in different regime or government structures. I’d think that it would be applicable, yet it can be manipulated to adjust its audience based on the structure.
I thought Bezio’s article introduced an interesting connection between literary works and modern politics, through the lens of leadership. Specifically in the discussion of the Union, it would be conditionally upon the successfulness of leadership to unite people and crowns. This directly reminded me of Harvey’s definition of leadership – the relationship between leaders and followers – as Bezio implies successful leadership embraces that relationship, as well. I found the discussion on Brexit intriguing, as Bezio discussed the differences in older and younger peoples’ sense of ideology and each’s “who we are” question. It created a division within the nation – whether to embrace English nationalism or not – ultimately defining the successes – or failures – of Brexit, and it questions the balance of nationalism and unity, within the nation and beyond.
I was also drawn to the question of “Who are we?”, but for a different reason than you. I do like how you bring attention to the creation of in-groups and out-groups. I think humans subconsciously draw these boundaries once they are in a large enough group setting, but it was interesting to read how this is a “required” part of the LDST process.
I did not think about this as much we i was reading this article. It is a really interesting point. Asking people “who are we” is important because if people identify as something they are more likely to follow the leader of that identity. People who identify as Catholic follow the priest and they listen to his authority.
Trying to expand the definition of “who we are” is key to inclusiveness and leadership. Forcing people to really consider what they have, had, or will have in common with others helps leaders build groups that transcend traditional identity lines. “Who we are” goes hand in hand with “what do we stand for” or “what are our values,” and building a group along those questions will be broader than just “who we are.”
I think when Harvey brings up the ideas of “drive, alignment, envision, and learning,” people should also relate this back to the idea of “in-groups” and “out-groups.” People who belong to the “in-group,” I believe, would have more motivation for these things because they have a sense of importance and belonging, while people who are a part of an “out-group” may ask your question of “who am I” and “what do I contribute.”
I also liked how Bezio’s piece drew near direct parallels between historical literary masterpieces and modern politics. The points emphasized in the Brexit example when explaining the cultural lag among citizens in different age groups definitely clarified the conflicting nationalist beliefs that lead to a cultural divide.